Free Consultation
Patient Portal
injectable peptide therapy

Peptide Therapy Exposed: What the Science Actually Says

Peptides are everywhere right now.

Influencers are promoting them. Wellness clinics are selling them. Physicians are recording videos about them. My own office phone receives multiple calls each week from sales reps trying to convince me to purchase peptide for my patients.

One call in particular made my blood boil. The rep insisted that peptides are “safe” and that they are “about to be FDA approved.” Those are powerful claims. They are also extremely misleading.

Either the person making that claim was knowingly spreading misinformation to make a sale, or he did not actually understand the science or regulatory landscape behind the products he was promoting. I am going to give him the benefit of doubt and go with the latter. And if a sales representative does not understand, I am confident many patients do not either.

So this week, we are discussing peptides. What they are, which ones are currently popular, what the scientific evidence actually shows, and what people really mean when they say these compounds are “FDA approved.”

What Are Peptides?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids, the same building blocks that form proteins in the body. Many naturally occurring peptides act as signaling molecules. They can influence hormone release, immune signaling, tissue repair, metabolism, and other biological processes.

Peptides are not inherently controversial. In fact, peptide drugs have been used in medicine for decades. Insulin, first introduced in 1921, is a peptide. Today there are more than one hundred peptide drugs approved worldwide, including medications used to treat diabetes, cancer, acromegaly, HIV-related complications, and rare neurological diseases.1-4 These drugs underwent rigorous clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy before being approved for specific medical indications.5

The peptides being promoted today in wellness clinics and on social media are different. Most of them were never developed as pharmaceutical drugs. Many exist only in laboratory research settings. And for several of the compounds currently marketed to patients, high quality human clinical evidence simply does not exist.

Yet the marketing often makes them sound like the next miracle therapy.

The Peptides Currently Dominating the Wellness Market

Several peptides appear repeatedly in wellness clinic marketing and peptide sales calls:

BPC-157
TB-4 / TB-500
CJC-1295
Ipamorelin
GHK-Cu
Thymosin Alpha-1
MOTS-c

Each of these compounds is promoted with a different marketing narrative. Some are marketed as regenerative treatments for tendons and joints, others for anti-aging, metabolism, or immune support. Some even claim to enhance performance.

But marketing claims are not evidence.

Biological Plausibility vs. Clinical Reality

A common pattern appears repeatedly in the peptide industry.

A molecule demonstrates interesting biological activity in a laboratory experiment or animal model. The results are promising. A mechanism is proposed. And then the compound is marketed as a therapy for humans before meaningful human trials are performed.

This pattern is not unique to peptides. It happens throughout biomedical research. But in medicine, there is a critical difference between biological plausibility and clinical proof. Something that works in a petri dish or a mouse model does not automatically work in humans.

The gap between animal research and effective human therapies is enormous. Estimates suggest that more than 85 percent of drugs that show promise in early research never become approved human treatments because they fail in clinical trials.6

That gap is particularly important when we look at peptides currently marketed for musculoskeletal repair, wellness, and anti-aging.

Evidence vs. Marketing: What the Research Actually Shows

While the marketing claims are impressive, the evidence behind them is not.

BPC-157: The “Wolverine Healing” Peptide

BPC-157 is perhaps the most aggressively marketed peptide in the wellness industry.

It is often promoted as a powerful regenerative therapy capable of healing tendons, ligaments, muscle injuries, and even gastrointestinal conditions. Hence, the nickname “Wolverine” that comes from the Marvel character known for rapid tissue regeneration.

The biological story behind BPC-157 is intriguing.

Preclinical studies show it may influence angiogenesis, fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and growth factor signaling involved in tissue repair.7 These findings come from 35 preclinical animal studies, predominantly in rodent models of tendon injury, muscle damage, and gastrointestinal lesions,7,8 but the human evidence is very different.

The 2025 systematic review found only one human clinical study, a retrospective case series of twelve patients with chronic knee pain receiving intra-articular BPC-157 injections. Seven patients reported pain relief lasting more than six months, but the study had significant methodological flaws and a lack of controls that limit its applicability and reliability. The authors concluded: “Despite its growing popularity, the clinical evidence supporting BPC-157 use in humans remains limited.”7

A 2026 review in the American Journal of Sports Medicine similarly concluded that no randomized controlled trials exist for BPC-157 in humans, and the compound remains investigational with unknown safety profiles.8 The authors noted that while BPC-157 “may hold promise,” current evidence consists primarily of preclinical animal studies for musculoskeletal applications.8

The fact is that BPC-157 is not FDA approved for any indication , has not undergone rigorous testing for human use, and is classified as a research chemical.8 The FDA has issued warning letters to companies marketing BPC-157, stating it does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement and cannot be legally sold for human consumption.

Despite this, it remains widely available through compounding pharmacies and online vendors marketing it for tissue repair, gut healing, and athletic performance enhancement.8

TB-4 and TB-500: Regeneration Claims Without Human Data

Thymosin beta-4 (TB-4) and its synthetic derivative TB-500 are also marketed as regenerative peptides.

In laboratory models, TB-4 appears to influence cell migration and tissue repair processes. Animal studies have investigated its potential effects on wound healing and cardiac tissue repair.8,14,15

But when it comes to injectable use for musculoskeletal injuries and anti-aging in humans, there is essentially no clinical evidence. TB-4 has been investigated in limited clinical research for conditions like eye disease, cardiac injury, and skin ulcers,16 but the evidence does not support its widespread use for athletic injuries or systemic regenerative therapy.

Despite this lack of human data and its status as a banned compound in sports,8 these peptides continue to be sold online and promoted in wellness clinics.

CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin: Hormone Manipulation vs. Clinical Outcomes

CJC-1295 and ipamorelin belong to a different category of peptides. They stimulate the pituitary gland to release growth hormone, which increases circulating levels of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).

Human studies confirm that CJC-1295 produces dose-dependent increases in GH and IGF-1 that persist for days after a single injection.11 Similarly, ipamorelin reliably stimulates GH release in humans with well characterized pharmacokinetics.17 

The hormonal effects are real and reproducible.

But raising a hormone level is not the same thing as improving meaningful health outcomes.

Several growth hormone studies have demonstrated inconsistent results with regard to body composition and no improvement in strength or function. These findings do not support the routine use of growth hormone releasing hormones or growth hormone agents in normal aging.18-20

There are also well established risks associated with elevated growth hormone and IGF-1 levels, including metabolic syndrome, cancer risk, and cardiovascular complications.19,21-23

Yet again, these compounds are frequently marketed as anti-aging therapies or body composition treatments.

GHK-Cu: One of the Few With Actual Human Data

GHK-Cu is a copper-binding peptide originally identified in human plasma.

Unlike many peptides currently marketed, GHK-Cu actually does have some human data supporting topical use in skin care. Small clinical studies suggest that topical formulations may improve skin elasticity and collagen production. These are not large clinical trials, and there is no evidence for injectable systemic therapy in humans.24  

There was one study that evaluated GHK-Cu injections in rats with ACL reconstruction that demonstrated improved healing at six weeks, but the effect disappeared once the injections stopped.25

Claims that injectable GHK-Cu can regenerate joints or improve whole-body health have no supporting human evidence.

Thymosin Alpha-1: Legitimate Research, Different Context

Thymosin Alpha-1 stimulates dendritic cells and enhances both innate and adaptive immune responses.

It has been studied extensively studied for specific medical conditions such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, sepsis, and cancer therapy with mixed results.16,26,27

However, this disease specific evidence does not support its use for general wellness or anti-aging, but it is still marketed as a clinically proven immune booster.

MOTS-c: The Mitochondrial “Longevity” Peptide

MOTS-c has attracted attention because it originates from mitochondrial DNA and appears to influence metabolic pathways related to exercise and energy metabolism.

There are numerous mouse studies demonstrating compelling biological effects including prevention of insulin resistance,13 enhanced physical performance, increased physical capacity and improved health span,28 and reduced blood glucose.29 IN MICE.

There are NO HUMAN therapeutic trials.

We do know that molecular studies in humans shows that when humans exercise, MOTS-c levels naturally increase.28,30 We have no idea what happens when exogenous MOTS-c is injected into humans.

The table below summarizes the findings discussed above.

Peptide

Marketing Claim

Evidence Source

Human Clinical Evidence

BPC-157

Tendon and ligament healing

Rat tendon injury models

Case study on 12 patients with chronic knee pain. 7 reported relief for > 6 months. Study had significant methodological flaws.7,8

TB-4 / TB-500

Tissue regeneration

Mouse wound-healing models

Topical preparations for wound repair done in humans.9 Injectable regenerative claims lack human evidence.8

CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin

Muscle gain, fat loss

Growth hormone axis research

Raises GH/IGF-1.10,11 No evidence demonstrating improved performance or body composition in healthy adults.8

GHK-Cu

Skin tightening and joint repair

Cell culture studies

Studies support topical use to improve wrinkles, elasticity, and wound healing.12 No human evidence for joint repair or musculoskeletal conditions.8

Thymosin Alpha-1

Immune support

Clinical research for specific diseases

Extensive human trials for several medical conditions. None for general wellness or anti-aging.

MOTS-c

Metabolic enhancement

Mouse metabolic studies

Mouse studies only.13 No human therapeutic trials.

Why Animal Studies Don’t Automatically Translate to Humans

The marketing push of many wellness-related supplements often comes from laboratory or animal studies. For example, a website might say something like: “Research shows this peptide dramatically improves tendon healing,” but when you follow the citation, the study turns out to involve rats.

While animal research is an essential part of medical discovery, things that work in animals often do not work in humans for several reasons. First, human biology is more complicated and outside of the controlled conditions used in laboratory models. A treatment that works in a genetically similar group of laboratory mice may behave differently in genetically diverse human populations.

Next, the disease models used in animals are often simplified versions of human conditions. Researchers may create a tendon injury in a rat under tightly controlled circumstances, but real-world human injuries involve complex biomechanics, variable healing environments, and numerous comorbidities. Last, dosing and delivery methods differ dramatically between animal experiments and real-world clinical use.

Animal studies are designed to generate hypotheses, not to confirm clinical effectiveness. Without carefully designed human trials, it is impossible to know whether a promising laboratory discovery will translate into meaningful benefits for patients.

The Immunogenicity Question Most Peptide Marketing Ignores

Another issue that receives very little attention in peptide marketing is immunogenicity.

All biological drugs, including peptides, are capable of inducing immune responses.31 Whenever a synthetic peptide is injected into the body, the immune system may recognize it as foreign which triggers the formation of anti-drug antibodies. This can neutralize the peptide31 or even provoke unintended immune reactions.32

For FDA-approved peptide medications, immunogenicity is carefully studied during clinical trials. Researchers monitor antibody formation, evaluate long-term safety, and determine whether immune responses affect the drug’s efficacy.33

For most peptides currently marketed through wellness clinics, those long-term safety studies do not exist. As such, their long-term immune effects are unknown. If patients are receiving repeated injections of compounds that have never undergone rigorous safety testing, that uncertainty becomes a potential concern.

Peptide Compounding vs. FDA Approval

Over the past year, there has been growing chatter online claiming that certain peptides are “about to be FDA approved.” Some people point to policy discussions within the Department of Health and Human Services and argue that this signals a major breakthrough for peptide therapy. That interpretation is inaccurate. In order to fully understand this, we need to cover some basics about the FDA drug approval system, drug compounding laws, and discuss the FDA bulk substances list used for compounding.

For a drug to be legally marketed in the United States, it must normally go through FDA approval via a New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologics License Application (BLA). This process requires a ton of data from full clinical trials. It takes years to accumulate the therapeutic and safety data required by the FDA.

Drugs that come from compounding pharmacies are different. There are two kids of compounding pharmacies: 503A and 503B. Think of the 503A as your local pharmacist who can compound a medication just for you with a prescription from your doctor. Your local pharmacist is not required to follow current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) rules that apply to a pharmaceutical company. A 503 B pharmacy is more of a mass production compounding pharmacy. They can make compounds in bulk and sell to clinics and hospitals without a specific patient prescription. They are held to the cGMP rules. While these are both compounding pharmacies, they cannot just invent their own drugs. They are both bound to using ingredients and drugs on the FDA bulk substances list.

The FDA maintains a list of bulk ingredients that are allowed to be compounded even though the drugs are not FDA approved. There are different categories on that list. Category 1 drugs are ones that are either permitted to be compounded or are under review. Category 2 drugs are the ones that got rejected because there was insufficient safety data, they are biologically complex, or there was risk of misuse. Compounding pharmacies are not permitted to use category 2 materials. Category 3 are full FDA approved drugs that can be compounded only if that drug is currently on shortage or there is a patient specific modification required.

Peptides are not being FDA approved. The HHS argument is that the FDA is over-restricting peptides and is saying people should have access to the medications, so the bulk substance list is being expanding to allow for some peptides. They are not being FDA approved. 503B compounding pharmacies will be permitted to produce them. That’s it. They are not suddenly declared safe or effective for human use. These are still NOT FDA approved drugs because they did not undergo the rigorous testing requirements.

Why This Matters

The global peptide therapeutics industry was valued at approximately USD 45.67 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 80.4 billion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of approximately 5.63%.34  We must always be skeptical whenever large financial incentives exist.

We are not new to substances that were enthusiastically adopted before their risks were fully understood. Allow me to share a little story about cocaine with you.

In the late nineteenth century, cocaine was widely marketed as a medical tonic and appeared in numerous over-the-counter remedies. Patients reported feeling fantastic after taking it.35 But feeling good in the short term did not mean it was safe. Over time, the medical community recognized the serious risks associated with cocaine, including addiction and long-term health consequences.

While peptides are not cocaine, the historical pattern should draw concern. The pattern is almost identical: early enthusiasm, aggressive marketing, limited long-term safety data, and widespread use before rigorous evidence is established.

Red Flags When Evaluating Peptide Claims

For patients and clinicians trying to navigate this space, several warnings indicate weak evidence.

Heavy reliance on animal studies.

Human studies with only a handful of participants.

“No reported side effects” often means the study hasn’t been performed.

Claims of “FDA approval” should always be verified with the FDA Orange Book.

The Bottom Line

Patients are free to make their own healthcare decisions, but physicians have a responsibility to keep patient wellbeing and safety at the forefront. We took an oath.

In the call I referenced above, the sales rep began by explaining how much money I could make if I incorporate injectable peptides in my practice. I’m well aware of the financial incentives. But here’s the thing: I am unwilling to sell out and potentially compromise the safety of my patients by endorsing these agents given the current paucity of human data. My patients trust me, and I will not violate that trust for financial gain. I cannot, in good conscience, offer these products to my patients

Peptides may eventually prove useful. Many drugs begin as promising laboratory discoveries. But right now, there is not enough evidence to establish that injectable peptides marketed for wellness and are both safe and effective in humans. Until that evidence exists, widespread use of injectable peptides remains a gamble.

Disclaimer: Even though I’m a doctor, I’m not your doctor—and reading this blog does not establish a doctor–patient relationship. This information is intended for general educational purposes only and should not be taken as personalized medical advice. Always speak with your own healthcare provider before making decisions about your health.

References

  1. Muttenthaler M, King GF, Adams DJ, Alewood PF. Trends in peptide drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. Apr 2021;20(4):309-325. doi:10.1038/s41573-020-00135-8
  2. Al Musaimi O. Exploring FDA-Approved Frontiers: Insights into Natural and Engineered Peptide Analogues in the GLP-1, GIP, GHRH, CCK, ACTH, and α-MSH Realms. Biomolecules. Feb 22 2024;14(3)doi:10.3390/biom14030264
  3. Al Musaimi O. FDA’s stamp of approval: Unveiling peptide breakthroughs in cardiovascular diseases, ACE, HIV, CNS, and beyond. J Pept Sci. Nov 2024;30(11):e3627. doi:10.1002/psc.3627
  4. Lewis GF, Brubaker PL. The discovery of insulin revisited: lessons for the modern era. J Clin Invest. Jan 4 2021;131(1)doi:10.1172/jci142239
  5. Jain S, Gupta S, Patiyal S, Raghava GPS. THPdb2: compilation of FDA approved therapeutic peptides and proteins. Drug Discov Today. Jul 2024;29(7):104047. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104047
  6. Wouters OJ, McKee M, Luyten J. Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-2018. JAMA. 2020;323(9):844-853. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1166
  7. Vasireddi N, Hahamyan H, Salata MJ, et al. Emerging Use of BPC-157 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review. Hss j. Jul 31 2025:15563316251355551. doi:10.1177/15563316251355551
  8. Mayfield CK, Bolia IK, Feingold CL, et al. Injectable Peptide Therapy: A Primer for Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Physicians. Am J Sports Med. Jan 2026;54(1):223-229. doi:10.1177/03635465251357593
  9. Treadwell T, Kleinman HK, Crockford D, Hardy MA, Guarnera GT, Goldstein AL. The regenerative peptide thymosin β4 accelerates the rate of dermal healing in preclinical animal models and in patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Oct 2012;1270:37-44. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06717.x
  10. Ionescu M, Frohman LA. Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Dec 2006;91(12):4792-7. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1702
  11. Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Mar 2006;91(3):799-805. doi:10.1210/jc.2005-1536
  12. Pickart L, Vasquez-Soltero JM, Margolina A. GHK Peptide as a Natural Modulator of Multiple Cellular Pathways in Skin Regeneration. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:648108. doi:10.1155/2015/648108
  13. Lee C, Zeng J, Drew BG, et al. The mitochondrial-derived peptide MOTS-c promotes metabolic homeostasis and reduces obesity and insulin resistance. Cell Metab. Mar 3 2015;21(3):443-54. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2015.02.009
  14. Guarnera G, DeRosa A, Camerini R. The effect of thymosin treatment of venous ulcers. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Apr 2010;1194:207-12. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05490.x
  15. Zhang Y, Dong Q, Bian X, et al. Recombinant human thymosin beta 4 improves ischemic cardiac dysfunction in mice and patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after reperfusion. Cardiovasc Res. Dec 31 2025;121(17):2747-2758. doi:10.1093/cvr/cvaf223
  16. Goldstein AL, Kleinman HK. Advances in the basic and clinical applications of thymosin β4. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015;15 Suppl 1:S139-45. doi:10.1517/14712598.2015.1011617
  17. Gobburu JV, Agersø H, Jusko WJ, Ynddal L. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of ipamorelin, a growth hormone releasing peptide, in human volunteers. Pharm Res. Sep 1999;16(9):1412-6. doi:10.1023/a:1018955126402
  18. Hersch EC, Merriam GR. Growth hormone (GH)-releasing hormone and GH secretagogues in normal aging: Fountain of Youth or Pool of Tantalus? Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(1):121-9.
  19. Nass R, Pezzoli SS, Oliveri MC, et al. Effects of an oral ghrelin mimetic on body composition and clinical outcomes in healthy older adults: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. Nov 4 2008;149(9):601-11. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00003
  20. Merriam GR, Schwartz RS, Vitiello MV. Growth hormone-releasing hormone and growth hormone secretagogues in normal aging. Endocrine. Oct 2003;22(1):41-8. doi:10.1385/endo:22:1:41
  21. Fleseriu M, Langlois F, Lim DST, Varlamov EV, Melmed S. Acromegaly: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. Nov 2022;10(11):804-826. doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(22)00244-3
  22. Knuppel A, Fensom GK, Watts EL, et al. Circulating Insulin-like Growth Factor-I Concentrations and Risk of 30 Cancers: Prospective Analyses in UK Biobank. Cancer Res. Sep 15 2020;80(18):4014-4021. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.Can-20-1281
  23. Watts EL, Perez-Cornago A, Fensom GK, et al. Circulating insulin-like growth factors and risks of overall, aggressive and early-onset prostate cancer: a collaborative analysis of 20 prospective studies and Mendelian randomization analysis. Int J Epidemiol. Feb 8 2023;52(1):71-86. doi:10.1093/ije/dyac124
  24. Mortazavi SM, Mohammadi Vadoud SA, Moghimi HR. Topically applied GHK as an anti-wrinkle peptide: Advantages, problems and prospective. Bioimpacts. 2025;15:30071. doi:10.34172/bi.30071
  25. Fu SC, Cheuk YC, Chiu WY, Yung SH, Rolf CG, Chan KM. Tripeptide-copper complex GHK-Cu (II) transiently improved healing outcome in a rat model of ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res. Jul 2015;33(7):1024-33. doi:10.1002/jor.22831
  26. Mao L. Thymosin alpha 1 – Reimagine its broader applications in the immuno-oncology era. Int Immunopharmacol. Apr 2023;117:109952. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2023.109952
  27. Dinetz E, Lee E. Comprehensive Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Thymosin Alpha 1 in Human Clinical Trials. Altern Ther Health Med. Jan 2024;30(1):6-12.
  28. Reynolds JC, Lai RW, Woodhead JST, et al. MOTS-c is an exercise-induced mitochondrial-encoded regulator of age-dependent physical decline and muscle homeostasis. Nat Commun. Jan 20 2021;12(1):470. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20790-0
  29. Yin Y, Pan Y, He J, et al. The mitochondrial-derived peptide MOTS-c relieves hyperglycemia and insulin resistance in gestational diabetes mellitus. Pharmacol Res. Jan 2022;175:105987. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105987
  30. Dieli-Conwright CM, Sami N, Norris MK, et al. Effect of aerobic and resistance exercise on the mitochondrial peptide MOTS-c in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White breast cancer survivors. Sci Rep. Aug 19 2021;11(1):16916. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96419-z
  31. Fernandez L, Bustos RH, Zapata C, Garcia J, Jauregui E, Ashraf GM. Immunogenicity in Protein and Peptide Based-Therapeutics: An Overview. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2018;19(10):958-971. doi:10.2174/1389203718666170828123449
  32. Salazar-Fontana LI, Desai DD, Khan TA, et al. Approaches to Mitigate the Unwanted Immunogenicity of Therapeutic Proteins during Drug Development. Aaps j. Mar 2017;19(2):377-385. doi:10.1208/s12248-016-0030-z
  33. Naik R, Wang J, Zhou L, et al. Review of Clinical Pharmacology Information for Peptides Found in US FDA Drug Labeling. J Clin Pharmacol. Nov 2025;65(11):1370-1380. doi:10.1002/jcph.70047
  34. Gianturco SL, Mattingly AN. Distinguishing between compounding facilities and the development of the 503B bulk drug substance list. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). Jan-Feb 2021;61(1):e8-e11. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2020.06.024
  35. Das G. Cocaine abuse in North America: a milestone in history. J Clin Pharmacol. Apr 1993;33(4):296-310. doi:10.1002/j.1552-4604.1993.tb04661.x

4 comments

  1. Costas

    Yes, Peptide has side effects. I begin recently Ipamorelin peptide injection- it does what it claims , as side effects – moderate skin allergies ( but I am a person with allergies to many things). It produces better sleep, additional energy – even at 1/4 dose – 1 unit of Ipamorelin – twice per day.

    Reply
    1. Annahieta Kalantari, DO, MEd, FACEP, FACOEP

      Thank you for your comment Costas. I am not referring to side effects. I am referring to the fact that there is no longterm safety data. That is different than a side effect. I am happy you feel better with the use of your peptides. It is important to note that placebo has a profound effect as well and without large RCTs that can establish cause and effect, we can’t differentiate people saying they feel better while on them is placebo vs efficacy. All that being said, my goal is not to deter people from taking peptides. It is to make sure everyone understands the unknowns and potential risks so they have all the information when making the decision.

      Reply
  2. MJ

    You comments are also a bit misleading CJC isn’t causing cancer, however with preexisting cancers since there is a growth factor is can make cancer thrive if you already have it. Everyone has an agenda and EVERYONE needs to be transparent and not inherently make something a miracle or demonize it to meet their own agenda or thought process. In almost ALL circumstances the truth is in the middle of two extremes (miracles vs demonizing)

    Reply
    1. Annahieta Kalantari, DO, MEd, FACEP, FACOEP

      Thank you for your comment MJ. You are correct that there are no longterm safety studies done in healthy adults without GH deficiency demonstrating increased cancer risk with CJC. In fact, there are no longterm safety studies done using CJC period. The studies that we have are the use of GH and GH analogues done in children with GH deficiency. One study demonstrated an increased risk of meningioma development. Another demonstrated an increase in tumor growth. Thankfully they were benign. As such, GH and GH analogues are avoided in children with pre-existing cancer risk. As far as my agenda, I want people to have both sides to the peptide story. What people choose to do in the end is entirely up to them, but they should hear both sides of the story, not just the side from the people who are trying to make money off the sale of peptides. As soon as there are longterm safety studies published on CJC, I am happy to change my comments. For now, all I have are the growth hormone studies that have been published and there is an increased risk.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Whole Human Health & Wellbeing

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading