“Peptides” has fast become one of the biggest buzzwords in the wellness world. And they’re likely to get even more public attention in the coming months and years.
Peptides are simple chains of two or more amino acids. In the human body, thousands of peptides play an important role in maintaining our health, either as hormones, neurotransmitters, or other kinds of signaling molecules.
Researchers and drug companies have adapted some peptides into medical treatments, such as semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, which mimics the natural hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Many other peptides, however, are still being tested in clinical trials, were abandoned early on in development, or aren’t approved in countries like the U.S. But that reality hasn’t stopped wellness influencers, celebrities, and even government officials as of late from touting their potential health benefits.
Last year, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed he would end the Food and Drug Administration’s “war” on peptides and other alternative medicine treatments. Last month, on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Kennedy announced he would overturn an FDA ban that currently restricts 14 peptides from being produced by compounding pharmacies. Some of these unbanned peptides may include BPC-157, believed by some to accelerate healing and injury recovery; cathelicidin LL-37, an antimicrobial that can purportedly boost immunity; and epitalon, praised for its supposed anti-aging effects.
At the same time, the FDA has signaled that it will continue to crack down on peptides made by compounding pharmacies that mimic GLP-1s like semaglutide. Hims, arguably the best-known source of compounded GLP-1s, announced this week it would stop marketing these drugs as part of a truce formed with Novo Nordisk.
Despite these mixed signals from the federal government, RFK Jr.’s unbanning will likely make it easier for people to get their hands on some of the most popular peptides. Others might decide to obtain peptides from companies that claim to sell them as lab research chemicals but do little to verify that use.
For this edition of Giz Asks, we reached out to pharmacists and other researchers who have looked into the growing world of peptides. We asked them to weigh in on whether the average person should consider buying peptides marketed for wellness or lifestyle improvement, along with other related tangents, such as what the best future of regulation might look like.
Chris Mendias
A musculoskeletal rehabilitation clinician scientist and co-owner of the Performance Medicine Institute in Arizona who has written about peptide use.
There are two halves to the peptide world. On one side are FDA-approved molecules like tirzepatide that have survived rigorous clinical testing in thousands of humans. On the other is a sprawling “gray market” of unapproved compounds like BPC-157 and CJC-1295, often sold as “research chemicals” to dodge the oversight that ensures drug safety. If you use a gray market peptide, you are essentially volunteering as a test subject in an uncontrolled experiment.
Much of the excitement you see on social media is built on preclinical data, where impressive results in mice are extrapolated to humans, ignoring the harsh reality that only one in 5,000 drug candidates ever reaches approval. As time goes on, we are relying less and less on rodent models, as results from mice and rats often don’t translate to humans, which makes it more dangerous to rely on preclinical data alone.
Buying these online is a high-stakes gamble. These vials are frequently produced in unregulated facilities and can contain heavy metals, inaccurate dosages, or dangerous impurities. It blows my mind, as some of the same individuals who are obsessed with eating clean, organic foods and avoiding microplastics and environmental toxins, will inject a peptide produced in some random overseas factory in their body with no knowledge of what’s actually in the vial.
The biological risks are equally concerning. For example, peptides like BPC-157 promote the growth of new blood vessels, which can be helpful for healing but is also the primary mechanism tumors use to metastasize and invade other parts of the body.
For the gray market peptides, any “miracle” recovery you feel is likely a potent contextual effect, which is a placebo response amplified by the ritual of injections and the endorsements of influencers. There are studies showing both the brain and immune system can have physiological responses to an inert placebo, which highlights the power of the mind-body connection. Thanks to the biology of the contextual effect of peptides, if you believe a peptide can work, your brain can subconsciously engage the immune system to promote tissue repair. But the potential positive contextual effect of peptides have to be weighed against their risks, like promoting cancer metastasis.
There is also the myth that there is a conspiracy by big pharma to suppress peptides. The reality is that big pharma loves peptides because they bring in billions of dollars every year. If a peptide like BPC-157 actually worked, big pharma would snatch it up and reap the financial rewards.
In most cases there’s really nothing that any of the existing gray market peptides can do for tissue healing or body appearance that we can’t accomplish safely with a combination of exercise, nutrition, and approved medications. Think about where you’re getting your information from and their motivations—if your source of advice on peptides is an influencer with a link to purchase in their post, who mentions none of the negative side effects, there are those who can provide better advice than this. Speak to your trusted health care provider who can help you navigate this area.
Adam Taylor
A professor of anatomy at Lancaster University in the UK who has written about the rising popularity of peptides.
The short answer is no. There are significant risks with injectable wellness peptides, such as BPC-157, TB-500, and many others. Whilst increasingly marketed as solutions for healing of injuries, anti-ageing and many other reasons, they lack scientific evidence to support their use in humans for treating anything. There are a number of peptides that are approved for treating certain conditions— insulin, semaglutide and more than 100 others which have been studied and shown to be of greater benefit than the risks they carry.
Wellness peptides don’t fit in the same bracket at the moment. Their lack of scientific evidence and the fact that most of these substances lack any kind of regulatory approval means that safety, quality and efficacy data are not there. This means that it isn’t known how these substances react in the body, what their content is, and how effective they are at treating the ailment that people are taking them for.
Many of these products are sold as “research only” compounds; research grade and therapeutic grade substances are different. Research grade compounds are just that—suitable for use in laboratory studies in animals or other models, whereas therapeutic grade materials are safe for entry into the human body. Injecting research grade compounds presents a risk to the user, as the contents of that compound may exhibit a negative effect on the body. This isn’t just the active compound that people are using them for but other things such as stabilizing agents that help the active ingredient maintain it’s functionality.
If people are taking these, it would be sensible to do so under the supervision of a clinician, who has checked that the purpose they are being used for is the best way to treat it, and they would also be able to ensure that your body is in a safe enough state to take them. Reconstitution and injecting your own peptides brings additional risks, such as basic needle technique and not damaging structures in the body, such as nerve or blood vessels, through to not injecting air bubbles or contaminating reagents to bring infection into the body.
If you feel peptides are for you, don’t forget they aren’t approved by any regulatory body and one of the reasons is that their use doesn’t outweigh their risks. So if you do use them and something changes or doesn’t feel right, stop and seek medical help to ensure you aren’t doing more damage to the body.
Ned Milenkovich
A licensed pharmacist and attorney who is currently chair of the health care law practice at Much Shelist PC and a former vice chairman of the Illinois State Board of Pharmacy, Milenkovich has recently written about peptide regulation.
Peptides are an emerging category that sits at the intersection of legitimate pharmaceutical innovation and a rapidly expanding consumer wellness market. Some peptides are well-established medicines with FDA approval and strong clinical evidence behind them. Others are substances that may be compounded by pharmacies under specific regulatory conditions when appropriate for individual patients.
At the same time, the consumer market for peptides, particularly those marketed for anti-aging, weight loss, and performance enhancement has expanded very quickly, often faster than the underlying clinical data or regulatory frameworks.
For the average person, the key takeaway is that peptides are not a single category of products with uniform safety or effectiveness. Whether someone should take a peptide is ultimately a clinical decision that should be made with a licensed healthcare provider who understands the patient’s medical circumstances. Consumers should be cautious about viewing peptides as a general wellness shortcut simply because they are widely promoted online.
The most important considerations are medical supervision and product sourcing.
When peptides are prescribed by a licensed clinician and dispensed through a regulated pharmacy, they are operating within a framework that includes professional oversight, pharmacy quality standards, and regulatory accountability. That framework exists specifically to protect patient safety.
By contrast, a significant portion of the peptide marketplace exists outside of traditional healthcare channels. Consumers may encounter products sold online as “research chemicals” or wellness supplements with little transparency about manufacturing practices, purity testing, or labeling accuracy.
From a safety standpoint, individuals should be cautious about obtaining injectable or pharmacologically active substances from sources that operate outside of established medical and pharmacy oversight. Those safeguards exist for a reason.
The growing popularity of peptides highlights the need for regulatory clarity and modernization, not just enforcement.
Regulators are currently working through how many peptides fit within existing drug approval and pharmacy compounding frameworks, particularly as the science around these molecules continues to evolve. The market, however, has moved very quickly and in some cases has outpaced the regulatory structure designed to govern it.
More clear guidance around which peptides may be compounded, how they may be marketed, and what standards apply to their distribution would help legitimate healthcare providers, pharmacies, and patients navigate the space more responsibly.
Peptides represent a promising area of biomedical innovation. But as with many emerging therapeutic categories, the science, regulation, and commercial marketplace are still catching up to one another.
Thoughtful regulatory guardrails will be important to ensure patient safety while allowing appropriate therapeutic innovation to continue.