Peptides, especially “research peptides” like BPC-157 and TB-500, have been hailed by famous podcasters, biohackers and longevity gurus as a miracle cure for just about anything that ails you, from torn ligaments and gut issues to curbing wrinkles and dull skin.
“They promise to do everything, from improving your longevity by a decade to helping you sleep better to improving your memory, I mean, the claims are pretty much endless,” said New York Times reporter David Dodge. “That’s because peptides do all of those things in our body — they do. [The question] is just whether or not increasing them synthetically … is safe or not.”
There are several well-studied, FDA-approved peptides available today, such as insulin and GLP-1s like Ozempic and Wegovy, but that’s just a sliver of the peptide pie. There are thousands more with glowing online reviews, but scant scientific data, that can be procured online or through longevity clinics.
Mixes of various peptides, called “peptide stacks,” often come with clever names like the “wolverine stack” or “glow protocol,” while others have earned names like the “Barbie peptide” for their ability to tan the skin without the sun. These popular stacks are not FDA-approved, so they’re distributed online as “research peptides” that are meant for in-lab research, not human use — a workaround for their gray market status.
But despite the ease of accessing them today, and gushing reviews online from many well-respected longevity thought leaders, many skeptics flag major safety and efficacy issues.
“There’s nothing magical about peptides,” said Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator with McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. “The best of these [peptides and peptide stacks] … have promising data in laboratory animals, but very little evidence in humans. So, there’s a lot of enthusiasm, especially given the wild success of Ozempic, but odds are that most of these promising peptides will not work as drugs in humans. … Just because our bodies make peptides does not mean that injecting yourself with one specific peptide will give you health benefits.”
To find out more, host Lexy Lebsack sat down with these two experts on the topic. First up, NYT’s Dodge walked us through the rise of peptide therapy online. He published an article for NYT in November titled “The internet loves peptide therapy. Is it really a miracle cure?”
Lebsack also interviewed McGill’s Jarry, who wrote an article in late 2023 — well ahead of a rush of related online articles — called “The human lab rats injecting themselves with peptides.” Jarry discussed the hard science, and lack thereof, of many popular stacks, as recapped below.
On the cultural boom of research peptide therapy
Dodge: “There are several factors that have kind of thrust peptides into the forefront of the [the online health and wellness] conversation. I think the MAHA movement is one of them — to make America healthy again, led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. As part of this movement, they purport that some of the peptides that are currently banned or not available for the purposes of research should be [available]. [RFK Jr.] promised, before becoming the Health Secretary, to deregulate a bunch of peptides that are currently not able to be tested on humans. He hasn’t done it yet, but it is something he put very much into the [MAHA] movement. [Then there are the] group of folks who are really into anti-aging, longevity hacks. They’re often called biohackers: People who are trying to do whatever they can to extend their life [and] make themselves healthier than they might otherwise be. A lot of podcasters, from Joe Rogan to Andrew Huberman, have talked about peptide stacks, which are, you know, the best way to stack a bunch of these peptides to have the best impact for whatever it is that you’re trying to do, like live longer or grow muscle. But it’s also the pandemic itself that really is a factor here, as well, because in the post-pandemic world, you’re able to access drugs in a way that you really could not before. … And then on top of all that, the media is paying a lot more attention to it now because so many people online are talking about it. … You can’t escape it on your social media feeds.”
On the lack of safety and efficacy data for BPC-157
Jarry: “I’ll give you an example of one which is quite popular. It’s called BPC-157, part of the so-called ‘wolverine stack’. It is meant to protect against tissue damage and promote healing. It’s a 15-amino acid fragment of a peptide that is found in gastric juices in the stomach. It’s been primarily studied by a Croatian team [experimenting on] rodents. I found a systematic review of the evidence on BPC-157 that was published last year by some reputable researchers. They looked at every paper they could find that tested BPC-157 for orthopedic issues, meaning bone and muscle stuff, which is where the main claims are. They found 35 studies that were all done on laboratory animals — 35. And only one, and I repeat, only one was done in humans. And, sure, it looks promising in animals, but let’s look at this one study done in humans, published in 2021 in an obscure journal that focuses on alternative medicine. … The study itself is really bad. It was done at an institute that sells these injections. They went back, and they got in touch with 15 of their past customers, and they asked them if the injections had helped. There was no blinding, there was no control group, and there were no validated questionnaires. They literally picked up the phone and said, ‘Hey, remember this injection that you paid for at our clinic? Would you say that it worked?’ This is not science.”
