What the human evidence says about approved peptide medicines and the “research peptides” sold online
Last weekend, lunging for a shot, Sam pulled her hamstring during the pickleball match, and now she goes down the stairs sideways. She mentions it to a friend, and a screenshot comes back: BPC-157 - "the Wolverine peptide." Sam starts Googling, scrolling Instagram, and within a couple of hours she's found a company that sells the peptide for people to inject themselves at home. She orders it that night. Four days later, a courier hands her a small parcel. Inside is a glass vial, no bigger than her thumb. The Instagram account that sold it shows a man mid-deadlift, the caption promising faster tendon healing. The label on the vial tells a different story: "For research purposes only. Not for human consumption." Sam reads it twice. Then she puts it in the fridge. Sam is a composite, but her story is playing out all over the country. But what Sam does not realize is that the evidence she'd be betting on is far thinner than her feed suggests.
For all the hype online, only three small pilot studies have ever tested BPC-157 in people (McGuire et al., 2025). A pilot study is a small, early-stage trial built to test feasibility, not to prove a treatment works or is safe. (Leon et al., 2011). With so few participants, the results are too imprecise to rely on. Add up everyone who has taken part in all three studies, and the total comes to just 30 people. During these studies no side effects were reported, but a group of 30 is far too small to catch a problem that strikes one person in a thousand. Additionally all three studies share the same lead researcher and all three reported good news, which one should flag as a possible sign that only positive results are reaching print (Lee & Burgess, 2025; McGuire et al., 2025).
And BPC-157 isn't an outlier here. The vial in Sam's fridge belongs to a much larger family of molecules, one that also includes some of rigorously tested medicines. Both wear the same label. Peptide. That single word is doing a lot of heavy lifting , and it's worth pulling apart before we go any further.
One word, two very different worlds
A peptide is a short chain of amino acids, generally up to about 40 - 50 building blocks long. In the body, many act as signals that bind to receptors and trigger specific cellular responses (Mendias & Awan, 2026:1921). That definition alone says nothing about whether a peptide is safe, tested, or legal. It only tells you what kind of molecule you're dealing with, not what's been done to prove it works.
Peptides as medicine is not a new concept. Insulin entered medical use in 1922 and transformed the treatment of type 1 diabetes (Muttenthaler et al., 2021). More recently, medicines such as semaglutide and tirzepatide have put peptides back on the media’s radar, this time for weight loss and metabolic health. Each of these went through years of clinical trials before reaching a pharmacy shelf, and each is closely regulated.
This legitimacy has created a halo effect, one that a markedly different category of product now exploits. In the same online spaces where semaglutide and tirzepatide are discussed, unregistered peptides are promoted for injury recovery, fat loss, muscle gain, concentration and "anti-ageing," carrying none of the testing or oversight their approved counterparts required (SAHPRA, 2026). BPC-157, the compound now sitting in Sam's fridge, belongs to this second category.
SAHPRA has warned the public about the growing sale and use of unregistered peptide products, including those promoted through social media and informal online channels. And even where a peptide has been approved somewhere else, that approval doesn't automatically make it legal to sell in South Africa (SAHPRA, 2026)
Medicines that earned their place
So what actually separates BPC-157 from semaglutide? Both are peptides. Both come in a small vial, both are injected under the skin. The difference isn't in the chemistry or the packaging. It lies in what happened before the product reached anyone's fridge. Years of trials, published results open to scrutiny, and a regulator prepared to decide who the medicine is for, at what dose, and with which side effects.
That process doesn't always end in approval, and when it does, the approval is usually narrower than the mass marketing suggests. Some of the examples below are approved compounds and only for small, clearly defined groups of patients. Before looking at what Sam has bought, it's worth seeing what that evidence looks like for peptides that went through the process.
Semaglutide
Semaglutide is a useful starting point as its evidence base doesn't rest on one promising study but on a series of large, placebo-controlled trials. The SELECT trial enrolled 17,604 adults with cardiovascular disease and obesity, but no diabetes. Over a mean follow-up of 39.8 months, cardiovascular death, non-fatal heart attack or non-fatal stroke occurred in 6.5% of participants receiving weekly semaglutide and 8.0% receiving placebo. Side effects experienced by 16.6% of the semaglutide group and 8.2% of the placebo group led to discontinuation of treatment (Lincoff et al., 2023). Tirzepatide followed a similar path, on a different question.
Tirzepatide
In the 72-week SURMOUNT-1 trial in adults with obesity, mean weight loss ranged from 15.0% at the lowest dose to 20.9% at the highest, compared with 3.1% with placebo (Jastreboff et al., 2022). Again, this is evidence for a specific medicine, dose and patient group, not proof that any product advertised as a "weight-loss peptide" is equivalent. Not every approved peptide comes with a trial of that size, though. Tesamorelin shows what rigorous evidence looks like when it's confined to one narrow use.
Tesamorelin
Tesamorelin was approved by the US FDA in 2010 to reduce excess abdominal fat in people with HIV-associated lipodystrophy (Grunfeld et al., 2011). Six months of treatment reduced visceral fat by about 15% in that population, and a 2024 analysis found it remained effective and well tolerated in people using modern integrase-inhibitor HIV regimens (Mendias & Awan, 2026; Russo et al., 2024). Tesamorelin's results, at least, have held up consistently within that narrow use, although the benefit fades once treatment stops (Grunfeld et al., 2011). Not every well-tested peptide can say the same. Elamipretide shows what rigour looks like when the results themselves are mixed.
Elamipretide
Elamipretide targets mitochondria. Its development history is useful because it includes disappointing results as well as a narrow success. A small crossover study in primary mitochondrial myopathy found a 19.8-metre improvement in walking distance that did not reach statistical significance, although participants reported less fatigue (Karaa et al., 2020). A later phase 3 trial involving 218 participants did not improve walking distance or fatigue compared with placebo(Karaa et al., 2023). In Barth syndrome, a small study comparing eight treated patients with natural-history controls reported an improvement of about 80 metres at week 64 (Hornby et al., 2022). Its US approval is limited to Barth syndrome. Grey-market claims about endurance and recovery in healthy people are a different question (Mendias & Awan, 2026).
That gap, between a peptide that has earned one narrow approval and a peptide sold for a much bigger promise, is exactly where the grey market lives. Nowhere is that clearer than with thymosin beta-4 and the product actually being sold as TB-500.
Thymosin beta-4 is not the same as TB-500
Thymosin beta-4 is produced by the body and helps in tissue repair (Goldstein et al., 2012). This regenerative activity has prompted investigation of its therapeutic potential, most notably in treating conditions associated with the eye. Pharmaceutical-grade formulations have been evaluated in corneal disease, with phase 3 trials reported as under way at the time of publication (Sosne & Berger, 2023). That does not validate an online TB-500 vial. TB-500 is a short synthetic fragment, and products sold publicly have shown variability in sequence and purity (Tewari et al., 2026).
Line these five up and the pattern is hard to miss. Each carries a specific trial, for a specific disease, in a specific population, and nothing more. None of that specificity survives once something is simply labelled "peptide" and sold online.
The research peptides sold online
The compounds below are examples of peptides that are not equally studied, but the same pattern repeats. Plausible biology or encouraging animal results are presented as though they were proven human treatment outcomes.
BPC-157
The pitch: Faster tendon, ligament, muscle and bone healing.
What the human evidence shows: A 2025 systematic review identified 36 studies, of which 35 were preclinical (Vasireddi et al., 2025). Only three small human pilot studies exist, covering knee pain, bladder pain and intravenous safety (McGuire et al., 2025). The intravenous study had two participants (McGuire et al., 2025). The knee study had no control group and relied on a telephone survey six months to a year after injection (Tewari et al., 2026). Even its results are reported inconsistently: one review states that 14 of 16 patients improved (Tewari et al., 2026), while another reports 7 of 12 (Vasireddi et al., 2025). A phase I trial designed to assess safety and pharmacokinetics in 42 healthy volunteers began in 2015, but in 2016 the researchers cancelled submission of its results (Józwiak et al., 2025).
Bottom line: Animal findings are not proof of effective injury treatment in people. Human efficacy and safety remain unestablished.
TB-500
The pitch Recovery, wound healing and faster return to training.
What the human evidence shows A 2026 review of the literature found no studies in which TB-500 had been tested in human participants (Mayfield et al., 2026). In the rat wound-healing study the review describes, TB-500 showed no significant benefit over the control group. Only one of its metabolites did, suggesting TB-500 itself is not responsible for the effect (Mayfield et al., 2026).
Bottom line: There's no human evidence behind the recovery claims stamped across every listing. And because TB-500 sits in the same unregulated supply chain as BPC-157, there exists the risk that what's actually in the vial, may not be TB-500 at all.
CJC-1295
The pitch: More growth hormone, muscle gain and fat loss.
What the human evidence shows: In healthy adults, a single injection raised growth hormone levels 2- to 10-fold for six days or more (Teichman et al., 2006). In the same study, 94% of participants receiving CJC-1295 reported side effects , compared with 29% receiving placebo. All were mild to moderate, most commonly injection-site reactions (Teichman et al., 2006; Mendias & Awan, 2026). A phase II trial in HIV-associated lipodystrophy was stopped after a participant died of a heart attack, although whether CJC-1295 caused the death was unclear. (Mayfield et al., 2026; Mendias & Awan, 2026).
Bottom line: It reached early human trials, but that does not establish a safe or effective consumer use.
AOD-9604
The pitch: Fat burning without the other effects of growth hormone.
What the human evidence shows: Six randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving more than 900 people found no statistically significant weight-loss benefit compared with placebo. The peptide appeared safe in the short term, but because it didn't work, development for obesity was stopped (Mendias & Awan, 2026).
Bottom line: This is not a case of “no one has studied it”. It was studied for weight loss and did not show the promised effect.
Ipamorelin and MK-677
The pitch: Recovery, growth hormone and lean mass.
What the human evidence shows: In a small phase II study, ipamorelin was given for seven days to people with a temporary delay in normal bowel function. It was generally safe, but did not improve clinical outcomes (Mendias & Awan, 2026). MK-677, or ibutamoren, is often sold alongside peptides, but it is actually a non-peptide small molecule taken orally (Tewari et al., 2026). A hip-fracture trial was stopped early after approximately 4 of 62 participants receiving MK-677 developed congestive heart failure, compared with 1 of 61 on placebo (Tewari et al., 2026:6).
Bottom line: Limited, indication-specific trials do not establish benefit for injury recovery or gym use.
Evidence at a glance
The comparison below separates products with established clinical uses from compounds whose online claims run ahead of the human evidence.
Semaglutide / tirzepatide
Typical pitch: Weight loss; diabetes
Human evidence: Large randomised trials
What that means: Established medicines for defined indications; source them through legitimate clinical channels.
Tesamorelin
Typical pitch: HIV-related abdominal fat
Human evidence: Randomised trials
What that means: US-approved for a specific indication; not a general body-composition drug.
Elamipretide / SS-31
Typical pitch: Endurance; recovery
Human evidence: Mixed; narrow evidence base
What that means: US approval is limited to Barth syndrome. Healthy-person performance claims remain untested.
BPC-157
Typical pitch: Injury healing
Human evidence: Three small human pilots; most evidence is animal data
What that means: No established efficacy or safety for routine human use.
TB-500
Typical pitch: Recovery; wound healing
Human evidence: No human studies found in a major review
What that means: Not equivalent to regulated thymosin beta-4 research.
CJC-1295
Typical pitch: Fat loss; muscle gain
Human evidence: Early-phase trials only
What that means: Substantial adverse-event signal; no established consumer use.
AOD-9604
Typical pitch: Fat loss
Human evidence: Six trials involving 900+ people
What that means: Did not produce significant weight loss; obesity development stopped.
Ipamorelin / MK-677
Typical pitch: Recovery; growth hormone
Human evidence: Limited and indication-specific
What that means: No established benefit for gym or recovery use; MK-677 is not a peptide.
Regulatory note “Approved” refers to a regulator and a defined indication. It is not a blanket endorsement of every formulation, supplier or use, and it does not establish South African registration.
The risk is not only whether it works
That question, what's actually in the vial, turns out to matter more than whether the peptide itself works. Even a compound with genuinely promising biology can hurt someone if it's made badly. This is where it stops being about weak evidence and starts being about what can go wrong.
You cannot inspect purity with your eyes
Approved medicines are made under current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP), a system that verifies the source of the active ingredient, confirms its potency, tests for endotoxins and monitors the manufacturing environment (FDA, 2024). Step outside that system and none of those checks are enforced. Products can carry endotoxins, heavy metals, live microorganisms, the wrong concentration, or the wrong ingredient entirely (Mendias & Awan, 2026; Rahman et al., 2026). A Belgian public-health laboratory tested 100 illegal injectable polypeptide products and found two vials from the same seller growing bacteria from the Bacillus cereus group. The bacteria carried toxins that caused visible rupturing of red blood cells on blood agar (Janvier et al., 2017). The problem isn't confined to obscure compounds either. When researchers bought Semaglutide from illegal online sellers, the three branded pens they ordered never arrived at all, lost to non-delivery scams. The three vials that did arrive were judged probably substandard or falsified. They contained 28.6 - 38.7% more semaglutide than the label claimed, and although no live bacteria were found, every sample tested positive for endotoxin. Measured purity ranged from 7.7% to 14.4%, despite labels claiming "99% purity" (Ashraf et al., 2024). A vial in a fridge can't tell you any of this. Sam's certainly didn't.
Unknown long-term safety is still unknown
Even setting purity aside, nobody knows what years of use does. A 2025 systematic review of BPC-157, covering research published up to mid-2024, found no study that had assessed its safety in humans, and no animal study that had tracked side effects beyond six weeks (Vasireddi et al., 2025). The only human safety study since then involved two people (McGuire et al., 2025). And it’s not like BPC-157 is an unlucky exception.
Across the wider field of emerging peptides, the pattern repeats itself. No long-term safety data exist for any of these peptides beyond two years, and even that comes only from limited groups of older adults, while most animal studies last weeks to months (Tewari et al., 2026). That is a very short window for compounds some people inject for months or years at a time.
Some concerns remain theoretical and should be labelled that way
BPC-157's main mechanism appears to be switching on VEGF signalling, a pathway that helps grow new blood vessels (Mendias & Awan, 2026). That same pathway is active in about half of the human cancers that have been studied (Józwiak et al., 2025), and high VEGF levels in tumours are consistently linked to worse outcomes in cancer treatment (Mendias & Awan, 2026). But, BPC-157 is not the only peptide that raises this kind of question. Thymosin beta-4, the parent molecule of TB-500, is overexpressed in several cancers, including colorectal, pancreatic, breast and lung, and higher levels are associated with tumour progression and poorer prognosis (Mendias & Awan, 2026:1928).
Taken together, these findings are a reason for causation, not alarm. None of this proves either compound causes cancer in people. Some laboratory and animal findings, counter intuitively, has been shown BPC-157 to inhibit uncontrolled cell growth and reduce VEGF expression (McGuire et al., 2025:615). Currently it appears as if evidence is pulling in both directions. That is why reviewers describe the cancer risk as a theoretical concern rather than an established harm. But "theoretical" is not the same as "confirmed." These concerns remain unstudied in humans (Tewari et al., 2026:11), and nobody has run the studies that would resolve them either way, particularly in someone with cancer they don't yet know they have.
So if the evidence is this uncertain, why do so many people come away convinced it works?
The social proof can feel stronger than the clinical proof
Peptides come with almost everything that makes a placebo effect powerful. High expectations, an administration procedure, and an influencer telling you it worked for them. That combination can change how the effects of a compound are perceived after it is administered (Mendias & Awan, 2026). This is not the same as imagining a benefit. Expectation can trigger the body's own natural painkillers, producing real changes in how pain is felt, even when the compound itself does nothing. In a meta-analysis of 22 migraine trials, placebo injections relieved headaches in more people than placebo tablets did (de Craen et al., 2000). A peptide injected under the skin, recommended by someone you trust, is almost perfectly designed to feel like it's working. Feeling better cannot tell you whether a product works, whether it is safe, or even what it contains, but three simple questions can.
Three questions to ask before accepting a vial
- What is the exact product?
- What has been demonstrated in humans, not in animals, not in theory, not in a comment section?
- Is it legally supplied, and checked by someone independent of the person selling it?
If you are already using a grey market peptide
Maybe you're not deciding whether to start. Maybe you already have a vial like Sam's, and it's not still sitting in the fridge. If that's you, there is no reason to panic, and do not hide it. The instinct to keep it quiet, from a doctor, from a pharmacist. Tell your doctor or pharmacist the product name, dose, route, frequency, source and when you last used it. Bring the vial itself if you still have it, or clear photographs of the label if you don't. Ask about evidence-based alternatives for the outcome you want. For example, rehabilitation and physiotherapy for an injury and seek urgent medical help for severe or rapidly worsening symptoms.
One more thing worth doing, whether or not anything has gone wrong yet. Suspected adverse reactions can be reported to SAHPRA at adr@sahpra.org.za. It takes a few minutes and it's one of the only ways the pattern you've just read about, plausible biology, thin human evidence, unverified vials, ever turns into something regulators can act on.
What to take from this
Peptides are not inherently good or bad. Insulin is a peptide. So is Semaglutide. So is the compound sitting in a fridge, in this story. What separates a medicine from a gamble was never the chemistry. It's the evidence behind it, the regulation around it, and whether the person selling it is willing to have their claims checked by anyone but themselves.
Some peptides are meticulously tested medicines, built on trials run on thousands of people over years. Others are experimental compounds sold as though a promising biological idea, a study in a rat, and a confident testimonial were enough to stand in for that. They are not, and no amount of enthusiasm on a feed changes what has, and hasn't, actually been shown in a human body.
The useful distinction, in the end, is simple enough to ask out loud before placing your order. What is the exact product? What has been demonstrated in humans, not in animals, not in theory, not in a comment section? Is it legally supplied, and checked by someone independent of the person selling it? If those answers come back vague, that vagueness is the answer. The vial isn't offering a healing peptide. It's asking you to personally carry a risk the evidence hasn't measured yet, on behalf of a claim nobody has had to prove.
Somewhere right now, someone is about to get the same text Sam got. A screenshot. A promise, no context, no fine print. They won't see the purity numbers from the lab that tested what's actually in these vials. They'll see a stranger mid-deadlift and a four-day shipping window.
Send this to the group chat where someone just posted about their new peptide stack. Because three questions, asked before the parcel arrives, are worth more than any caption ever will be.
Hype spreads in seconds. Someone has to slow it down long enough for the next person to ask what's actually in the vial, before they're the one standing in their kitchen, reading a label twice.
References
- Ashraf, A.R., Mackey, T.K., Vida, R.G., Kulcsár, G., Schmidt, J., Balázs, O., Domián, B.M., Li, J., Csákó, I. & Fittler, A. 2024. Multifactor quality and safety analysis of semaglutide products sold by online sellers without a prescription: market surveillance, content analysis, and product purchase evaluation study. Journal of medical internet research, 26:e65440. https://doi.org/10.2196/65440
- de Craen, A.J.M., Tijssen, J.G.P., de Gans, J. & Kleijnen, J. 2000. Placebo effect in the acute treatment of migraine: subcutaneous placebos are better than oral placebos. Journal of neurology, 247(3):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004150050560
- FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). 2024. Facts about the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources/facts-about-current-good-manufacturing-practice-cgmp Date of access: 22 Sep. 2026.
- Goldstein, A.L., Hannappel, E., Sosne, G. & Kleinman, H.K. 2012. Thymosin β4: a multi-functional regenerative peptide. Basic properties and clinical applications. Expert opinion on biological therapy, 12(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2012.634793
- Grunfeld, C., Dritselis, A. & Kirkpatrick, P. 2011. Tesamorelin. Nature reviews drug discovery, 10(2):95–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3362
- Hornby, B., Thompson, W.R., Almuqbil, M., Manuel, R., Abbruscato, A., Carr, J. & Vernon, H.J. 2022. Natural history comparison study to assess the efficacy of elamipretide in patients with Barth syndrome. Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 17:336. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-022-02469-5
- Janvier, S., Wattijn, E., Botteldoorn, N., De Spiegeleer, B., Deconinck, E. & Vanhee, C. 2018. Are injectable illegal polypeptide drugs safe? Case report demonstrating the presence of haemolytic Bacillus cereus in 2 illegal peptide drugs. Drug testing and analysis, 10:791–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2304
- Jastreboff, A.M., Aronne, L.J., Ahmad, N.N., Wharton, S., Connery, L., Alves, B., Kiyosue, A., Zhang, S., Liu, B., Bunck, M.C. & Stefanski, A. 2022. Tirzepatide once weekly for the treatment of obesity. New England journal of medicine, 387(3):205–216. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2206038
- Józwiak, M., Bauer, M., Kamysz, W. & Kleczkowska, P. 2025. Multifunctionality and possible medical application of the BPC 157 peptide: literature and patent review. Pharmaceuticals, 18(2):185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph18020185
- Karaa, A., Haas, R., Goldstein, A., Vockley, J. & Cohen, B.H. 2020. A randomized crossover trial of elamipretide in adults with primary mitochondrial myopathy. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 11(4):909–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12559
- Karaa, A., Bertini, E., Carelli, V., Cohen, B.H., Enns, G.M., Falk, M.J., Goldstein, A., Gorman, G.S., Haas, R., Hirano, M., Klopstock, T., Koenig, M.K., Kornblum, C., Lamperti, C., Lehman, A., Longo, N., Molnar, M.J., Parikh, S., Phan, H., Pitceathly, R.D.S., Saneto, R., Scaglia, F., Servidei, S., Tarnopolsky, M., Toscano, A., Van Hove, J.L.K., Vissing, J., Vockley, J., Finman, J.S., Brown, D.A., Shiffer, J.A. & Mancuso, M. 2023. Efficacy and safety of elamipretide in individuals with primary mitochondrial myopathy: the MMPOWER-3 randomized clinical trial. Neurology, 101:e238–e252. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000207402
- Lee, E. & Burgess, K. 2025. Safety of intravenous infusion of BPC157 in humans: a pilot study. Alternative therapies in health and medicine.
- Leon, A.C., Davis, L.L. & Kraemer, H.C. 2011. The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(5):626–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.10.008
- Lincoff, A.M. et al. 2023. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. New England journal of medicine, 389(24):2221–2232. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307563
- Mayfield, C.K., Bolia, I.K., Feingold, C.L., Lin, E.H., Liu, J.N., Hatch, G.F.R., Gamradt, S.C. & Weber, A.E. 2026. Injectable peptide therapy: a primer for orthopaedic and sports medicine physicians. The American journal of sports medicine, 54(1):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465251357593
- McGuire, F.P., Martinez, R., Lenz, A., Skinner, L. & Cushman, D.M. 2025. Regeneration or risk? A narrative review of BPC-157 for musculoskeletal healing. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 18:611–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-025-09990-7
- Mendias, C.L. & Awan, T.M. 2026. Safety and efficacy of approved and unapproved peptide therapies for musculoskeletal injuries and athletic performance. Sports medicine, 56:1921–1935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-026-02437-0
- Muttenthaler, M., King, G.F., Adams, D.J. & Alewood, P.F. 2021. Trends in peptide drug discovery. Nature reviews drug discovery, 20(4):309–325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-020-00135-8
- Rahman, O.F., Lee, S.J. & Seeds, W.A. 2026. Therapeutic peptides in orthopaedics: applications, challenges, and future directions. Journal of the AAOS global research and reviews, 10(1):e25.00236. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00236
- Russo, S.C., Ockene, M.W., Arpante, A.K., Johnson, J.E., Lee, H., Toribio, M., Stanley, T.L., Hadigan, C.M., Grinspoon, S.K., Erlandson, K.M. & Fourman, L.T. 2024. Efficacy and safety of tesamorelin in people with HIV on integrase inhibitors. AIDS, 38(12):1758–1764. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000003965
- SAHPRA (South African Health Products Regulatory Authority). 2026. Peptide products: public information. https://www.sahpra.org.za/peptide-products-public-information/ Date of access: 22 Sep. 2026.
- Sosne, G. & Berger, E.A. 2023. Thymosin beta 4: a potential novel adjunct treatment for bacterial keratitis. International immunopharmacology, 118:109953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2023.109953
- Teichman, S.L., Neale, A., Lawrence, B., Gagnon, C., Castaigne, J.-P. & Frohman, L.A. 2006. 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. The journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 91(3):799–805. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2005-1536
- Tewari, K., Liu, T.P., Im, C., Hamad, C., Petrigliano, F., Cheung, E.C. & Kremen, T.J. 2026. Peptide supplements and their therapeutic applications in sports medicine. The American journal of sports medicine. (Advance online publication.) https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465261464420
- Vasireddi, N., Hahamyan, H., Salata, M.J., Karns, M., Calcei, J.G., Voos, J.E. & Apostolakos, J.M. 2025. Emerging use of BPC-157 in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review. HSS Journal, 21(4):485–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316251355551