Everything doctors need to know about the ‘peptide Wild West’
Industry Buzz
Right now, it is like the wild, Wild West. You don’t know exactly what you are getting, and you especially don’t know about the purity of the products. Is it worth injecting yourself with a product that contains contaminants or heavy metals? Are you willing to risk your life and health?
—Betsy Greenleaf, DO
Peptides used to live in bodybuilding forums and biohacking circles. But now patients are increasingly hearing about them from social media "longevity" influencers Yes, some peptides are real medicines: Insulin, oxytocin, semaglutide, and tirzepatide are peptide-based drugs with regulated manufacturing and clinical trial data.
But the concern is the parallel market of unapproved injectable peptides sold online for things like "healing" and "performance optimization" (fat loss, anti-aging... the list goes on).
“Most of the time, patients aren’t asking me about these peptides first; they’re already using them," Sergey Terushkin, MD, FACS, FASMBS, a bariatric surgeon, tells MDLinx. "They come in and say they’ve been taking BPC-157 or TB-500 for a few weeks, sometimes longer. [Many] don’t fully understand what they’re injecting; they just know someone said it helps with recovery or weight loss.”
The biggest problem I see right now is [that] patients are performing their own chemistry experiments, self-dosing from random products bought on the internet... These products are sold as ‘research products only,’ which allows the companies to sell because they put the onus on the buyer.
—Betsy Greenleaf, DO
Most common social media claims
BPC-157 heals tendons and gut inflammation
TB-500 speeds soft-tissue repair
GHK-Cu improves skin and hair
Ipamorelin helps muscle growth
MOTS-c supports metabolism and “mitochondrial health”
Why are peptides in the news now?
The latest spark is a regulatory one. The FDA has scheduled a July 23–24 advisory committee meeting to discuss whether BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS-c, Semax, Epitalon, and related bulk substances should be considered for compounding access. []
The FDA agenda lists evaluated uses including ulcerative colitis, wound healing, inflammatory conditions, obesity, osteoporosis, insomnia, and neurologic indications.
“Prior to the pandemic, there were more legitimate peptide products from compounding pharmacies; however, the FDA cracked down on these products as they lacked clinical trials," explains Betsy Greenleaf, a board-certified urogynecologist. "Championed by RFK Jr., that ban is being reexamined, and we are beginning to see more products on the market.”
“Right now, it is like the wild, Wild West. You don’t know exactly what you are getting, and you especially don’t know about the purity of the products. Is it worth injecting yourself with a product that contains contaminants or heavy metals? Are you willing to risk your life and health?”
The evidence gap
The strongest marketing surrounds “peptide stacking” of BPC-157 and TB-500, often sold together as the “Wolverine stack.” The origin story helps explain the confusion.
A Reddit AMA by science journalist Sara Talpos traced BPC-157’s rise from a Croatian pharmacology lab to bodybuilders ordering it from Chinese labs around 2010. The Croatian group has published more than 150 papers on BPC-157, but Talpos noted the key caveat: most of the work has been conducted on animals.
That matters clinically: Patients interpret “decades of research” as proof of safety in humans. But physicians must reframe this as preclinical plausibility rather than established therapy.
Dr. Terushkin adds, “What worries me isn’t just the idea of peptides; it’s the unpredictability. Dosing is all over the place. Some patients are guessing, others are following random online protocols. You don’t know how the product was made, if it’s contaminated, [or] if the label is even accurate. There’s no consistency. I’ve had patients bring in vials, and I can’t tell them with confidence what’s actually in there. That’s a problem.”
The news is already circulating in physician spaces. In an r/medicine thread about the FDA review, commenters raised concerns about untested injectable products, overseas sourcing, and liability for clinicians asked to advise patients on their use. “I’m not going to put my license on the line managing a substance that hasn’t undergone the process to obtain FDA approval. The traditional definition of ‘quack’ is someone who will do just that,” one commenter wrote.
“This trend is not slowing down," says Dr. Terushkin. "If anything, I’m seeing more of it. But popularity doesn’t equal safety. Patients need real information, not hype, and someone willing to actually walk them through the risks."
Related: From colon irrigation to ozone therapy: 5 wellness trends sending patients to the ER