The Peter Attia Drive - #403 ‒ Peptides： separating scientific promise from marketing hype

00:00:00.000 Hey, everyone. Welcome to The Drive Podcast. I'm your host, Peter Atiyah. This podcast,

00:00:16.540 my website, and my weekly newsletter all focus on the goal of translating the science of longevity

00:00:21.520 into something accessible for everyone. Our goal is to provide the best content in health and

00:00:26.720 wellness, and we've established a great team of analysts to make this happen. It is extremely

00:00:31.660 important to me to provide all of this content without relying on paid ads. To do this, our work

00:00:36.960 is made entirely possible by our members, and in return, we offer exclusive member-only content and

00:00:42.980 benefits above and beyond what is available for free. If you want to take your knowledge of this

00:00:48.100 space to the next level, it's our goal to ensure members get back much more than the price of the

00:00:53.420 subscription. If you want to learn more about the benefits of our premium membership,

00:00:57.860 head over to peteratiamd.com forward slash subscribe.

00:01:04.260 Welcome to another episode of The Drive. Today, we are returning to the topic of peptides.

00:01:11.600 You might ask why. Well, it's a topic surrounded by a lot of misinformation. So we wanted to put

00:01:17.000 out a concise version that's actually going to be accessible to everyone. And we're making the

00:01:22.640 original AMA and the show notes, which were done several months ago, free to everyone as well.

00:01:28.520 So for anyone who wants the fuller, more detailed treatment, you can go back to that one.

00:01:33.200 But otherwise, this is going to be hopefully a one-stop shop. This is a topic I get asked about

00:01:38.660 more than almost anything else right now, and I suppose for good reason. Peptides sort of sit at

00:01:44.800 the intersection of what might be described as real biological promise, genuine clinical wins,

00:01:50.680 and rampant commercialization. They get marketed as cutting edge regenerative therapies for

00:01:56.680 everything from muscle repair to quote unquote longevity to looking better on the beach. I would

00:02:02.840 say one of the reasons I wanted to make this episode is that I completely understand why

00:02:06.660 people are drawn to peptides. If you're in pain, if you're injured, if you're aging, if you're

00:02:11.960 exhausted, frustrated, the promise of something that accelerates healing and restores your body

00:02:17.660 is almost impossible to ignore. I don't think that most people using these compounds are reckless.

00:02:23.680 I think they're hopeful. My concern is that hope has become a product. It's being sold by attaching

00:02:31.480 extraordinary claims to molecules that in many cases have never earned such claims. So the goal

00:02:37.760 today isn't to promote peptides or to dismiss them outright as a category. It's to hand you a

00:02:44.640 framework, because you know me and you know how much I love frameworks, for thinking about any

00:02:50.300 peptide you come across, what it is, where the science is solid, where it's weak, and where it's

00:02:56.740 simply absent. We'll run through that framework with an example, and then we'll zoom out to the

00:03:02.960 gray market sourcing and where the field is headed. Ultimately, you should leave with a framework for

00:03:08.780 deciding when the answer is yes, when the answer is no, and when the honest answer is that the

00:03:13.660 evidence simply isn't there. So without further delay, please enjoy this episode of The Drive.

00:03:24.120 So Peter, I think as we get started, it'd be really helpful to first define

00:03:28.640 what peptides are, right? So a lot of people use the term. And so what does it mean when we say

00:03:33.980 peptides? And ultimately, what is your response if someone comes to you and asks, hey, Peter,

00:03:39.420 should I be taking peptides? Well, when people ask me about whether peptides work, my first

00:03:46.680 response is usually some variation on you're asking the wrong question. That's sort of like

00:03:52.480 asking whether drugs work or whether surgery works. A peptide is simply a short chain of

00:03:59.700 amino acids. Some of these are among the most important drugs ever developed, like insulin

00:04:06.260 and, of course, the now ubiquitously used GLP-1 agonists, while others have essentially no

00:04:13.780 credible evidence behind them. The word tells you almost nothing about whether a molecule is safe,

00:04:21.800 effective, or even scientifically plausible. It's a chemical description, not a mark of quality,

00:04:29.000 and one of the biggest marketing successes of the last decade has been convincing people otherwise.

00:04:36.100 Distilling this increasingly popular group of molecules down into a single word does

00:04:42.060 a significant amount of rhetorical heavy lifting.

00:04:46.680 Peptide conveys sort of a naturalistic connotation, essentially conveying that it is safe and

00:04:52.740 effective by default.

00:04:54.560 But these are drugs.

00:04:56.640 And even if you bought into the natural is better argument, most of what you're buying

00:05:02.320 is synthetic, deliberately modified versions of natural molecules engineered to bind to a receptor

00:05:10.720 more tightly, to last longer in the body, or to hit a target the original protein or peptide never

00:05:17.940 could. So rather than ask one simple question, whether peptides work, we actually need to be

00:05:24.500 asking multiple specific questions about individual peptides. And so Peter, let's double

00:05:31.800 Well, click on that. So when people are looking to evaluate these individual peptides, what

00:05:37.580 questions do you think are the most helpful for them and why are they so important to

00:05:42.400 be able to answer?

00:05:43.820 Well, in our original AMA on peptides, which was released in April of this year, we outlined

00:05:50.080 a framework with which we evaluated many of the most popular peptides. Here's what I

00:05:55.320 like about this framework. It does its best to remove personal bias by forcing you to

00:06:00.360 ask the same questions of drugs that you believe are good as drugs or don't or are frankly

00:06:08.080 indifferent about. And it works for any drug, not just the category of drugs known as peptides.

00:06:13.440 So if you're putting something into your body, I think these are the questions worth asking. First,

00:06:19.440 is there a viable mechanism of action? A real mechanism of action forces the claim to become

00:06:26.620 falsifiable. It asks, what is the molecular target? What changes downstream? And why would

00:06:34.840 that plausibly produce the clinical effect being claimed? Without that chain, a claim like it

00:06:42.780 boosts energy or supports immunity or reduces inflammation can mean almost anything and

00:06:50.560 almost certainly nothing. It becomes marketing language, not biology. The other reason is that

00:06:58.480 mechanism helps identify failure modes. A molecule may bind the intended target but not reach the

00:07:06.300 relevant tissue. It may affect the pathway only at concentrations far above what humans could

00:07:12.460 otherwise safely ingest. It may move a biomarker without affecting a disease process, or it may

00:07:19.760 have opposing downstream effects that erase or even reverse the expected benefit. A defined

00:07:25.860 mechanism gives you a place to interrogate the claim. Unknown mechanisms do exist in medicine,

00:07:32.700 but they are absolutely the exception and not the rule. For example, if we look at FDA-approved

00:07:39.880 drugs, the share with genuinely unclear mechanisms is small. It's about 3%. So if a compound has no

00:07:49.680 plausible mechanism, that should be an early red flag. Okay. The second question you want to be

00:07:55.940 asking is, do we have evidence of a meaningful benefit in humans? There are plenty of examples

00:08:03.040 of a molecule that we thought should work and maybe even worked in animal studies, but then

00:08:09.400 failed to produce the effect in humans, or frankly was outright dangerous in humans.

00:08:14.080 Consider this, for example, of the compounds that clear the preclinical testing bar and enter phase one trials, roughly 30 to 50 percent still fail to advance to phase two, often because these drugs do not behave in humans as anticipated.

00:08:33.740 All right. The third question is, do we understand safety, dosing, and pharmacokinetics? How much of

00:08:42.540 this drug, in this case peptide, reaches circulation? How long does it stay active?

00:08:48.380 What dose was studied? What are the short and long-term risks? And as such, what do you need

00:08:55.580 to monitor? This matters because it tells us whether the molecule's behavior in the body

00:09:01.060 is predictable and controllable, and whether there's a practical plan for using it safely,

00:09:06.560 including what to watch for and how to intervene if something goes wrong.

00:09:11.800 Fourth, does the likely benefit justify the risk for this person? Risk is always contextual. A

00:09:19.820 serious adverse effect may be acceptable for a lethal childhood disease and yet completely

00:09:25.740 unacceptable for some marginal wellness benefit. Risk only makes sense when weighed against the

00:09:32.200 size and certainty of the benefit and against the risk of doing nothing. And then fifth,

00:09:38.560 is there a better characterized way to get the same result? Because if there is, you have to ask

00:09:45.020 yourself what you're actually gaining by reaching for the less characterized version of a drug.

00:09:51.320 Is it more effective? Is it safer, easier to dose, or better suited to you as a person?

00:09:57.220 Or is it cheaper, more available, newer, or is it just more compelling marketing?

00:10:02.960 If you run any peptide through these five questions, you'll often arrive at your answer.

00:10:09.980 And based on those answers to the questions, how would you then start to classify or bucket

00:10:15.940 the level of evidence for various peptides?

00:10:18.660 So, you know, in the original AMA, Nick, we kind of talked about peptides being in

00:10:25.340 four different buckets, but I've sort of paid attention to how I've been speaking with patients

00:10:30.480 about this, because obviously I'm being asked about it nonstop. And I've kind of defaulted it

00:10:36.240 into three buckets, and that's kind of how I'll talk about it here. So bucket one is the

00:10:42.620 scientifically unsupported tier. So the peptides that fall into this bucket, there's absolutely no

00:10:49.620 validated mechanism. So either we have no idea where it binds or the proposed mechanism is vague

00:10:56.020 or contraindicated by what we know. There's little or no credible human evidence that these work,

00:11:02.160 and the claims tend to drift over time without any clinical progress to justify them.

00:11:06.820 Then you have bucket two. Peptides in this bucket, you know, look, it's biologically plausible that they might work, but it's not supported by any human clinical evidence. So this means that there may actually be a mechanism of action that's credible and that the drug could have even worked in animal studies and perhaps even does something real at the level of human biology.

00:11:30.080 but there's little evidence that it improves an outcome, right? And that's what matters in humans,

00:11:36.020 especially for obviously off-label goals that people are typically using these things for.

00:11:40.320 These are often drugs where development has stalled or even halted because it didn't work

00:11:46.880 well enough. It wasn't safe enough, or perhaps it got beaten by a better drug in the pipeline.

00:11:53.520 And then you have bucket three, and these are kind of scientifically legitimate molecules.

00:11:57.900 Now, this makes it tricky because this is also the category where people often confuse a legitimate

00:12:04.420 molecule with a legitimate product. I'm going to say more on that later, but these are the peptides

00:12:10.980 that most likely are going to produce some biologically meaningful effect. One subtle but

00:12:18.020 important point is that a drug isn't simply evidence-based. It's evidence-based for a particular

00:12:25.380 dose, route of administration, patient population, indication, and clinical end point. So evidence

00:12:32.900 doesn't automatically travel with the molecule. It belongs to a very specific clinical question.

00:12:39.560 A drug shown to work in one disease, one population, or one dose cannot obviously be assumed to work

00:12:46.960 equally well when any of those conditions change. Being in bucket three is not an endorsement.

00:12:53.520 There's much more nuance to this.

00:12:55.040 It means that the underlying molecule has the strongest scientific footing of the three,

00:13:00.100 but it doesn't automatically mean it's safe or that the off-label use helps for the indication

00:13:05.800 that you might want to take it for, or even that the risk-benefit calculation works for you,

00:13:11.460 especially if you purchase it on the gray market.

00:13:15.020 So the practical conclusions, I would say, differ by bucket.

00:13:19.820 In bucket one, I think it's safe to say there is not enough scientific foundation to justify use.

00:13:25.500 In bucket two, the biology may be real, but the claimed clinical benefit has not been demonstrated

00:13:33.020 or the potential harm that arises from using it would probably lead someone like a company that's

00:13:38.780 developing it to abandon it. The development history on many of the peptides in this bucket

00:13:44.220 should probably temper your enthusiasm. Bucket three, the most reasonable approach is to use

00:13:49.840 the product with the strongest characterization and oversight. You should be clear about what,

00:13:56.420 you know, if anything you're gaining by using a less characterized version of that peptide and

00:14:03.020 what risks you're accepting or willing to accept by substituting it for the more well-studied drug.

00:14:08.760 And again, we'll kind of come back to this in a bit more detail later.

00:14:11.780 and so peter i think what would be most helpful is if we run the framework you described with

00:14:18.580 an actual peptide and i think it'd make the most sense to do one of the most prominent examples

00:14:23.100 which is what we get asked about the most which is bpc157 so do you kind of want to talk about

00:14:28.880 what that is and then where do you land in the framework that was discussed previously

00:14:34.340 Sure. So BPC-157 is actually the case study and poster child for everything that should make you

00:14:43.320 skeptical of a peptide. But I'm not asking you to accept this just because I've said it. The whole

00:14:49.280 point of the framework is to make the case step by step. So let's run BPC-157 through the framework.

00:14:57.820 First, is there a clear biologically viable mechanism? No.

00:15:04.340 BPC-157 is described as a fragment of naturally occurring gastric body protection compound,

00:15:11.820 but its origin story is unusually murky. The alleged parent protein has never been fully

00:15:18.880 characterized, and BPC-157 itself doesn't clearly match any known human gastrointestinal peptide or

00:15:26.900 any other human protein. When asked why the full protein sequence has never been published,

00:15:33.060 the scientist who discovered BPC-157 said, quote, if you have your own child, you want it to be

00:15:41.720 yours forever. Okay. He has also refused to disclose the screening method used to originally

00:15:49.240 identify the compound. So this isn't just a case of missing data. The details appear to be

00:15:55.400 deliberately withheld. This is basically the scientific equivalent of trust me, bro. Now,

00:16:01.680 several mechanisms have been proposed, particularly effects involving VEGF, that's

00:16:07.300 vascular endothelial growth factor, angiogenesis, nitric oxide, and neurotransmitter systems. But

00:16:13.180 none of those have been established in humans. And we do not know the receptor or target through

00:16:19.980 which the drug principally operates. Now, I've heard people defend BPC-157 as a peptide without

00:16:26.180 a receptor, leaning on the fact that some drugs genuinely do not work through receptors.

00:16:32.120 That part is true, but that is the sleight of hand. You see, lacking a receptor is different

00:16:38.480 from lacking a mechanism. A molecule can act without a classic receptor and still have a

00:16:45.080 well-defined mechanism of action, and most that end up showing clinical benefit do have that.

00:16:50.440 With BPC-157, we do not have a clear mechanism as well.

00:16:55.540 Okay, so what's the second question?

00:16:57.840 Is there evidence of meaningful benefit in humans?

00:17:01.280 No.

00:17:02.040 Nearly everything we quote-unquote know comes from animal models.

00:17:06.380 The positive literature is overwhelmingly preclinical.

00:17:10.080 More than 80% of the published work comes from one academic group, and researchers associated

00:17:16.880 with that work have IP and commercial interests connected to the molecule. That does not

00:17:21.900 automatically make the findings false, but it should raise the bar for independent replication.

00:17:28.720 And that replication is astonishingly thin. Despite approximately three decades of claims,

00:17:35.420 there are no published, peer-reviewed, human randomized trials demonstrating that BPC-157

00:17:42.760 accelerates healing. Three decades, dozens of fantastical benefits, and not a single human RCT?

00:17:52.300 Okay, third, do we understand safety, dosing, and pharmacokinetics? No, on all three. Human

00:18:00.160 pharmacokinetics and bioavailability are unknown, so commonly promoted dosing protocols are

00:18:07.020 essentially guesses. We do not know how much reaches circulation, how long it stays active

00:18:13.060 in humans, what dose works for what indication, and what the long-term risks are, or what would

00:18:19.680 even need to be monitored should you care. The absence of an obvious safety signal is not

00:18:25.720 evidence of safety. Phase one clinical trials to pick up safety signals haven't been run.

00:18:32.340 Long-term and repeated dose effects have not been adequately studied.

00:18:36.640 A practical safety framework should tell us how to use the molecule safety, what to watch

00:18:41.900 for, and how to intervene if something goes wrong.

00:18:45.040 But BPC-157 doesn't give us any of that.

00:18:48.320 Fourth, does the likely benefit justify the risk for this person?

00:18:53.520 Well, here's the irony.

00:18:54.580 If you actually believe the proposed mechanisms, you should be worried more and not less.

00:19:01.800 Pro-angiogenic VEGF and nitric oxide signaling are exactly the kinds of pathways that

00:19:07.940 potentiate tumor biology, abnormal vascular growth, and tissue remodeling. Now, of course,

00:19:13.180 that doesn't prove that BPC-157 causes cancer, and I'm not saying that. But if proponents claim

00:19:19.080 that it meaningfully stimulates healing through those pathways, they should also take seriously

00:19:24.600 the possibility of stimulating biology you may not want overstimulated. So the trade-off is poor,

00:19:31.100 an unquantified benefit for injury, recovery, pain, inflammation, gut health, or performance

00:19:37.040 against an incompletely characterized molecule with unknown dosing, unknown human exposure,

00:19:43.320 limited long-term safety data, and biologically plausible cancer-related concerns. That's just

00:19:50.140 not a trade I think most rational individuals would make. Fifth, is there a better characterized

00:19:56.300 way to get the same result. Well, for BPC-157, you do not need a perfect named alternative to

00:20:03.640 reject it. You're being asked to take an uncharacterized molecule on faith. For tendon

00:20:09.180 injuries, ligament injuries, pain, inflammation, gut symptoms, or recovery, there are better

00:20:14.280 characterized ways to evaluate and manage the specific underlying problem. They may be less

00:20:20.160 exciting, slower, less marketable, but they come with clearer dosing, clearer risks, clearer

00:20:26.340 monitoring, and a stronger evidentiary foundation. BPC-157 is not being chosen because it has

00:20:34.600 demonstrated superior human outcomes. It's being chosen because the story is compelling.

00:20:41.140 So where does BPC-157 land? I think it lands very clearly in bucket one. There is not enough

00:20:48.060 scientific foundation to justify its use. And you talked about how we don't know the mechanism

00:20:54.860 for that peptide. Is there any chance based on the general claims around BPC-157 that could

00:21:01.700 suggest that it actually has a broad mechanism rather than kind of being a warning sign like

00:21:07.500 you called out? I mean, look, you can never be absolute in biology, right? It's not, you know,

00:21:14.280 mathematics. But I would say the answer to that question is no. And the chance of what you

00:21:18.820 described is about as close to zero as it gets. A drug can have broad effects, but only when it

00:21:25.620 hits a fundamental pathway and it earns that breadth. So let's look at GLP-1 agonists.

00:21:33.740 They didn't arrive trying to fix diabetes, obesity, heart disease, kidney disease, fatty

00:21:39.820 liver, sleep apnea, and neurodegenerative disease all in one shot. They got one indication,

00:21:45.560 proved it in rigorous trials, and then over years as real evidence came in, they earned additional

00:21:53.080 ones. BPC-157 has done the exact opposite. They purported benefits and have expanded while the

00:21:59.920 first claim was never nailed down. Wound healing became tendons, then ligaments, then muscle,

00:22:05.280 then gut disease, then inflammation, pain, performance, recovery, even multiple sclerosis.

00:22:10.660 That's not a new drug earning indications. That's a peptide getting repositioned across

00:22:16.000 every therapeutic area imaginable with nothing rigorous to show for a single human disorder.

00:22:23.460 And here's the part that bothers me more than the missing data itself. Human randomized trials are

00:22:29.140 possible, yet they're not happening. Or they're happening and the full results are never published.

00:22:34.760 Someone is choosing not to look or choosing not to tell you what they found.

00:22:40.180 There's a pattern here, and it's a reliable one.

00:22:42.720 Legitimate drug development narrows uncertainty over time.

00:22:46.960 Bad science or no science expands its claims instead.

00:22:51.700 And that's a very important distinction.

00:22:54.320 BPC-157 has been on the second track for decades.

00:22:59.080 We still don't know its primary target.

00:23:01.460 We still don't have a convincing human trial.

00:23:04.760 We still don't know the dose or basic pharmacokinetics in humans, and somehow the list

00:23:10.340 of things it treats keeps growing. This is not a signature of a broad mechanism. That's the

00:23:16.620 signature of a great marketing campaign based on hype and hope. At best, nobody has bothered to

00:23:23.660 actually rigorously test this thing. At worst, somebody did and didn't like what they found.

00:23:30.160 And so now that you've covered why you'd be skeptical of a peptide with an unclear mechanism

00:23:36.240 and no real meaningful clinical evidence, how do you feel about a peptide with, let's say,

00:23:42.400 plausible biology and real biological activity? So even if the clinical outcome evidence might

00:23:48.860 still be limited, does those things change how you feel about it? Well, I'd calibrate

00:23:54.980 enthusiasm to the strength of the evidence, and usually I'm not overly enthusiastic about

00:24:00.700 peptides in this category. So I would say CJC-1295 is a useful example because it is both

00:24:08.740 biologically plausible and biologically active, and it's also, for what it's worth, probably one

00:24:15.300 of the three or four peptides I get asked about the most. So I think it makes for a good illustration.

00:24:20.240 Now, again, we've covered this in much greater detail in the previous AMA if you want to go

00:24:24.860 back and get really into the weeds of the history of this peptide and all those other things.

00:24:29.820 But suffice it to say, CJC-1295 can raise growth hormone and IGF-1. But one of the biggest mistakes

00:24:38.060 people make is assuming that's because a molecule changes biology and therefore it's going to

00:24:44.620 improve health. Almost every drug we study changes biology in some way. If it binds to a receptor,

00:24:52.620 alters a signaling pathway, raises one biomarker, lowers another, or changes the expression of a

00:24:57.400 protein, that's changing biology. That's not the relevant question. The question is whether or not

00:25:02.880 those biological changes translate into outcomes that actually matter to patients. Better function,

00:25:09.440 more strength, faster healing, less pain, fewer heart attacks, longer life, or measurable improvement

00:25:16.160 in quality of life. That distinction matters a lot for CJC 1295 because its appeal rests on

00:25:24.780 stimulating the growth hormone pathway, and we already have a much more direct way to interrogate

00:25:31.300 that pathway, giving growth hormone itself. In people who are truly growth hormone deficient,

00:25:37.560 replacement can matter. In a few specific clinical conditions, such as HIV-associated

00:25:44.080 lipodystrophy, targeting this pathway can have an incredible role. But in growth hormone-replete

00:25:50.640 adults, i.e. virtually everybody listening to this podcast, including me, the results have

00:25:56.920 been surprisingly underwhelming. Growth hormone can produce modest changes in body composition

00:26:03.300 and increases in so-called lean body mass.

00:26:06.800 But lean body mass, as defined in these terms,

00:26:10.300 is actually a very blunt metric.

00:26:12.360 A meaningful portion of that increase

00:26:14.800 can actually reflect water retention

00:26:16.760 and other non-contractile tissue

00:26:19.420 rather than functional skeletal muscle.

00:26:22.480 More importantly, when you look at the outcomes

00:26:25.220 people actually care about,

00:26:27.200 strength, physical performance, recovery,

00:26:30.620 functional capacity, and quality of life,

00:26:32.520 the benefits are generally much smaller than most people imagine and are often absent altogether.

00:26:40.520 So that might actually be the strongest argument against using something like CJC-1295.

00:26:46.320 We already know what happens when we push this pathway more directly. If directly administering

00:26:53.200 growth hormone has largely failed to produce meaningful functional benefits in growth hormone

00:26:59.300 replete adults, the burden of proof is high for claiming that an indirect growth hormone

00:27:05.460 releasing hormone will produce dramatically different results.

00:27:09.740 So the issue is not whether CJC-1295 is biologically active.

00:27:13.980 It is.

00:27:14.960 The issue is whether that activity translates into a meaningful human benefit at a dose

00:27:20.780 we understand with risks worth accepting.

00:27:24.240 For CJC-1295, I think that case has yet to be made.

00:27:30.260 And Peter, I think given what we talked about, one of the common follow-up questions, and

00:27:36.220 we see it a lot, is going to be the amount of people who will write or ask us who insist

00:27:42.540 they've been on one of these peptides and it's worked, or they have friends who have

00:27:47.060 tried it and it's worked for them.

00:27:49.060 So how do you respond to people who say, yes, but what about all these people that these

00:27:55.320 peptides helped?

00:27:56.020 I really do want to handle this question with some empathy because these stories are sincere and I hear them constantly. And I'm not just hearing them directly. I'm hearing them indirectly from patients who are sharing stories of their friends or family members. But a testimonial describes what happened after someone took a drug.

00:28:15.460 It can't tell you what would have happened without it.

00:28:19.260 It also fails to often reflect what else was being taken or done with that drug.

00:28:25.380 And those counterfactuals are the whole ballgame.

00:28:28.580 So start with the biology of injuries.

00:28:30.540 So musculoskeletal injuries tend to improve on their own, and they fluctuate a lot.

00:28:36.360 People almost always start a peptide when they're at their worst, which is exactly when

00:28:42.440 you'd expect things to get better anyway.

00:28:44.280 drug or no drug. That's simply regression to the mean. This is a well-documented phenomenon

00:28:50.580 in human physiology. Then layer on everything else people are doing at the same time. They're

00:28:57.200 probably resting, modifying activity, doing physical therapy, perhaps taking anti-inflammatory

00:29:03.360 drugs, sleeping better, eating better, training smarter, and perhaps even taking anabolic agents.

00:29:09.100 bpc 157 cjc 1295 or some other peptide stack is just one part of a sea of variables and yet it

00:29:20.000 always seems to be the thing that gets the credit i'll share with you one brief example a friend of

00:29:25.900 mine who wanted to start peptides said you know another friend of his was taking it and it was

00:29:31.780 having a remarkable effect and he said look i'm even going to share with you the pre and post

00:29:36.500 photos. So he sent me a photo of his friend before and after he was on his peptide stack.

00:29:42.580 And there is no denying this photo. There was an enormous improvement. And I said,

00:29:48.460 this looks amazing. There's no denying it. What else was he doing? He said, well,

00:29:53.260 he also started exercising and he was taking terzepatide. And he changed his diet, of course,

00:30:00.280 because of the terzepatide. And I think he was taking testosterone. But it was amazing to me

00:30:06.320 that this otherwise very intelligent person

00:30:09.100 was attributing the benefit to the Wolverine stack

00:30:12.220 of peptides that this patient was taking.

00:30:14.720 Okay, now let's talk about the placebo effect,

00:30:16.800 which is genuinely powerful for subjective outcomes

00:30:20.680 like pain and how recovered you feel

00:30:23.440 or how much energy you have.

00:30:25.380 Nobody injected one shoulder with the drug

00:30:28.500 and then the other shoulder with saline in a blinded way.

00:30:31.920 That seems to not happen.

00:30:33.500 That's what needs to happen to answer this question.

00:30:36.320 And then you add reporting bias. The person who got better posts about it. The person who saw

00:30:41.620 nothing quietly moves on. Anecdotes are great. They can generate hypotheses, but they can't tell

00:30:48.760 you the size of an effect, who benefits the right dose, or how rare they are, never mind what the

00:30:54.640 harms are. And Peter, can we talk a little more about the placebo effect, just because that's

00:31:00.180 something that's applicable even beyond peptides. And so how much of the proposed effects could or

00:31:08.000 should be attributed to the placebo effect? I mean, some of it could be, but the point

00:31:14.080 requires precision. Many peptides come with a powerful story around them. That's true for

00:31:19.900 something like retitrutide, and it's also true for something like BPC-157. The difference is

00:31:24.940 that for some peptides, controlled human trials help separate the effect of the molecule from the

00:31:30.480 expectations surrounding it. For others, like BPC-157, the story is powerful and the human

00:31:36.220 outcome data are thin. Even when a peptide is biologically active, the perceived benefit can

00:31:42.840 still be shaped by expectation, behavioral change, and the ritual of treatment, along with the broader

00:31:49.960 story attached to it. And that matters because peptides are rarely presented neutrally. They

00:31:56.480 are introduced as regenerative molecules and something that succeeds where conventional

00:32:02.520 medicine failed. It's a great story. By the time many people take them, they have already absorbed

00:32:08.860 a powerful narrative about what it is supposed to do. Peptides as a broad category have almost

00:32:16.120 every feature that can amplify that response. Social media testimonials, authority from a

00:32:22.380 clinician or peptide clinic, real cost, subcutaneous injection, which just somehow

00:32:28.120 feels more official and more serious, and the feeling of using something advanced and

00:32:34.160 biologically targeted. That is potentially a very persuasive story. Pain is probably the

00:32:41.840 cleanest example. Placebo response in pain trials can be large because pain is shaped

00:32:46.980 by attention, expectation, threat perception, sleep, mood, and context. If someone believes

00:32:53.900 they are using a powerful analgesic compound, especially if they have to inject it, that

00:32:59.340 perceived effect can be very real. So when I bring up randomized controlled trials, I am not

00:33:06.140 trying to be an academic gatekeeper. I am trying to understand the answer to the attribution

00:33:13.440 question, among other things. You may know someone who claims to have improved taking a peptide.

00:33:21.060 The RCT tells you how much of that improvement belongs to the molecule after you account for

00:33:27.760 the story, ritual, attention, and expectation. We see this even with drugs that clearly work.

00:33:35.360 In the step one study, semaglutide produced far more weight loss than placebo, so the drug effect

00:33:43.480 was real. But the placebo group, who believed that it was likely they were getting a weight loss

00:33:49.420 drug, still lost weight. That does not mean the placebo was fake and it was an actual drug. It

00:33:56.580 wasn't. It means trial context, lifestyle support, adherence expectation, and follow-up can move

00:34:03.840 outcomes. The RCT is there to tell you how much additional benefit belongs to the drug.

00:34:11.400 That's the key distinction. For a peptide with strong randomized human trials, we can say,

00:34:18.180 yes, there is a story around it, and the molecule adds this much measurable benefit beyond that

00:34:25.100 story. So for something like BPC-157 and other gray market peptides, the controlled human evidence

00:34:32.140 that separates the molecule from the mythology is curiously absent. When the story is powerful

00:34:38.400 and the evidence is thin, anecdotes become very easy to over-interpret. Controlled human trials

00:34:45.480 are how you separate the drug from the drama that surrounds it.

00:34:49.680 And Peter, where does the FDA fit in to all of this, right? So there's a lot of controversy

00:34:55.020 around the FDA and peptides. And so how do you think about FDA approval when thinking about

00:35:02.120 how you would use or not use peptides.

00:35:05.280 Whether you love the FDA or hate the FDA is beside the point.

00:35:08.940 The better question is what information do you gain

00:35:12.020 and what information do you give up

00:35:14.780 when you choose a drug that has completed formal development

00:35:19.640 with the FDA versus one that hasn't?

00:35:22.060 That's it.

00:35:23.200 What completing formal drug development gives you

00:35:25.800 is much more information.

00:35:28.220 And this information allows you

00:35:30.100 to make evidence-informed decisions.

00:35:32.120 It tells you that the actual drug has been shown to produce a defined benefit in a defined human

00:35:39.240 population. It gives you a studied dose, a formulation, a route of administration,

00:35:45.260 and a pharmacokinetic profile. It gives you a characterized safety profile, known contraindications,

00:35:53.560 known drug interactions, and monitoring requirements. It also gives you manufacturing

00:35:59.460 standards around identity, potency, purity, stability, sterility, and lot-to-lot consistency.

00:36:09.560 It's a lot of stuff here. With approved drugs, those questions are at least formally addressed.

00:36:17.160 With many non-approved peptides, they are virtually all unanswered. An important point,

00:36:24.000 So again, I can think of countless examples of drugs that get pulled off the market when post-market surveillance either demonstrates the efficacy is not large enough or the side effects.

00:36:53.540 or unwanted off-target consequences of the drug are too great.

00:36:58.500 This is a reason that approval is indication-specific.

00:37:02.360 A drug may have a reasonable risk-benefit profile in one population,

00:37:07.820 but a very poor one in another.

00:37:09.380 One of the very popular peptides, SS31, is a good example of this.

00:37:14.100 It may make sense to approve a mitochondrial-targeting peptide

00:37:18.360 in people with Barth syndrome,

00:37:19.940 which is a severe life-limiting mitochondrial disease based on limited evidence. That does

00:37:26.560 not mean we have enough information to make an informed risk-benefit calculation for a healthy

00:37:31.700 person taking it for energy, performance, or longevity. A risk that is acceptable when the

00:37:37.460 alternative is early death may be completely unacceptable when the expected benefit is

00:37:43.200 speculative. So what do you lose by sticking with approved drugs? Well, you lose early access. You

00:37:50.900 may lose cheaper options. You lose access to compounds with marginal benefit that would not

00:37:56.700 survive a formal development process. But I think what you gain is much more important.

00:38:02.640 Evidence, dose clarity, safety characterizations, manufacturing control, and post-market surveillance.

00:38:09.920 And that's why I would just have a hard time recommending non-approved peptides, not because FDA approval is infallible and final, but because bypassing that system usually means giving up the information and oversight that you would need to make a defensible risk-benefit decision for yourself.

00:38:31.500 and so peter based on what you just said what if someone says you know it is unimproved peptide but

00:38:39.040 i got it from either a doctor a compounding pharmacy or a vendor that has third-party

00:38:45.460 testing does that solve kind of any of the problems you just laid out there it solves

00:38:51.260 some of the problems but actually not most of them a prescription tells you that a licensed

00:38:56.040 clinician facilitated access, but it does not create any of the missing evidence for the

00:39:02.700 molecule. Physician involvement may improve counseling, injection technique, screening,

00:39:08.340 monitoring, which can matter, but it doesn't prove anything about the peptides working

00:39:13.260 or that the promoted dose is valid or that the product has the same properties

00:39:17.700 as the studied version of the pharmaceutical if you're using something that mirrors that.

00:39:22.480 The same is true for compounding pharmacies. A compounded version of a peptide does not

00:39:27.360 automatically mean it has the same safety and efficacy of the studied version. The oversight

00:39:33.620 and sourcing may be better from products purchased online and labeled for research purposes only,

00:39:40.620 and those differences may matter. But the central issue remains, it does not automatically inherit

00:39:46.600 the clinical evidence, manufacturing controls, or monitoring of a regulated product.

00:39:52.480 Third-party testing can help, but it only answers part of the question.

00:39:57.500 HPLC or mass spectrometry may confirm the identity, approximate amount, and chemical

00:40:03.680 purity of a sampled vial, and that's very useful information, but it does not say anything

00:40:09.360 about sterility or lot-to-lot consistency.

00:40:13.020 People are often treating peptides like an over-the-counter dietary supplement, but these

00:40:18.380 can be potent injectable molecules. And the more a drug can do to the body, the more care I think

00:40:24.680 needs to be given to our thoughts around it. Peptides as a class can be genuinely powerful,

00:40:30.660 which is a reason to be more careful with them, frankly, not less. We can't normalize

00:40:36.520 treating real drugs carelessly. So I would say the answer is a doctor, a compounding pharmacy,

00:40:42.280 or a third-party test may reduce some of the risks of using gray market peptides, but they

00:40:47.500 don't solve the fundamental problems. And what if the gray market peptide is a version of a drug

00:40:55.120 that already has good evidence? So for example, how do you think about gray market GLP-1 agonists?

00:41:03.040 I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about these so-called research-only or gray

00:41:09.220 market peptides is that they assume the molecule is the drug, but it's not. The molecule is only

00:41:15.740 the starting point. This is, I would say, a not obvious point. Take retitrutide as an example.

00:41:23.580 Retitrutide is not just the amino acid sequence. Anyone trying to turn that sequence into a

00:41:30.140 reproducible pharmaceutical has to solve an enormous number of engineering and manufacturing

00:41:35.780 problems that have nothing to do with whether the molecule binds its receptor. Can the molecule be

00:41:42.600 manufactured reproducibly at scale? Can it be purified consistently? Can you demonstrate

00:41:48.360 analytically that every batch contains the same molecule at the same concentration and purity?

00:41:54.160 Now, those aren't like bureaucratic details. They are fundamental chemical engineering and

00:41:59.740 manufacturing questions. A pharmaceutical is not simply a molecular structure. It's the successful

00:42:06.480 solution to each of those problems. That's why I think it's a mistake to assume that because

00:42:11.580 two vials claim to contain the same amino acid sequence, they're equivalent. They may not be.

00:42:17.940 Even if the sequence is correct, the manufacturing process may differ in ways that are analytically

00:42:23.540 important and potentially clinically important. When clinical trials show that a drug works,

00:42:30.020 they are not validating an amino acid sequence in the abstract. They are validating a specific

00:42:36.480 product manufactured under specific processes with a specific formulation and specific

00:42:43.740 physiochemical characteristics. The evidence applies to the product that was actually studied,

00:42:50.580 not automatically to every preparation that shares the same amino acid sequence.

00:42:55.980 This is not mainly a regulatory argument. It's an acknowledgement that chemistry,

00:43:01.280 manufacturing, and analytical science are inseparable from pharmacology. If you change

00:43:06.760 the product, you may also change the properties of the drug. And how do you think about the

00:43:13.440 statements that pharmaceutical companies can ignore these peptides because the natural peptides

00:43:18.980 can't be patented? Is there any truth to that? Only partial truth to that. The kernel of truth

00:43:25.500 is that you can't patent a product of nature in its raw form, but patent law leaves enormous room

00:43:32.440 for monetization. And this is the part people miss. Almost none of these peptides exist in

00:43:37.680 nature in the form that's actually used. Companies routinely patent modified analogs,

00:43:44.520 new sequences, salts, conjugates, delivery systems, manufacturing processes, even specific dosing

00:43:51.100 regimens and uses. Rapamycin, metformin, and the statins all began as natural molecules and were

00:43:58.220 all eminently patentable once modified. Even BPC-157 has patents on all its salts and production

00:44:06.620 methods. The pharmaceutical industry is many things, but indifferent to money is not one of

00:44:13.500 them. Lack of pharmaceutical development doesn't prove a peptide doesn't work. But decades of

00:44:20.700 promotion without convincing human efficacy data despite obvious commercial interest should lower

00:44:27.520 your confidence that the claimed effects are as dramatic as advertised. We've already seen

00:44:33.540 exactly this dynamic play out. A whole field of companies is racing to develop drugs built on

00:44:42.160 synthetic variations of the same GLP-1 peptide biology, a drug based on a peptide found in

00:44:51.520 nature. So if these gray market peptides truly delivered on their claims, that same pharmaceutical

00:44:58.940 industry would be racing to develop them too. And the conspicuous absence of that race 0.97

00:45:05.740 should tell you what you need to know. In fact, something a lot of people don't realize is that

00:45:11.760 many of these wellness peptides are drugs that started in the pharmaceutical pipeline but stopped

00:45:17.240 being pursued for one reason or another. Inadequate efficacy, safety concerns, poor pharmacokinetics,

00:45:23.600 a failure to outperform existing treatments, competition from a better drug, or simply the

00:45:29.680 lack of commercially available indication. The cleanest illustration of this is CJC-1295

00:45:35.280 versus tesamoralin. Same underlying biology developed around the same time. CJC-1295

00:45:42.580 reached phase two, but was abandoned. Tesamoralin advanced to phase three and received full FDA

00:45:49.680 approval. Tesamoralin is actually closer to the native molecule than CJC-1295. Its success has

00:45:57.640 nothing to do with being more patentable or more natural. It succeeded because the data were

00:46:03.020 better. So the picture people have where peptides live in some world outside of the pharmaceutical

00:46:09.080 industry has it exactly backwards. These molecules came from inside the industry very often.

00:46:15.960 CJC-1295 is actually named after the pharma company that abandoned it, Conjuchem. The gray

00:46:22.560 market isn't an alternative to pharma. It's the salvage yard for the drugs pharma tested and 0.99

00:46:28.560 walked away from. And so Peter, as we wrap this episode, if a person who's listened or watched

00:46:34.740 all of this is kind of starting to try and make sense of it, what do you think they should take

00:46:39.820 away about today's peptide landscape? The skepticism I've expressed here is aimed at the

00:46:46.780 gray market wellness ecosystem, not at peptide science. Peptides are a legitimate and powerful

00:46:53.360 class of drugs. As I gave examples of before, insulin and GLP-1s are the obvious examples

00:46:58.820 of what is possible when you understand the biology, dosing, manufacturing, benefits,

00:47:04.620 and risks. The pipeline also supports this. Roughly 100 peptide drugs are already approved,

00:47:10.880 and about 150 more are in clinical trials, and 600 to 700 more are in preclinical development.

00:47:19.820 The area with the most genuine near-term promise are in metabolism, infectious disease, diagnostics, and cancer, where a peptide's specificity can be a major advantage.

00:47:31.760 The irony is that the uses most aggressively promoted in the wellness world, brain boosting, recovery, and tissue repair, are often the areas where peptides face the steepest scientific climb.

00:47:46.660 The blood-brain barrier makes central nervous system effects very difficult.

00:47:51.960 Tissue repair is biologically complex, and broad claims about healing, regeneration, or optimization are much harder to validate than claims about a defined disease.

00:48:02.840 So the promise is real, it's just not evenly distributed.

00:48:06.700 Much of what people encounter today in the gray market peptide world falls well short of that promise.

00:48:12.180 Some compounds are biologically unconvincing. Some were clinically abandoned. Some are

00:48:18.540 investigational drugs being used before development is complete. Others are unauthorized versions of

00:48:24.420 real pharmaceuticals stripped of the manufacturing controls, quality assurance, and surveillance that

00:48:30.240 made the original product interpretable. For a generally healthy person, that means the bar

00:48:36.380 should be very high, higher than it would be for someone with a severe or untreatable disease.

00:48:43.220 If the expected benefit is modest or speculative and the product quality is uncertain, the risk

00:48:49.660 benefit calculation changes pretty quickly. A risk that may be reasonable in a life-limiting

00:48:55.840 disease can be unreasonable when the goal is better energy or faster recovery or some vague

00:49:01.820 promise of longevity. And Peter, what would you say to someone who, even after listening or

00:49:08.220 watching this, is still skeptical around your stance on peptides? Here's the test I'd apply.

00:49:16.080 What observation would prove a given peptide claim wrong? If the answer is none, if every

00:49:25.940 disappointing outcome gets explained away by dose, timing, supplier, stacking, that's not a scientific

00:49:34.840 claim anymore. A hypothesis has to be falsifiable or it can't be corrected by evidence. That standard

00:49:42.580 is exactly what conventional drug development enforces. Show efficacy in humans, define who

00:49:49.840 benefits, characterize dose and pharmacokinetics, understand the risks, then decide how it should

00:49:55.740 be used. Adoption follows evidence. Much of the wellness peptide space has run that order

00:50:02.420 completely backwards. Widespread use has preceded the evidence, on the assumption that evidence

00:50:08.300 will eventually catch up. It hasn't done so for the gray market peptides. If these compounds worked

00:50:14.280 as claimed, the science should be getting more precise over time, better trials, narrower

00:50:20.280 indications, clearer dosing. Instead, for many of them, the list of claims keeps growing while the

00:50:27.600 foundational questions, the one that would allow you to make truly informed decisions, remains

00:50:33.660 open. Yes, the pharmaceutical industry has made its share of egregious mistakes, but those mistakes

00:50:40.140 happen inside a process built to weed out failures.

00:50:45.680 90 to 95% of drugs entering clinical trials

00:50:50.960 never reach the market.

00:50:53.980 Done in by a lack of efficacy, safety concerns,

00:50:58.100 poor pharmacokinetics, or weak commercial prospects.

00:51:01.220 You can criticize the industry for plenty of things,

00:51:05.000 but failure is built into the model,

00:51:07.980 and a lot of fails,

00:51:09.320 including some of the most popular gray market peptides.

00:51:14.300 That's the core issue.

00:51:16.220 Not that peptides work or don't work,

00:51:18.660 but that a claim which can't fail isn't a scientific claim.

00:51:23.100 And a field that expands rather than narrows it claims over time

00:51:27.920 is moving in the wrong direction.

00:51:30.500 That's not evidence-informed decision-making.

00:51:33.720 It's marketing.

00:51:34.980 And hope deserves a lot more than marketing.

00:51:38.480 Peter, I think that wraps this conversation, though I doubt it will be our last one we ever

00:51:44.420 do on peptides. So anything else you want to add before we go? You don't share my optimism that

00:51:50.960 this is the last time we have to do a podcast on peptides? I don't think so. I think this will be

00:51:58.180 one that is hit in the future again. Very well. Awesome. All right. Have a good one.

00:52:03.820 Thank you for listening to this week's episode of The Drive. Head over to peteratiamd.com

00:52:10.780 forward slash show notes if you want to dig deeper into this episode. You can also find me

00:52:16.800 on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter, all with the handle peteratiamd. You can also leave us

00:52:22.400 review on Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast player you use. This podcast is for general

00:52:28.420 informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing,

00:52:32.300 or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice.

00:52:37.120 No doctor-patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to

00:52:42.780 this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to

00:52:48.120 be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard

00:52:53.460 or delay in obtaining medical advice from any medical condition they have, and they should

00:52:57.720 seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. Finally,

00:53:02.640 I take all conflicts of interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the companies I

00:53:07.900 invest in or advise, please visit peteratiamd.com forward slash about where I keep an up-to-date

00:53:15.200 and active list of all disclosures.

The Peter Attia Drive - August 10, 2026

#403 ‒ Peptides： separating scientific promise from marketing hype

Episode Stats

Transcript