Evidence
Each review below states a question in its title and answers it in the first sentence. The answer is frequently negative, and the negative is the point: a compound sold on a mechanism described in rodents has a human record a reader is entitled to see counted rather than characterized.
No review introduces a citation. Every source on every page in this family is inherited from a monograph, where it was verified against the literature index at writing time with a control query in the same run; the method states the rule. New literature enters this site through a monograph and reaches a review second, never first.
3 reviews
Has BPC-157 ever been tested in a human clinical trial?
No. Searching the National Library of Medicine's index across three name variants in August 2026 returned 228 papers mentioning the compound and none indexed under the clinical-trial publication type.
Why did CJC-1295 leave Category 2 in September 2024, and what is its status now?
Its nominators withdrew the nomination, so the FDA removed it from the prohibition category without adding it to Category 1; the compound sits on no list, and no lawful compounding route exists.
Why was DSIP the only peptide the July 2026 committee refused to recommend?
The panel voted 6–7, with one abstention, against listing, and the record it was reading contains no identified gene, precursor protein, or receptor after nearly fifty years, alongside a human literature of a few small studies whose most recent entry dates from 1992.
A review argues from the ledger; the ledger itself is published as reference tables, and every molecule’s dated posture is in the molecule index. Terms of art are defined in the glossary.