Evidence topic
These reviews report what a compound's human record contains, measured rather than characterized. An absence is stated only where a search was run, described, and dated; a count is printed only with the denominator it came from.
Several of the answers here are zero, and the zeros are the finding. A compound sold on a mechanism described in rodents is a compound whose human record a reader is entitled to see counted.
41 reviews · page 3 of 4
Does a lawful compounding status mean a peptide is supported by evidence?
No, and vasoactive intestinal peptide is the proof: it sits in Category 1 of the 503A bulks list, so a pharmacy may compound it today, while its largest randomized trial was stopped for futility and missed every primary endpoint.
Did the randomized trials of secretin for autism support the treatment?
No. A scoped census returns 19 randomized-type records; all 19 were opened, 16 are randomized trials of secretin in autism, and every one of the 16 reports no benefit on its primary measures.
Do thymulin's eight trial-type records show that the peptide has been tested in people?
No. All eight were opened: seven measure the body's own thymulin as a marker of zinc status inside zinc-supplementation trials, and the eighth administers a different molecule, a synthetic analogue, in a 1989 pilot.
Do the trial records for GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 support the uses the compounds are sold for?
No. All 115 titles were read: they are overwhelmingly pituitary provocation and diagnostic studies, giving the peptide to measure hormone release rather than to treat anything, and the GHRP-6 count also draws in neighboring compounds and animal work.
Does the evidence support the lifespan and telomerase claims made for Epitalon?
No. The telomerase finding is a 2003 cell-culture report; the nine trial-type human records belong almost entirely to epithalamin, a glandular extract, appear in Russian journals or their translated editions, and the most recent was published in 2011.
What is the record on Melanotan II, which was removed from Category 2 and never reviewed?
A tanning peptide with no tanning trial. Four trial-type records, all from 1996 to 2000, studied erections; the 23 case reports since include melanoma, priapism, renal infarction and rhabdomyolysis; FDA's safety finding stands, and the substance sits on no list.
Does MOTS-c do in people what the exercise-mimetic marketing claims?
Not on any published evidence. The mechanism is real in mice; the five human trial-type records measure the body's own circulating MOTS-c after exercise, heat or metformin, or in a disease cohort, and not one administers the peptide to anyone.
What supports Semax as a nootropic, and what is its United States posture?
A drug's standing in Russia is not an approval here. Four trial-type records exist, all published in Russian between 1997 and 2018, none in the English-language literature, and none tests cognitive enhancement in healthy people; Drugs@FDA holds no application under the name.
Has BPC-157 ever been tested in a human clinical trial?
Not in a controlled trial. Four name variants searched in August 2026 returned 230 papers and none under the clinical-trial publication type; the only human reports PubMed indexes are three small uncontrolled studies from one clinic, covering 30 people.
Why was DSIP the only peptide the July 2026 committee refused to recommend?
The panel voted against listing on a reported 6–7 with one abstention, 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.
Is injectable glutathione established for skin lightening, and what has the FDA said about it?
No trial supports it. Seven clinical trials pair glutathione with skin lightening and all seven were read: six test an oral, buccal, or topical preparation, and the seventh tests a four-ingredient injectable for under-eye pigment. The injected route returns no clinical trial at all.
What did the one randomized controlled trial of ipamorelin find?
It missed. In 114 patients after bowel resection, median time to a first tolerated meal was 25.3 hours on ipamorelin against 32.6 on placebo, a difference at p equal to 0.15, and the authors report no significant difference in the key or secondary analyses.
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.