A category-by-category map of the peptides currently getting attention — what each one is, what it's claimed to help with, how strong the actual evidence is, and where it stands legally right now. Starts with the questions worth taking into a consult.
Dated updates on regulatory decisions, new trials, and market changes. The category map above stays stable; time-sensitive news lives here. Newest first.
Initial version of this reference goes live. An FDA advisory committee is scheduled to review seven peptides — including BPC-157, TB-500, MOTS-c, and KPV — on July 23–24, 2026, with a second round covering others (including GHK-Cu) before February 2027. Outcomes may shift several tier ratings below.
The category map tells you what's real. These questions tell you whether a specific plan is sound — they cut through most of the ambiguity in this space fast.
The category that started the hype cycle — the only cluster with large, multi-year, placebo-controlled trial data behind it.
Stimulate your own pituitary to release growth hormone, rather than injecting HGH directly. Real physiology — but a wide gap between the approved member of the family and the popular ones.
The most talked-about corner of the biohacker world — and the one with the biggest gap between hype and human data.
A mixed bag — one member with genuine approval, one with decent skin-specific data, and a couple riding on mechanism-story appeal alone.
Decades of real clinical use — just not in a Western regulatory system.
One legitimate international drug, one early-stage curiosity.
A few that come up constantly but don't fit the clusters above — including one that's a supplement, not a therapy, and one with real safety concerns.
Starting points for verifying the claims above, weighted toward primary and regulatory sources. For any peptide, searching its name on PubMed or ClinicalTrials.gov shows you the real state of the human evidence quickly.