BPC-157
Exploratory human evidenceSmall uncontrolled reports cannot establish reliable injury-healing benefits or long-term safety.
Read the evidence 7 minObsidian education library
Understand the evidence.
Explore the research behind BPC-157, TB-500 and SS-31. Start with what was tested, what was found, and what remains uncertain.
Sources checked October 2, 2026 · Edition 1 · AI-assisted editorial synthesis; not independently reviewed by a licensed clinician or pharmacist.
TB-500 & thymosin beta-4
Fragment evidence is insufficientHuman studies of full-length thymosin beta-4 do not validate a TB-500 recovery protocol.
Read the evidence 6 minSS-31 / elamipretide
Approved product · narrow indicationForzinity has accelerated approval for Barth syndrome; general energy and longevity claims are not established by that approval.
Read the evidence 7 minHow to use this library
A study is a starting point for questions.
These are research entries, not a product catalogue. Each separates human trials, animal findings and regulatory information, with links back to the underlying sources.
Start with an entry’s takeaway, then read the study design and limitations before considering a claim. No entry supplies an individualized protocol or a purchasing recommendation.
What our evidence labels mean
- Exploratory human evidence
- Small or uncontrolled reports can identify questions worth testing; they cannot reliably establish benefit.
- Fragment evidence is insufficient
- Studies of a related molecule or different route do not directly validate the compound being discussed.
- Approved product · narrow indication
- A defined medicine has an approved use; that status does not extend to every product, population or purpose.
Inside a study protocol
Look beyond the dose.
A meaningful protocol includes who qualifies, who is excluded, the exact formulation and route, a comparator, duration, planned outcomes, safety monitoring and follow-up. Copying a dose without that context does not reproduce the evidence.
Six questions worth asking
- Was the compound administered to humans, or studied in animals or cells?
- Was there randomization and a suitable comparison group?
- Did the main planned outcome improve?
- Was the change meaningful to patients?
- What adverse effects and withdrawals were recorded?
- Do the population, product and route match the claim?
Pharmacy & regulation
Approval, compounding and evidence are separate.
FDA explains that compounded drugs are not FDA-approved. NABP’s accreditation policy separately addresses circumstances in which unapproved prescription drugs may be distributed or dispensed. Neither a pharmacy name nor an advisory-committee discussion proves a clinical benefit.
FDA: Compounding questions and answers
NABP: Unapproved prescription drug policy
Regulatory status is jurisdiction-specific and can change. These entries do not determine the legality of a particular transaction or clinical service.
Review scope & updates
Edition 1 uses FDA records, official prescribing information, original clinical reports, selected preclinical studies and clearly labeled emerging research. Sources were checked on October 2, 2026. This is a focused educational synthesis, not an exhaustive literature search, medical endorsement or legal clearance.
Study findings are paraphrased with sources. Interpretation is distinguished from measured outcomes. Entries identify known gaps and retain negative findings. A licensed clinician or pharmacist has not independently signed off on these articles.