The non-medical use of various peptides has increased substantially over the past 10–15 years, driven by promotion by social media, bodybuilding communities, wellness influencers and online clinics. These products are marketed for anti-ageing, performance enhancement, fat loss, sexual function and tissue repair despite lacking approved clinical indications and adequate evaluation of safety, quality or effectiveness.
Promoted agents include growth hormone secretagogues such as CJC-1295, ipamorelin, GHRP-2, GHRP-6, hexarelin, and ibutamoren; IGF-1 analogues; so-called regenerative or repair peptides, including BPC-157, thymosin β4/TB-500, follistatin, and epithalon; and peptides with little or no demonstrated clinical efficacy, such as AOD-9604. They are commonly presented, without adequate justification, as physiologically rational, targeted and “natural” interventions to restore vitality, accelerate recovery and optimise body composition. Alarmingly, they are also used, and sometimes prescribed, in various combinations without evidence of efficacy or safety.
This presentation will examine the regulatory, ethical and clinical issues associated with these substances, and the gap between biological plausibility and evidence for efficacy, dosing, product quality, and safety. Particular attention will be given to adverse effects including dysglycaemia, fluid retention, hypertension, arrhythmia, arthralgia, carpal tunnel symptoms, tendon injury, sleep disturbance, perturbation of endocrine axes, theoretical neoplastic risk; and the risk that peptide prescribing may distract from identifying underlying medical and psychosocial drivers of use.
The central message is that these are not benign wellness products but an expanding and poorly regulated interface among endocrine pharmacology, social media marketing, body-image pressure, consumer vulnerability, and practitioner overreach.