No. Despite the headlines, the answer is still no.
An FDA advisory committee has recommended that six peptides should be available for use by American compounding pharmacies, among them BPC-157 and TB-500.
That does not mean the FDA considers them effective or safe.
On the contrary, the FDA's own scientific experts recommended that all of the peptides be rejected. They remain unapproved drugs, and nothing has changed regarding the clinical-trial requirements for a real FDA approval.
The background is instead that many patients already buy peptides on an unregulated market. Proponents argue that drugs made by licensed compounding pharmacies can be a safer alternative to products of unknown content from the internet.
BPC-157, a good example
BPC-157 (the "Wolverine peptide") is the peptide we get the most questions about. It is marketed for tendons, joints and healing of the gastrointestinal tract.
Despite the enormous attention, there is not a single published, peer-reviewed, randomized clinical trial in humans showing an effect for any indication.
On top of that, a large share of the published research comes from the same research group that has ties to the peptide's patent.
There are animal studies with interesting results. But "interesting" studies in rats are not sufficient reason to inject a substance into your shoulder. Possibly into your rat's shoulder...
Executive Health's view
This FDA decision is mainly about regulation, not new science.
Our position is therefore unchanged: peptides are a field of research, but the clinical evidence is still too weak for them to be considered established medical treatment, and we advise against the unapproved compounds. Note that we do not, of course, count GLP peptides in this category.
