Someone on Instagram says BPC-157 “cured” their gut. A clinic website claims peptides will “reverse aging.” A Reddit post says Selank is “better than Xanax.” How do you know what’s real? You climb the evidence ladder.
When you encounter a peptide claim, ask: Where does this evidence sit on the ladder? Level 1-2 claims can be made with confidence. Level 3-4 claims should use words like “may,” “preliminary evidence suggests,” and “animal studies show.” Level 5-6 claims should be treated as hypotheses, not facts.
| They say... | What it actually means |
|---|---|
| “Clinically proven” | Usually means one small study or preclinical data. Ask: Phase? Sample size? Published where? |
| “Doctor recommended” | A single affiliated doctor recommending their own product is not meaningful endorsement |
| “100% safe / no side effects” | Nothing is 100% safe. This claim itself is a red flag |
| “Thousands of satisfied customers” | Testimonials are Level 6 evidence. Customer satisfaction ≠ clinical efficacy |
| “Before and after” photos | Without controlled conditions, these prove nothing. Lighting, angle, timing, and selection bias |
| “Research shows...” (no citation) | If they don’t link the actual study, assume it doesn’t say what they claim |
Semaglutide and tirzepatide have the strongest evidence — massive Phase 3 RCTs with thousands of participants, FDA approval for multiple indications, and years of post-market safety data. PT-141 (Vyleesi) has strong Phase 3 evidence for HSDD in premenopausal women. Tesamorelin is FDA-approved for visceral fat reduction. These are Level 1 evidence.
BPC-157 has Level 3-4 evidence: one small human pilot study (12 women with IC) and extensive preclinical data (hundreds of animal studies). The preclinical evidence is remarkably consistent, but the lack of controlled human trials means we can't be certain these results translate. The July 2026 PCAC review may be a step toward generating better human evidence. Reasonable people can disagree on whether current evidence justifies use.
Apply the ladder. Ask: What specific study are you referencing? Phase number, sample size, publication journal. Is the study in humans or animals? Is the study independent or conducted by the clinic selling the peptide? Does the study specifically address my condition, sex, and age group? If the clinic can't or won't answer these questions, that tells you something.
Because evidence levels exist on a spectrum, not a binary. Level 4 evidence (extensive preclinical research with consistent results and strong mechanistic understanding) is meaningfully different from Level 6 (someone on Reddit said it worked). We present the evidence honestly, identify the level clearly, and let women make informed decisions. Some women decide that Level 4 evidence plus a favorable safety profile is sufficient for their situation. Others want to wait for Level 1-2 evidence. Both positions are reasonable.