Medical disclaimer

This is not medical advice

BRAK Labs publishes summaries of the published research record. Nothing on this site is medical advice, a diagnosis, a treatment plan, a prescription, or a recommendation to obtain or use any compound.

Reading this site does not create a doctor and patient relationship, a pharmacist and patient relationship, or any professional relationship of any kind. No one here has examined you, knows your history, or knows what else you take.

Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health. If you think you are having a medical emergency, contact your local emergency number or go to an emergency department. Do not wait to research it.

Never delay seeking care, and never stop or change a prescribed medicine, because of something you read here.

What we publish and what we withhold

We report what has been documented. We do not prescribe what should be done. Concretely:

• We publish no dosing instructions, schedules, cycles, or titrations. Where amounts circulate publicly we may report that they circulate, name the source class, and say plainly that no trial established them. That is a description of what people write, not an instruction, and it is the only form in which a figure ever appears here.
• We publish no reconstitution steps, no injection technique, and no administration procedure of any kind.
• We publish no results timelines and no before-and-after imagery.
• We never state that a compound is safe, well tolerated, or low risk. We report what was measured, in what species, at what exposure, and what has not been characterized at all.
• We never state that a compound works. Under the standard the Federal Trade Commission applies to health claims, the benchmark for an efficacy or safety claim is randomized controlled human testing. For nearly every compound covered here, no such trial exists.

Most compounds covered here are not approved for any use

With the exceptions listed below, the compounds discussed on this site are not approved by the FDA as drugs, and they are not dietary supplements, foods, or cosmetics under any framework that would permit them to be sold for human use. Many are sold with a research use only or not for human consumption label.

That label carries no legal force for a drug. Research use only is a concept from the regulations covering in vitro diagnostic devices. There is no equivalent exemption in the drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA determines whether something is a drug from its intended use, established by the objective evidence around it: product descriptions, blog posts, dosing guidance, customer reviews, social media, and what else the seller puts in the cart. On 31 March 2026 the agency issued seven warning letters on exactly this reasoning, stating that despite labeling products for laboratory research purposes only, evidence obtained from the sellers' websites established that the products were intended to be drugs for human use. Those letters are public in FDA's warning letter database under numbers 721088, 721600, 721709, 721805, 721806, 722215 and 722228.

Nothing on this page should be read as saying that a research use label makes a purchase, a possession, or a use lawful. It does not.

The approved exceptions, by name

Some peptide drugs are FDA approved. Every one of them is a prescription medicine, approved for specific conditions, prescribed and monitored by a clinician, and dispensed by a pharmacy. They are not the same thing as a vial of the same molecule sold online as a research chemical, even where the molecule is nominally identical.

Approval of one peptide is not evidence about another. A compound does not inherit credibility from the class it belongs to, and this site never treats an approval as support for an unapproved molecule.

Compounded versions of approved peptides are a separate category again. A compounded preparation is not an FDA-approved product, has not been reviewed by the agency for safety or efficacy, and both FDA and the manufacturers have taken action against sellers describing compounded material as equivalent to the approved brand.

Your use may be unlawful where you live

Buying, importing, possessing, or using an unapproved compound may be unlawful in your jurisdiction. Research use framing does not change that, and neither does the fact that a seller shipped it to you. The rules differ by country and by state, and they change. In addition to federal drug law in the United States, state pharmacy boards, state consumer protection statutes, and state wholesale distribution licensing all bear on this, and importation is separately governed by customs rules that permit refusal and destruction of shipments without compensation.

Separate from the law, there are other consequences a reader should know about. Many of these compounds appear on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List, 2026 edition effective 1 January 2026, which reaches most organized competitive sport: BPC-157 by name in its S0 class, TB-500 by name under growth factors at S2.3, and growth hormone secretagogues as a class at S2. Several are flagged by the United States Department of Defense Operation Supplement Safety program, which matters for service members. Employers, licensing boards, and insurers may treat use as disqualifying.

We do not provide legal advice and we do not tell readers what is lawful for them. We report the regulatory record with dates and document numbers, and the rest is a question for a lawyer in your jurisdiction.

Documented risk categories

Each item below names its source in the sentence. They are listed because a reader deciding what to do with the rest of this site should know what the record contains, not because we are telling anyone what will happen to them.

• Injection itself. FDA's language in the 31 March 2026 letters: injectable drug products can pose risks of serious harm to users, because injection bypasses some of the body's key defenses against toxins and microorganisms.
• No pre-market review. For the unapproved compounds covered on this site, no application has been approved under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That approval is the review which would examine identity, purity, sterility and potency before a product reaches a buyer. FDA stated the position directly in the letters cited above: no approved application is in effect, so the product is an unapproved new drug.
• Identity and content. A certificate of analysis states what a named laboratory found in a named lot. Where a certificate names no lot number, nothing in the document ties it to the vial in front of you, so it cannot establish what that vial holds. This is a limitation of the document, and it is not an allegation about any seller.
• Unknown long-term effects. For most compounds here no human safety study of any duration has been published, so long-term exposure is uncharacterized rather than reassuring. Absence of reported harm in a literature with almost no human data is not the same as absence of harm.
• Interactions. No published study has examined how these compounds interact with prescription medicines, including the approved peptide drugs listed above.
• Immune response. Immunogenicity is a known property of peptide drugs and is measured in the trials of the approved ones above, where injection-site reactions and antibody formation are standard endpoints. For the unapproved compounds here, nobody has run that measurement.
• Delayed care. This item is our own reasoning rather than a finding from a document, and we say so. Treating an unapproved compound as a substitute for diagnosis and treatment of a real condition delays care that works. It is the harm that never appears in a toxicology table, and we think it is among the most consequential.
• Legal and professional consequences. See the section above, which cites the applicable agency and program records.

We publish no guidance on avoiding any of these, because such guidance would be instructions for use of a product we cover editorially. The one thing worth writing here is the same sentence as everywhere else on this site: talk to a licensed clinician.

Accuracy, currency, and completeness

We work from the primary literature, trial registries, and regulatory records. On a compound page every claim about what a compound does carries an evidence tier, so you can see what it rests on. The methodology page sets out how tiers are assigned and what sources count.

Even so, this record moves. Trials read out, compounding categories change, warning letters land, prohibited lists get revised. A page carries a visible Last Reviewed date, and that date is the honest limit of what we can claim: it means a person went through the page then, not that the world has stood still since.

We make no warranty that any page is complete, current, or free of error. When we find an error we fix it and publish the correction. If you find one, write to corrections@braklabs.com.

Third-party sites and commercial relationships

Links to external sites are provided for reference and are not endorsements. We do not control what those sites publish and we are not responsible for it. Citations to studies are references to the published record; a citation is not a statement that we agree with a paper's conclusions, and the surrounding text usually says exactly what we think a study can and cannot show.

BRAK Labs sells nothing. It is published by people who also have a commercial interest in the sale of peptide products, and any commercial link that ever appears on this site will carry a visible disclosure at the link itself. The full statement is in the conflict of interest section of the editorial policy. As of the review date on this page, no such link exists on this site.

Assumption of risk

Content on this site is provided as is, for general information, without warranties of any kind. To the maximum extent permitted by law, BRAK Labs and its publishers accept no liability for any loss or harm arising from the use of, or reliance on, anything published here. Any decision you make about your own health is yours, and it should be made with a licensed clinician who knows your situation.

Changes to this page

This disclaimer is reviewed on the same cadence as the rest of the site, and the review date at the top is the date it was last checked against what the site actually publishes. That consistency is the whole point: a disclaimer that contradicts the pages above it is worse than a short honest one, because it shows the publisher knew where the line was and wrote around it.

Questions go to editor@braklabs.com.