“BPC-157 and TB-500 have been the only effective treatments for me after sustaining injuries in the war in Iraq.”
Blake CruzDisabled veteran · injury recovery
Read the full comment ↗AAPM · FDA Docket FDA-2025-N-6895
Restore safe,
regulated access.
Ahead of the July 23–24 FDA hearing, 1,900 Americans said what compounded peptides mean to them, and the message is overwhelming: keep access, and keep it safe and medically supervised. Explore their words below.
1,900
public comments*
>95%
of individual comments support access*
130+
self-identified clinicians
483
named a specific condition they treat
MOTS-c's discoverer
BPC-157's patent holder
Nation's largest medical school (LECOM)
130+ licensed clinicians
A U.S. Senator
Veterans organizations
Why this matters
The question isn't whether Americans will use peptides.
It's whether they get them safely.
It's whether they get them safely.
A real medical need
483 commenters described using compounded peptides, under a clinician's care, for injury and surgical recovery, chronic pain, autoimmune disease, metabolic health and more.
Overwhelming public support
Of ~1,900 public comments, more than 95% of individuals urged the FDA to preserve safe, legal access to compounded peptides.
Prohibition fuels the gray market
The 2023 restrictions didn't end demand. They pushed patients toward unregulated, untested sources. Regulated compounding is the safer path, not the risk.
AAPM’s answer
In its formal submission, AAPM shows all four FDA criteria weigh toward inclusion, backed by USP-grade testing, manufacturing-quality and clinical data, with every peptide staying prescription-only under a licensed prescriber’s care. Regulated access and safety, together.
The real choice isn't peptides or no peptides.
Prohibition doesn't end demand. It removes the guardrails. Here's the difference between the two ways patients actually get these therapies:
Licensed 503A pharmacy
Regulated, prescriber-supervised access
Unregulated gray market
Where restriction pushes patients
Prescribed after individual evaluation by a licensed healthcare prescriber
No prescription or medical oversight
Compounded by a licensed pharmacist
Unlicensed online and overseas sellers
Made to regulated compounding standards
No quality or sterility standards
API identity & purity verified (Certificate of Analysis)
Unverified purity, potency, and identity
Dose and formulation controlled
Mislabeling and contamination risk
Comments across the docket describe patients already sourcing these peptides online. The question before the FDA is whether that demand is met safely or dangerously.
What patients are treating top conditions named across the comments (click any to explore)
Who weighed in
The people behind the 1,900 comments
This wasn't an industry write-in campaign. The record is dominated by individual patients, and the licensed clinicians who treat them.
1,730
Individual patients & members of the public
130
Self-identified licensed clinicians
56 MD · 3 DO · 71 other clinicians
~40
Organizations, societies & institutions
More than 130 doctors, nurses, and other licensed providers put their names on the record in support of access, a direct answer to the claim that peptide therapy lacks clinical backing.
In their own words
How access changed lives
“After prostatectomy surgery I used BPC-157, TB-500 and GHK-Cu — my recovery was amazingly fast, and my glucose control is the best it’s been in three years.”
Brad Hall, 67Surgical recovery
Read the full comment ↗“Torn MCL and meniscus. After 30 days on BPC-157, my knee surgeon cancelled the surgery — the meniscus was healing on its own.”
Scott McMillanAvoided surgery
Read the full comment ↗“As a board-certified family physician, I’ve seen tremendous clinical benefit in patients with autoimmune, inflammatory, and neurological disease where conventional drugs failed.”
Family physicianClinician
Read the full comment ↗“After 12 surgeries from connective tissue disease and 20 years on metformin, I’m now down from 9 medications to one — and my blood work is amazing.”
Jennifer GalarzaChronic illness
Read the full comment ↗“These peptides have been instrumental in my recovery and performance as a fireman — and let me stay present for my family.”
Chad DurbinFirst responder
Read the full comment ↗01
The seven under review
Comments by peptide
Also frequently named:
02
Explore
Search the comments
03
The coalition for access
The organizations backing access
Support spans the peptide-medicine field, the compounding profession, academic medicine, the discoverer of MOTS-c, the patent holder of BPC-157, veterans organizations, a U.S. Senator, and athletic-performance medicine. They’re grouped by type below. Each box links to its submission.
04
Proceed with caution
Regulators & pharmacists: conditional, not opposed
A separate group takes no side for or against, but flags real conditions. These pharmacy regulators, pharmacists, and patient-advocacy bodies support the goal of patient safety while insisting the guardrails of oversight capacity, traceability, and disclosure come first.
05
In fairness
The opposition, in their words
A minority of organizations opposed inclusion outright, and several are independent medical and patient-safety bodies. Their opposition rests on three claims, each of which AAPM’s written and oral testimony answers in full:
Evidence isn't there yet
Orthopaedic surgeons (AAOS), the Obesity Medicine Association, and an evidence-based-medicine coalition say human clinical data on safety and efficacy is still thin.
Supply-chain safety
The Partnership for Safe Medicines warns that unverified peptide ingredients invite contamination, mislabeling, and counterfeits without a fully regulated pathway.
Evaluate first
PhRMA and a chronic-care alliance argue the 503A list shouldn't bypass FDA review: promising therapies should complete evaluation before broad access.
06
What happens next
The hearing: July 23–24, 2026
Day 1
Wednesday, July 23
BPC-157TB-500KPVMOTS-c
Day 2
Thursday, July 24
DSIP / EmideltideSemaxEpitalon
American Academy of Peptide Medicine™
*Data reflect public comments posted to Regulations.gov (FDA docket FDA-2025-N-6895, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee) as of July 13, 2026; retrieved via the Regulations.gov API. Analysis by AAPM. Support share reflects the ~1,900 individual/text comments; fewer than 1% opposed. The 784-copy campaign form letter is shown as a single entry. Organizational positions are drawn from their submitted attachments; commenter type and conditions are self-reported and detected from comment text.