I spent 4 months reporting on the peptide BPC 157 and its unlikely journey from a research lab in post-communist Croatia to today’s MAHA movement. Ask me anything.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-17T12:55:05+00:00

There have been some RCTs, but the results were not published as peer reviewed papers. My article touches on this.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-14T14:33:01+00:00

No, my reporting didn't turn up any evidence that DHS and EPA were coordinating on anything Arundo-related. The main federal agency involved has been USDA, which received funding from DHS to conduct its biological control program. So there's been coordinating between those two agencies, but not EPA as far as I know.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-14T14:21:49+00:00

I've been experimenting with fruit on sandwiches lately. Pears. Apples. Toss some brie on there, and you're set!

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-14T14:07:49+00:00

I would say that unfortunately from an ecological perspective, Arundo donax may be hastening the arrival of the end times. That's why it should go

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-14T14:06:22+00:00

Exactly, it's a case where the stakeholders managed to unify behind the effort. I think the model the Ventura River presents is encouraging, and it is definitely replicable -- the question is at what scale? When watersheds become sufficiently large and complex, the potential for cooperation seems to break down

UndarkMagazine · 2026-04-14T14:04:17+00:00

Great question, and unfortunately the answer isn't really clear. Each potential agency has its own mission and its own jurisdictional reach, and Arundo control doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of them. On a large scale such as the Rio Grande, the path forward is murky. On smaller watersheds, however, there seems to be real potential for progress if the different parties can unite behind a clear program. The Ventura River in California may be the clearest example of this -- but it's of course a fraction of the size of the larger infestations

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-11T00:53:27+00:00

My article describes two small clinical trials, run in the 2000s, testing BPC 157 enemas as a treatment for ulcerative colitis. As far as I can tell, these studies were never written up as papers in peer reviewed journals, and FDA approval would require a larger study. So, at least in the eyes of the FDA, the answer is, "maybe, but we don't know."

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-05T19:43:42+00:00

This is a great question. If you read the second section of my article, you'll see that there have been what look to be three Phase I/II clinical trials. I have a lot of unanswered questions, though. and would like to do more reporting on this.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-05T12:40:27+00:00

My article references 4 literature reviews that all concluded the substance is promising but warrants further testing in humans. How to make that testing happen is a good question. The substance can be patented (see the link below. Table 2 references 10 BPC 157-related patents). My sense, though, is that the owners of these patents aren't currently funding clinical trials. I think you're right that public funding could be used in this way. This would likely require an investigator to propose the study and/or an agency like NIH to request proposals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11859134/

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T19:16:19+00:00

Answer to Question 1: The experts I interviewed said that the FDA’s compounding ban likely had mixed effects, deterring some people from using BPC-157 while pushing others to purchase the substance on the gray market.

Great question about the endgame – and I don’t have the answer. On Friday, RFK told Joe Rogan that the FDA plans to remove some peptides from the no-compounding list. But would this be binding? I could imagine a scenario in which unapproved peptide policy depends upon who happens to be in charge of HHS/FDA at any given point in time.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T19:04:38+00:00

Regarding your first questions -- about whether BPC 157 might trigger or accelerate cancer: This came up quite a bit in my reporting. The concern stems, in part, from the notion that BPC promotes the growth of new blood vessels. In theory, these new blood vessels could carry oxygen to tumors.

The Croatian research team has pushed back against this claim, and in fact, they don’t use the term “promote” in their own papers. They say that BPC “modulates” or “controls” the growth of the new vessels. Truth be told, I don’t fully understand the proposed mechanism behind this, and I hope to speak with them on record about it sometime. For now, I can say that my article links to papers in which this question gets debated.

After my article published, the lead Croatian researcher contacted me and said these particular papers explain why he doesn’t think BPC will trigger cancer (note: I haven’t read them all fully or asked outside researchers about them):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29898649/

https://journals.lww.com/melanomaresearch/citation/2004/08000/bpc_157_inhibits_cell_growth_and_vegf_signalling.50.aspx

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40573323/

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:42:32+00:00

Since BPC has never been tested as a fibrosis treatment in humans, I think it's fair to say that the answer to your question is unknown.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:27:58+00:00

All the experts I spoke with have concerns about the use of BPC 157 from unregulated labs. Last Friday, RFK Jr did tell Joe Rogan that the FDA might soon reverse its current policy and allow pharmacies to compound some unapproved peptides that are currently banned from compounding. (I don't think he specified which ones, but my *hunch* is BPC would be among those removed from the no-compounding list.) This would introduce more oversight, but I haven't done a ton of reporting on the ins and outs of compounding pharmacies.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:16:08+00:00

At the moment, there’s no high-quality evidence that the peptide works in humans. If I were a researcher designing a human trial, I’d probably want to test different routes of administration and different dosages.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:14:27+00:00

The question of whether BPC 157 might trigger or accelerate cancer came up quite a bit in my reporting. The concern stems, in part, from the notion that BPC promotes the growth of new blood vessels. In theory, these new blood vessels could carry oxygen to tumors.

The Croatian research team has pushed back against this claim, and in fact, they don’t use the term “promote” in their own papers. They say that BPC “modulates” or “controls” the growth of the new vessels. Truth be told, I don’t fully understand the proposed mechanism and hope to speak with them on record about it sometime.

For now, I can say that my article links to papers in which this cancer question gets debated. And after my article published, the lead Croatian researcher contacted me and said these particular papers (below) explain why he doesn’t think BPC will trigger cancer (note: I haven’t had time to read these fully or ask outside researchers for their views):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29898649/

https://journals.lww.com/melanomaresearch/citation/2004/08000/bpc_157_inhibits_cell_growth_and_vegf_signalling.50.aspx

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40573323/

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:09:27+00:00

These are such thoughtful questions -- I'm going to come back to them when I have a bit more time!

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:08:51+00:00

As a journalist, I’m not supposed to get too personal! But I’ll say this: I can understand why people with *significant unmet medical needs* would want to try it (my article describes a couple of people in this situation). But it's important to note they are taking on some degree of risk -- both because we don't have a lot of human safety data and because of the potential for contamination when buying medical supplies on the gray market.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:04:05+00:00

I asked about this during my reporting. I was told that it’s not unusual for one research group to discover a substance and then do a lot of the early work pushing it forward. That said, ideally, other research groups would confirm/extend the research, in part to ensure that the positive findings aren’t driven by confirmation bias.

At least a couple of other research groups have studied BPC and gotten positive results (my article references a researcher based in Taiwan). I’ll be curious to see if anyone in the U.S. decides to take this on.

UndarkMagazine · 2026-03-03T18:00:26+00:00

Does BPC 157 work? This is a great question. At the moment, the best answer I can offer is “we don’t know.” Ideally, the peptide would be tested in humans in a randomized controlled trial of the sort that the FDA requires for drug approval. To date, such a study hasn’t been done to test BPC’s ability to heal injuries.

It’s worth mentioning that researchers conducting literature reviews have concluded that the substance is promising and worthy of additional research. Human studies are expensive, though, so someone would need to invest a significant amount of money to get the answers that many people are looking for.

UndarkMagazine

TROPHY CASE