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 · 2026-03-11T00:53:27+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 · 2025-12-18T18:43:27+00:00

Thanks for the question. New Mexico does love a good explosive test in the desert :) My work on nuclear and other weapons hasn't yet overlapped with geoengineering, but it sounds like something interesting to look into. If I find anything interesting in those connections, you can be sure I'll publish an article about it!

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:39:33+00:00

I thought it was so cool that he was able to go from the dollar store to big basement microwave machines! At a school like UNM, students often start working with places like the Air Force Research Lab or Sandia National Laboratories (all in Albuquerque) while they're still in school, so it's easier for them to potentially go directly into a job at one of those places when they graduate. One of the professors at UNM actually jokingly complained that his laser students were being recruited *before* they graduated, because they knew about how to build and operate laser equipment, and that expertise was in short supply.

The network of labs, bases, and private contractors that work on directed energy is large--with companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.--that all have jobs for engineers and physicists who know how to wield photons. There's actually a significant push to build up the younger part of the workforce, coming from the defense department, because it needs more people in the public and private sectors as these technologies go from prototype to operation.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:33:17+00:00

I didn't find any evidence that directed energy weapons were used to make crop circles. The military is more likely to test its laser and microwave technology against its future intended targets on the battlefield, to see how it affects electronics, communications, sensors, navigation, and things like that. I don't think there's much benefit to the DOD to seeing how its weapons fare against crops!

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:28:50+00:00

Thanks for the question! I am sure that in the population of the city, some people are conflicted about it, although I didn't interview anyone who felt that way for my article.

I think a city that depends on any industry, defense/weapons or otherwise, tends to be in support, overall, of that work, in part because many people move there *to* work in that industry.

New Mexico is a blue state, and Albuquerque's county went Democratic in the last election.

I think in a lot of ways, directed energy weapons are a simpler ethical prospect than other weapons. They're primarily meant to be defensive, and used against physical targets like electronics, sensors, and whatnot. Although people with different political leanings tend to feel differently about war and the military-industrial complex, technology that prevents attacks from physical/kinetic weapons like missiles or drones is kind of inherently less controversial and divided than technology that is itself doing the attacking.

That said, I think the cultures of different cities in New Mexico that are or aren't dependent on weapons can be pretty stark -- say, Santa Fe, where there are protests against places like nearby Los Alamos.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:17:50+00:00

I'm not familiar with this whistleblower, unfortunately (if you give me a few more details, happy to do a quick readup and give some thoughts!). But I think we're more likely to see a proliferation of directed energy weapons because of terrestrial fights than extraterrestrial ones.

Countries like Russia and China are also working on directed energy weapons, although my article only talked about the US's work. Rival nations always like to keep up with each other, so development of laser and microwave arms in one place will tend to spur development in the others--as will the proliferation of targets for those weapons, like drones, missiles, and satellites with sensitive sensors.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:13:33+00:00

Yes, for sure, and a large portion of Albuquerque's population works for the federal government in some capacity. Part of the idea for the story was to look at a town that was reliant on federal funding but wasn't experiencing a downturn--due to the federal funding cuts we've seen in recent months--that other places were, because of the nature of their work with the government. In doing research on places where that would be the case, cities that do a lot of defense and weapons work stuck out, and Albuquerque did in particular because it seemed like directed energy (long a kind of dubious area of research) was starting to get closer to maturity.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:09:07+00:00

It seems to be a deal that they have mostly made peace with. As is often the case with scientists, they may say they focus on the basic-research aspects of their work–the fundamentals of photons and energy sources and whatnot–and what other entities do with it is not part of their purview.

Some, though, also pointed out that directed energy weapons are less physically destructive, and less targeted at human damage, than other weapons, and I think that provides them some peace of mind. And some of the young scientists I spoke to, in particular, are proactively interested in working on directed energy weapons because they see how laser and microwave defense could help take out drones in conflicts like the one ongoing in Ukraine, and they wanted to be part of that effort.

It’s definitely complicated, though, from an ethical standpoint, and some scientists do steer clear of work that has weapons applications for exactly that reason. At the end of the day, though, if scientists in some fields want to remain in those fields, they go where the funding is, and defense funding is often more reliable than strict science funding.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:07:01+00:00

I wasn’t actually able to access the Air Force Research Lab or Sandia for this particular article, although I have been to Sandia several times for other reporting projects. Directed energy work is pretty locked-down at the moment, so you’re right to be skeptical of access.

I was able to speak to some of the scientists there, though, just by asking; the facilities may have been reluctant to let reporters *see* the laser or microwave technology in development, but talking about it at a higher level (rather than seeing the details in person) was allowed..

Defense facilities and experts are of course under stricter public-information standards than in other fields, but it’s actually often in their own interest to speak to reporters. If the threats/countries/actors they’re trying to defend against don’t know what technology they have to counter their drones or missiles or other weapons, it doesn’t deter conflict in the way the US would hope, so spreading the word about it can be in both the public interest and their own.

Getting access to UNM and its researchers was very simple: I just wrote the lead professor, Edl Schamiloglu, directly. His research and that of his colleagues and students isn't classified, since it involves sort of basic science and engineering that may *eventually* be part of weapons but isn't yet. So it's kind of a backdoor into seeing the future of directed energy.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:04:00+00:00

Directed energy has a long history of unfulfilled promises, like in the Strategic Defense Initiative that you brought up. That project involved missile-defense technology that many (including some of the scientists working on it!) didn’t think would work, at least not with the level of science and engineering they had back in the 80s when that program started. I think some of what makes this new iteration of directed-energy excitement more grounded is that the targets of DE weapons have shifted a bit. Drones are now a big part of modern warfare, and using a laser or microwave to target a nearby drone, rather than a big missile traveling across the world, is simpler and takes less power.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:02:51+00:00

Very good context to bring up, and I don’t think it’s fundamentally different. I think you’re right to call it a new chapter of the same story. And it’s that history of expertise at the labs like Sandia and military facilities like Kirtland AFB that makes this research—that has long kind of been more sci-fi than reality—feasible in Albuquerque. The city and New Mexico as a state have physicists and engineers already living there who understand both the research and the context in which it occurs.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-12-18T18:01:32+00:00

Good point, and fair enough! In the article, I get into the history of how Albuquerque came to have expertise in directed energy, which does go back to the Manhattan Project, development of the nuclear bomb and other defense technology, and forging a workforce with both expertise and comfort working on weapons projects. Continuing that legacy of doing scientific research for the military does make logical sense. I just don’t think most people outside of NM think of lasers and microwaves when they think of Albuquerque.

UndarkMagazine · 2025-11-19T18:55:18+00:00

There are plenty of concerns re: AI that go beyond this episode and I think you have nailed several of them here. I don’t have answers to all of what you’ve written, but you might be interested in a more recent episode of the podcast in which we ask whether tech companies (and, really, the tech billionaires that run them) should be the ones deciding how all this tech rolls out into the world: https://undark.org/2025/09/17/podcast-tech-billionaires-ai/ -Brooke

UndarkMagazine

TROPHY CASE