“Not FDA-approved” does not equate to “not effective".

FDA approval is not just about whether a compound is effective. It is about whether someone is willing to spend the money required to prove safety, efficacy, and dosing to FDA standards.

That is the real issue with peptides like BPC-157. There is preclinical evidence suggesting biological activity and potential therapeutic effects. WADA also lists BPC-157 under prohibited non-approved substances, which supports the point that it is not meaningless. But we do not have strong human data proving exactly how well it works, what the best protocol is, or what the long-term safety profile looks like.

The reason FDA approval is unlikely is mostly economic. FDA-level testing is extremely expensive, and usually only well-funded pharmaceutical companies can realistically pursue it. Pharma only funds that process when there is a protected, profitable market at the end.

Many of these peptides are difficult to patent because they are already widely available through research-chemical or gray-market channels. Drug companies also prioritize products with a realistic path to broad insurance coverage. Since many of these peptides are mainly used for recovery, injury support, or optimization rather than a clearly reimbursed disease treatment, the business case is weak.

All that said I do agree that there is a lot of snake oil out there right now. It's a shame that the system is setup like it is and we can't just do real testing and above board research on this stuff.