Comparison
BPC-157 vs. TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4 Fragment)
BPC-157 or TB-500 – are there human studies?
4 min read updated November 10, 2026
In the BK-Score: BPC-157 Tested in humans, results unpublished (human evidence 1 out of 10, safety data 2 out of 10), TB-500 Not studied in humans (human evidence 1 out of 10, safety data 2 out of 10).
The short answer
There are no published controlled human studies on either of them. For BPC-157, though, the case differs from TB-500: the manufacturer Pliva tested it in humans in phase II studies in ulcerative colitis, but the full data were never published; a phase I study was terminated in 2016 without results. There is no approved formulation and no validated dosing regimen. In 2023, the US agency added the substance to the list of substances not cleared for use in compounded medicines and removed it again in April 2026; a decision on clearance is pending. For TB-500, the databases mainly return a publication on doping analysis. Both promised effects – tendons, ligaments, gut, wound healing – come from rat and cell models.
The numbers side by side
| Axis | BPC-157 | TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4 Fragment) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human evidenceHow much data in humans, and how good | 1 | 1 | level |
| MechanismHow well the chain of effects is understood | 4 | 4 | level |
| Safety dataHow well safety has been studied – not how safe it is | 2 | 2 | level |
| Hype gap10 means: the marketing stays level with the data | 1 | 1 | level |
| Track record of useHow much documented use in humans exists – does not measure whether it works | 5 | 3 | BPC-157 in use longer |
| Rating | Tested in humans, results unpublished · Not studied in humans | ||
“Track record of use” measures how long and how widely something has been used in humans – not whether it works. The BK-Score is a subjective assessment by Biohacking Kompakt based on published scoring rules. It is not a scientific rating, not the consensus of a professional society and not a medical recommendation.
Why these numbers
BPC-157
The case shows the difference between “never tried in humans” and “tried, result never published”: the Croatian manufacturer Pliva conducted phase II studies (PL-14736) in ulcerative colitis that reportedly showed positive effects without toxicity – the full data were never published as a stand-alone clinical paper and therefore cannot be verified. A phase I study in 42 healthy volunteers (NCT02637284) was terminated in 2016 without results. To this day, no published randomized controlled trial in humans exists for any indication; the reliable data consist of rodent models. Use, by contrast, is real and extensive: in the US, BPC-157 was produced for years in compounding pharmacies and used in sports and rehab practices. In 2023 the FDA placed it in Category 2 due to immunogenicity and impurities and removed it from that category on April 15, 2026. On July 23–24, 2026, an FDA expert panel discussed whether BPC-157 should be permitted for compounded medicines in the US. The FDA’s own reviewers advised against it; the panel nonetheless voted in favor by majority (votes 8:6, 1 abstention). In late October 2026, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced that, for now, it will not take action against compounding pharmacies that prepare BPC-157 under ten conditions. That is not an approval, and the FDA will decide on inclusion in the official list only in a later procedure. For Germany, nothing changes. It is sold as a repair agent for almost every tissue. So the track record of use is considerable – it does not replace the missing evidence.
TB-500 (Thymosin Beta-4 Fragment)
The human data concern thymosin beta-4 in clinical approaches, not the fragment that is sold; controlled studies on the research product are missing. Safety unexplored, marketed as a regeneration miracle cure. Track record of use 3 (previously 4): use is known only from user reports; the FDA found no data on human exposure.
Frequently asked questions
Why are there so many user reports if there are no published studies?
User reports and studies answer different questions. A report cannot separate whether an injury healed because of the peptide or would have healed in that time anyway – that requires a control group. That is exactly what is missing here, at least in published form.
Are the substances legal in Germany?
Neither is an approved medicine. Selling them to consumers with health-related claims can be regarded as unlawfully placing an unapproved medicine on the market. TB-500 is also on the doping prohibited list.
What about combinations such as GLOW or KLOW?
There is no human study on any of these combinations. The selling point is synergy – which is exactly what a combination study would have to show and what has never been measured.
See all ratings in the ranking
Information only, not medical advice and no usage or dosing recommendation. Prescription-only and unapproved substances belong in medical hands.