Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tends to favor health choices he considers natural, whether that means eating “real foods” like meat and vegetables instead of ultra-processed foods, or falsely suggesting that nutrition and vitamins rather than vaccines are the better option for fighting off measles.
But there is at least one area in which the Health Secretary is breaking with his own tradition. He is one of many influential voices in the health and wellness field supporting self-injection of experimental drugs known as peptides, a major concern from mainstream public health experts who warn that these drugs have not been adequately studied for their effectiveness or potential side effects, including a higher risk of cancer.
As demand for peptides increases and self-optimists seek out the drugs on the black and white markets, President Kennedy said on Joe Rogan’s podcast in February that he believed the Food and Drug Administration would take steps to make peptides more available in the coming weeks. This means about 14 drugs will be reclassified so that pharmacies can offer them again after 2023 rule changes under the Biden administration. “I’m a big fan of peptides,” Kennedy said, “I’ve used them myself and had really positive effects on some injuries.”
So what should we make of the apparent disconnect between President Kennedy’s support for unproven peptides and his constant calls for more research into well-studied vaccines? John Kennedy, a professor of health law at American University’s Washington School of Law and author of the 2021 book Choose Your Medicine: Freedom of Therapeutic Choice in Lewis Grossman, author of “America”, said that what appears to be a contradiction is actually a consistent form of medical libertarianism that has long characterized many Americans’ relationship with health. (Grossman cites the popular opposition to vitamin regulation in the 1970s as a classic example.)
“Their goal is not necessarily to block approval of the vaccine in the first place, but rather to eliminate the mandate,” Grossman said. “For me, that’s the other side of the coin: ‘You should be allowed whatever you want.'”
In that sense, the peptide craze is perfectly aligned with the individualistic strains that powered the Make America Healthy Again movement, and an example of how the modern wellness industry continues to capitalize on the American collective belief that there is always a healthier, happier version of yourself that can be optimized.
Health risks of peptides
Synthetic peptides are a broad category of short-chain amino acids that include well-known and well-studied items such as insulin and GLP-1 weight loss drugs. But people throwing the term around today are usually referring to a cluster of new drugs with catchy names like BPC-157, TB-500, and CJC-1295, most of which have relatively little research to back up the booster’s claims to treat injuries and chronic pain, increase muscle mass, slow the aging process, and boost energy.
Kennedy is just one of the many influential people in the health and wellness world who shout their praises. Logan also uses peptides, as do biohacker and Kennedy ally Gary Brecka (who sells peptides through an online shop) and Stanford neurobiologist Andrew Huberman. If you’re an American male who watches content about fitness and health, this podcasting trio has probably heard plenty of recommendations for peptides over the past few years. (Women, including actress and founder of wellness brand Goop Gwyneth Paltrow, are also getting involved in the peptide movement.)
Paul Knopfler, a professor of cell biology and human anatomy at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said in an email that those promoting peptides will say things like, “Thousands of people are taking these peptides, so if they’re dangerous, we should already know.” “This is a big gamble. Signals may not yet be clear about many of the potential risks from peptide use. For example, cancer risks could be seen for another three to five years, or even more.” Most of the data comes from laboratory studies on animals, rather than human trials.
From Croatia to MAHA: How an unapproved drug became the next hot peptide
Cancer risk is one of the concerns frequently cited by researchers. “Growth hormone-related peptides (CJC-1295, ipamorelin, tesamorelin) induce extensive cell proliferation and therefore carry a potential cancer risk,” cardiologist and longevity expert Eric Topol explained in last year’s Substack newsletter.
Other health problems may appear soon. In one case reported by ProPublica, two women were hospitalized in critical condition after receiving peptide injections at a longevity conference in Las Vegas last year. Regulators could not determine whether the disease was caused by the peptide itself or if it had been contaminated.
Contamination is another big concern with drugs purchased on the black and white markets, many of which come from Chinese manufacturers, as well as whether the contents of these tiny vials match what’s on the label. (According to the New York Times, imports of hormone and peptide compounds from China doubled in the first three quarters of 2025 to $328 million.) New York magazine reported that 30% of the peptides tested by startup Finric were “mislabeled, over- or under-dosed, or contaminated with toxins or foreign bacteria.”
A brief history of peptides
Not so long ago, peptides were primarily associated with elite athletes. Researcher Luke Turnock first heard about the drug in the 2010s, when bodybuilders and powerlifters were scouring obscure websites to source drugs to heal injuries and build muscle.
But in 2020, he met a man at the gym who was receiving injections of the peptide BPC-157 to treat tennis elbow. His source: Amazon.
“That’s when I realized this had suddenly become mainstream,” said Turnock, a senior lecturer in criminology at Britain’s Lincoln University. Last year, he published research on the “folk pharmacology” of peptide users in an online forum. (He noted that Amazon has since cleared the injectables on its site, but oral BPC-157 is still available.)
Turlock traces the rise of peptides, which cost hundreds to thousands of dollars a month depending on the specific protocol, to some big changes over the past decade. He said health and wellness influencers became a “huge craze” on social media in the late 2010s, helping spread the word about peptides and their potential benefits to not just hardcore gym-goers, but anyone interested in fitness, anti-aging and wellness.
Sign up for the morning round
Understand how science, health policy, and medicine shape the world every day
On the other hand, GLP-1 weight loss drugs have made people more comfortable with the idea of having needles inserted into their bodies and getting their medications from compounding pharmacies. (The Biden administration made it illegal for compounding pharmacies to sell 19 types of peptides in 2023, a rule that President Kennedy is trying to change, but they can still sell other types.) The COVID-19 pandemic also helped popularize self-experimentation with drugs, as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin emerged as alternative (but ultimately ineffective) ways to fight the virus.
But while some people look for peptides to treat specific issues like low energy or inflammation, they’re also sold as a way for physically curious people to see how much better they feel. “They’re trying to sell the idea that if you take this, you’ll be better,” Turlock said.
He said the people pursuing this route are those engaging in the potentially riskier practice of stacking multiple drugs on top of each other, which can interact in unknown ways. One well-known example is the combination of the healing peptides BPC-157 and TB-500, known as the “Wolverine stack” after the X-Men superhero known for his ability to regenerate body parts and recover from gunshot wounds in seconds. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency banned BPC-157 in 2022, saying it “has not been approved for clinical use in humans by any global regulatory agency and may result in adverse health effects.” And Topol points out that animal studies have shown that TB-500 promotes the growth of dormant tumors.
Peptides and the right to self-determination
Part of the appeal of what Knopfler calls “pop peptides” is the promise of autonomy. With the right combination of medicines, along with proper nutrition and exercise, you can create optimal health for yourself.
This do-it-yourself mentality goes hand in hand with a tendency to prioritize anecdotal experience, such as “people at the gym taking BPC-157 and never having any problems,” over clinical trials and other research, he said. This helps explain why warnings about the potential risks of peptides may not resonate if people don’t share their negative experiences on Reddit, while unfounded fears about a link between vaccines and autism can quickly gain attention when posted by anxious mothers on social media.
Another piece of work that adheres to this stance is the “right to try” philosophy summarized last year by physician Gabriel Lyon, whose fan base largely overlaps with the MAHA movement, while discussing peptides on celebrity fitness trainer Jillian Michaels’ podcast. “I believe people should have bodily autonomy. … They should be able to make choices, as long as it doesn’t come across as ‘hurting’ them.”
The question, of course, is whether peptides can actually harm humans, but there isn’t enough research yet to make a definitive claim. But calculating the risks and benefits of the right to try also depends on the circumstances, Knopfler said. It’s another thing for people to take on unknown risks when dealing with a serious, often terminal illness. Another when you are in generally stable health. But under the Kennedy administration, he said, “FDA is in the strange position of still having to do its job of properly enforcing regulations and laws, while also soon having to open the door to unproven things like peptides and stem cells.”
To be clear, Kennedy did not completely dismiss all concerns about peptides. “They’re still looking into the science,” he told Logan. He suggested that the main motivation for distributing the 14 peptides, which are currently off-limits, to pharmacies is to improve the quality of the products people are using.
Prior to the Biden administration’s decision in 2023, Kennedy said, “pharmacies were getting their peptides from FDA-inspected facilities, including facilities in India and China.” Peptides offered on the black and white market, on the other hand, are “very substandard.”
STAT Plus: President Kennedy paves the way for a flood of wellness companies in white coats
Therefore, it is true that peptide reclassification could help clean up the supply. But Grossman said the logic could stall if expanded too broadly. “If we applied that argument more generally, it would prevent the government from banning almost any substance that people widely demand.”
Although health experts like Knopfler remain unconvinced by the harm-reduction argument for making peptides more available, changing the FDA’s position could help Department of Health leadership’s attempts to brand the agency as pro-innovation and anti-bureaucracy. It would also counteract the perception among many peptide users that “the FDA doesn’t really care about patients. All they care about is whether this will benefit big pharma,” Turnock said. And it would give peptides an aura of legitimacy that even proponents admit they currently lack, as implied by Huberman’s recent post about X, which claimed it “came in the form of a supplement” but was “more like a drug.”
“I predict that peptides will change the entire public health conversation about health and disease,” Huberman said.
Regardless of what studies ultimately show about their risks and benefits, peptides are already changing one thing. That’s unproven potential, one vial at a time.
STAT’s chronic health coverage is supported by a grant from. bloomberg philanthropy. our financial supporter It has no role in any of our journalism decisions.
