---
slug: wolverine-stack
title: The Wolverine stack: BPC-157 and TB-500, the evidence, the dosing arithmetic and the eight-week cost
canonical: https://miscsubjects.com/a/wolverine-stack
---

The Wolverine stack is two compounds taken at the same time: BPC-157 and TB-500. People run it after a tendon tear, a bad shoulder, a knee that will not settle, a disc that has been hurting for months. The reason they are run together is not that one is stronger. It is that each one is proposed to fix a different step of the same repair job, so the argument goes that they should not overlap.

The evidence state, up front. No controlled study has ever given both compounds to a person, in any condition, so the number of people who have taken the pair under measurement is nought. Separately the two are not equal. BPC-157 has five published human studies covering about 130 people, and not one of them is a finished controlled trial in a torn or worn tissue. The seven-amino-acid fragment sold as TB-500 has no human study at all and no established human dose. Two entries appeared on ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2026, filed by the same sponsor, Hudson Biotech: NCT07437547, a 120-person randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled hamstring trial marked recruiting, and NCT07487363, which names TB-500 and whose own public summary states that it is a fictional example of a registry record. Neither has reported anything, and a registry filing is not a result. The animal record behind the pairing is rats, mice and rabbits — roughly 150 animal papers for BPC-157, a much smaller tendon and wound literature for the fragment — and the one experiment that ever put both compounds into the same rats found the combination beat neither compound on its own. What has never been measured in a person: the pair, at any dose, in any tissue, for any length of time.

One disclosure, because it should change how you read the rest. The operator of this site has a commercial interest in compounds described here. That is a reason to weigh what is on this page against the sources it cites rather than against its tone, and every claim below carries the source that supports it for exactly that reason.

This page sets out what each step is, how good the evidence is for each, what happened the one time somebody put both compounds into the same animals, what a run costs to the dollar, and what forty people who tried it wrote down afterwards.

## Two compounds aimed at two different steps of the same repair

Damaged tendon, ligament and disc all repair in the same order. Blood has to reach the damaged spot. Repair cells have to crawl in from the surrounding tissue. Those cells have to lay down new collagen in ordered fibres rather than a random scar. Each step gates the next.

BPC-157 is proposed to act on the first step. In animals it grows new blood vessels into damaged tissue, mostly by switching on a growth signal called VEGF and the nitric-oxide system that widens vessels.

TB-500 is proposed to act on the second. It is a seven-amino-acid piece of a natural protein, thymosin beta-4, and the piece it copies is the part that grabs actin — the protein filament a cell builds and dismantles to change shape and crawl. Bind actin, and the cell's crawling machinery is freed up. A cell that cannot rebuild its own internal skeleton cannot move into a wound at all.

That is the whole logic of the pairing. One opens the supply line, the other moves the workforce down it. Nothing in the pairing addresses a torn fibre mechanically, and nothing in it dissolves a bulged disc.

[[embed:bpc-157]]

[[embed:tb-500]]

## The bottleneck in tendon, ligament and disc is blood, and both compounds are aimed at it

A muscle bruise heals in weeks. A tendon takes months. A spinal disc, in an adult, barely heals at all. The difference is blood supply. Muscle is dense with vessels. Tendon has few. The centre of an adult disc has none — nutrients cross in by seeping through the cartilage end plates, which themselves stiffen and calcify with age.

That single fact is why both compounds are attractive on paper for these tissues and why neither has been shown to work in them. A drug aimed at growing vessels into a structure that has almost no vessels is aimed at the real rate-limiting step. It is also aimed at the hardest possible target, and the harder the target, the more the argument needs measurements rather than mechanism.

## What each one is proposed to build back, and what would prove it wrong

| Compound | What it is proposed to do, in plain words | Strongest evidence behind that | What it adds that the other does not | What would prove it wrong |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BPC-157 | Grow new blood vessels into damaged tissue and keep the repair cells there alive, so the site gets oxygen and raw material | Rat Achilles tendon torn off the bone and reattached came back mechanically stronger; cut ligament, crushed muscle and severed muscle-tendon join all healed faster than controls | The supply line. TB-500 does not act on the vessel-growth signal | A controlled animal study measuring blood vessel counts at the injury site showing no difference against control, or a human trial in tendon pain showing no separation from placebo |
| TB-500 | Free up the internal scaffolding cells use to crawl, so repair cells reach the wound and lay ordered fibres rather than scar | Rat Achilles repair, 8 animals per arm, four weeks: higher load to failure than control (p < 0.05), better tissue score (p = 0.016), most ordered collagen of any arm under stain | The workforce. BPC-157 does not bind actin | A study measuring cell arrival at the wound showing no increase, or the same tendon model repeated at a larger size with no strength difference |
| The pair together | Both steps at once, on the theory that a supply line without workers and workers without a supply line each stall | One study, in rats, found the combination did not beat either compound alone | Nothing that has been measured | Already partly answered — see the section below |

The evidence grade is the same for both compounds and it is worth naming plainly: controlled animal experiments in the target tissue, no controlled human experiment in any tissue that hurts.

## The strongest single-compound results, best first

| Rank | Finding | Species and model | Numbers | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TB-500 raised maximum load to failure in a repaired Achilles tendon | Rat, tendon cut across and stitched, four weeks | 32 rats, 8 per arm, 60 µg/kg/day into the belly cavity, p < 0.05 | The only controlled measurement of mechanical strength for either compound in a repaired tendon |
| 2 | BPC-157 healed a tendon torn off the bone | Rat, Achilles detached from the heel bone | Faster reattachment and greater strength than control | The structural claim in the tissue people buy it for |
| 3 | BPC-157 sped recovery of a cut sciatic nerve | Rat, nerve cut and repaired | Faster return of function than control | The closest thing to a nerve result either compound has |
| 4 | BPC-157 improved recovery after spinal cord injury | Rat, PMID 31266512 | Better function than control, sustained | Shows the compound reaches and acts on nervous tissue given by mouth or by injection away from the site |
| 5 | Full-length thymosin beta-4 healed a cut knee ligament | Rat, ligament cut, 1 µg placed in the gap in fibrin glue | Uniform fibre bundles, significantly greater mechanical strength | The ligament result — but with the full 43-amino-acid protein, placed in the wound, not the 7-amino-acid fragment injected into fat |
| 6 | Thymosin beta-4 closed skin wounds faster | Rat, full-thickness wound | Surface regrown 42% faster at four days, 61% at seven; more collagen, more vessels | The original result the whole thymosin beta-4 literature rests on |

Rows 5 and 6 carry a caveat that changes how they read. They used full-length thymosin beta-4, a 43-amino-acid protein. What is sold as TB-500 is a 7-amino-acid piece of it, residues 17 to 23, with the front end capped. The two are not the same molecule, and FDA wrote that distinction down in July 2026. Reading a full-length result onto a fragment vial is the single most common error in this area.

Three separate orthopaedic and sports medicine reviews published in 2026 — in Sports Medicine, in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, and in the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons — went through this same literature independently and reached the same place: the animal record is real, the human record is not there, and the products on sale are unregulated.

[[embed:source:s34]]

[[embed:source:s35]]

## Somebody finally put both in the same rats, and the pair beat neither one alone

In July 2026 a Turkish orthopaedic group published the only experiment that has ever tested BPC-157 and TB-500 together against each one alone. Biçer and colleagues, in Joint Diseases and Related Surgery, PMID 42542926.

The design, in full: 32 rats, Achilles tendon cut across and surgically repaired, then four weeks of daily injection into the belly cavity, split into four groups of eight — nothing, BPC-157 at 10 µg/kg/day, TB-500 at 60 µg/kg/day, or both together. Outcomes were maximum load to failure on a testing machine, plus two scored measures of tissue quality read under a microscope by people blinded to the group.

The results:

- TB-500 alone raised maximum load to failure against control, p < 0.05.
- TB-500 alone improved the Bonar tissue score, p = 0.016, and the Movin score, p = 0.017.
- Under a collagen stain, the TB-500 group had the most ordered type I collagen fibres.
- BPC-157 alone came out numerically better than control and did not reach significance on total scores.
- The combination, in the authors' own words, "did not confer additional benefits compared to either agent alone."

That is the sentence the stack has to survive. Two compounds sold as a pair, tested as a pair for the first time, and the pair was no better than the better of the two.

The authors' reading is that the two probably converge on shared downstream machinery — that once the repair programme is running, pushing it from two directions does not push it further.

[[embed:source:s1]]

## Four reasons that one experiment does not close the question

Each of these is a real experiment somebody could run, not a hedge.

**One tissue.** The test was a surgically repaired Achilles tendon in a rat. Tendon has some blood supply. The place the stack is most often aimed at — a spinal disc — has almost none, and the argument for BPC-157 is specifically about growing vessels where there are none. The measurement that would answer this: run the same four-arm design in a disc model, or in a tissue with a poorer blood supply than tendon.

**One dose level each.** BPC-157 got 10 µg/kg/day, TB-500 got 60 µg/kg/day, and nothing else was tried. If either compound's effect rises and then falls as the dose goes up — which is normal for signalling peptides and which the ARA-290 human trials actually showed, where 4 mg worked and 8 mg did not — then a single dose pair tests one point on a surface, not the surface. The measurement: a dose grid, three levels of each compound, nine combination arms.

**A possible ceiling.** TB-500 alone already reached significance on strength and on both tissue scores. If a stitched rat tendon at four weeks heals about as well as that model allows, then a combination has no room left to show a difference, and a null result means the ruler ran out, not that the second compound is inert. The measurement: repeat with a harder injury — a larger gap, a delayed repair, or an older animal — so the control arm heals badly and there is space above it.

**Four weeks.** Dosing and measurement both stopped at four weeks. Collagen in a healing tendon keeps remodelling for months, and the ordered-fibre finding is exactly the sort of thing that could diverge later. The measurement: the same design read at twelve and twenty-four weeks.

None of those four is an argument that the combination works. They are the reasons the single null result does not settle it, and each one names the study that would.

## The experiment that would settle it

A single trial would answer more than everything above. Take a tendon or ligament injury model with a poor blood supply and a control arm that heals badly. Run four arms at three dose levels each — nothing, BPC-157, TB-500, both — with 15 to 20 animals per arm rather than 8, dosed under the skin rather than into the belly cavity, because under the skin is how humans take it. Measure load to failure, blood vessel counts at the wound, and ordered collagen, at four weeks and at sixteen. Pre-register the dose grid.

That study costs a fraction of one human trial and nobody has run it.

Nothing has ever tested three of these compounds together, in any species, at any dose. Adding ARA-290 to this pair for nerve pain is set out separately, and the three-compound combination has zero experimental record of any kind.

[[embed:wolverine-stack-ara-290]]

## No person has ever been given this pair in a controlled study

Here is that fact as one row, with what does exist beside it.

| Question | Answer | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Controlled human trial of BPC-157 and TB-500 together | None, in any condition | Registry and literature searches return nothing |
| Controlled human trial of TB-500 alone by injection | None, by any route | FDA's July 2026 review states it has found no human exposure data for products containing the fragment |
| Controlled human trial of BPC-157 | Five studies exist; the largest musculoskeletal one is a telephone survey | Published record |
| Human trials of full-length thymosin beta-4 | Yes — eye drops for dry eye and for corneal damage, topical gel for pressure sores | These are surface applications of a different molecule |
| Human dose that has ever been established for either | None | No dose-finding study exists for either compound in a person |

[[embed:source:s3]]

## Two registry entries were filed in February 2026, and one of them says it is a made-up example

That last table has a date on it. As of 4 August 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov holds two entries naming these compounds. Both were filed by the same sponsor, Hudson Biotech, both give a start date in the first week of February 2026, and both are marked recruiting. Read that for what it is. A registry entry is a filing by the sponsor. Nobody at the registry checks it, and neither entry has posted a result.

| Trial | Compound | People | Design | What it measures | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT07437547 | BPC-157 | 120 planned | Phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled. Grade II hamstring strain confirmed on MRI. Injection under the skin, once daily for 14 days, given by study staff | Days until return to unrestricted sport, at 8 weeks; and change in injury volume on MRI at day 14, read by radiologists who do not know the group | Started 2 February 2026 |
| NCT07487363 | TB-500 | 80 planned | Phase 1/2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stepped dose escalation. Adults with stable atherosclerotic heart disease | Side events at 12 weeks, serious events at 28 days, plus how the body absorbs and clears it | Started 5 February 2026 |

[[embed:source:s2]]

Now read the second row against its own record. The public summary of NCT07487363 opens: "This fictional study is an example of a ClinicalTrials.gov-style record." Its dose field says the levels "are not provided in this public example." That entry is a template, not a trial, and any page citing it as proof that TB-500 is being tested in people is citing a placeholder. The same sponsor filed eight entries of this shape between 2 and 15 February 2026 — covering BPC-157, TB-500, GHK-Cu, MOTS-c, melanotan II, tesamorelin, tirzepatide and retatrutide, one study site each — and that is the company the first row keeps.

The first row is the one that would matter. NCT07437547 has an imaging endpoint read by people who do not know who got what, which would make it the first study capable of saying whether BPC-157 changes the size of a real injury in a real person. Its listed site is Peking University Shenzhen Hospital.

Neither entry tests the pair. Neither enrols anyone with a back problem. And a filing is not a finding: until NCT07437547 posts results, the number of randomised human results for either compound in a torn tissue stays at zero.

## Forty people wrote down what happened to them, and here is the tally

Self-reports are not evidence of whether a compound works. They are evidence of what happens to people who take it, which is a different and still useful thing — it is where side effects, dose ranges and failure rates show up first, years before anybody runs a trial.

Forty reports were counted. The rule for counting: the person had to state an outcome for themselves. Commentary about the compounds, dosing instructions with no result attached, and posts written mid-run before any outcome were excluded — sixteen entries were dropped on that rule.

| Outcome | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Said it helped | 21 | 52.5% |
| Said nothing changed | 15 | 37.5% |
| Said something got worse | 4 | 10% |
| **Total counted** | **40** | |

Every one of these is anecdotal. None was blinded, none had a control, and people who get a result post more readily than people who do not, so the true no-effect share is almost certainly higher than 37.5%.

### The twenty-one who said it helped

[[embed:source:s4]]

[[embed:source:s5]]

[[embed:source:s6]]

[[embed:source:s7]]

[[embed:source:s8]]

[[embed:source:s9]]

[[embed:source:s10]]

[[embed:source:s11]]

[[embed:source:s12]]

[[embed:source:s13]]

[[embed:source:s14]]

That last one is worth its own line. Pain that vanishes in days and returns within days of stopping is the signature of something calming irritation, not of something rebuilding a tendon. Rebuilt tissue does not un-rebuild in a week. Several of the fast-relief reports fit that shape better than they fit a repair story.

The remaining ten in this group: u/DifficultReach2720 (foot, "basically fully healed" at three months), u/NoInvestigator7249 (elbow, range of motion back to 100%), u/frequentflyernine11 (wrist, close to previous strength after seven vials, still minor pain), u/sdBiotch ("not a miracle by any means but I can improve mobility"), u/SanketJ1986 (pain down in the treated arm, no change in the other), u/Quacka-moo ("It has helped a bit but I expected more"), @drmarlonperalta (ten years of low back pain from a herniated disc, "a 6-week cycle removed this distraction permanently"), @AJA_Cortes (L5-S1 flare, oral BPC-157 at 2,000 mcg a day, pain free in seven days, and his own comment was "maybe, maybe not — I'm always open to possibility of placebo"), @Breedlove22 (ran both, credited the pair), and @mindpumpsal.
[[embed:source:s15]]

[[embed:source:s16]]

### The fifteen who said nothing changed

[[embed:source:s17]]

[[embed:source:s18]]

[[embed:source:s19]]

[[embed:source:s20]]

[[embed:source:s21]]

[[embed:source:s22]]

[[embed:source:s23]]

[[embed:source:s24]]

[[embed:source:s25]]

The other six: u/Dizzy-Breakfast-9405 (a month, thoracic pain, no results), u/kayfab (capsules, ligament, nothing), u/Acrobatic-Car3352 (nine days into a blend, Achilles, no changes), u/forsaken3400 (day 5, shoulder, nothing beyond possibly better sleep), u/mite189 (the tear did not heal faster; recovery came with prescribed isometric work), u/mudra311 (elbow, "I felt better before the BPC as well").

### The four who got a new problem

[[embed:source:s26]]

[[embed:source:s27]]

[[embed:source:s28]]

[[embed:source:s29]]

Two of those four describe swelling or fluid at or near the treated site, and both compounds are proposed to grow blood vessels, which is a mechanism that would produce exactly that. The blurred vision report has no mechanism attached to it and no follow-up.

### What the tally can and cannot decide

It cannot decide whether the compounds work. Half a sample reporting improvement in a condition where most soft-tissue injuries improve on their own over the same weeks is what a completely inert substance would also produce.

It can decide four things. First, roughly one person in ten reports a new problem, and that number belongs in any decision. Second, the doses in real use cluster at 250 to 500 mcg a day for BPC-157, which is well below the milligram doses in every human study of BPC-157 that has been published. Third, the fast-relief-then-relapse pattern is common enough to suggest that much of what people feel is irritation settling rather than tissue rebuilding. Fourth, the failures are specific and repeated — several people ran it three separate times with nothing to show.

## Twelve of the forty ran both compounds, not one

The tally above mixes people who took BPC-157 alone with people who ran the pair. Splitting out only those who explicitly ran both:

| Outcome | Count |
|---|---|
| Helped | 6 |
| Nothing changed | 4 |
| Something got worse | 2 |
| **Total** | **12** |

Six helped out of twelve, against twenty-one out of forty in the whole set. Twelve people is far too small to compare against anything, and a 50% versus 52.5% gap means nothing at that size. What the split does show is that no signal jumps out in favour of running both, which is the same direction the rat study pointed.

## Turning a vial of powder into marks on a syringe

Both compounds ship as a dry white powder in a sealed glass vial, usually 5, 10 or 20 mg. You add bacteriostatic water — sterile water with 0.9% benzyl alcohol in it as a preservative, which is what makes it safe to put a needle into the same vial repeatedly. Plain sterile water works chemically but has no preservative, so it is a one-entry proposition.

The dosing tool is a U-100 insulin syringe. U-100 means 100 marks per millilitre, so one mark is 0.01 mL. Two lines of arithmetic give you everything:

- Concentration in mcg per mL = total mcg in the vial ÷ mL of water added.
- Mcg per mark = concentration ÷ 100.

Worked all the way through, for a 10 mg vial with 2 mL of water:

1. 10 mg = 10,000 mcg.
2. 10,000 mcg ÷ 2 mL = 5,000 mcg per mL.
3. 5,000 ÷ 100 = 50 mcg per mark.
4. A 500 mcg dose = 500 ÷ 50 = 10 marks = 0.10 mL.

| Vial | Water added | Concentration | Mcg per mark | 250 mcg | 500 mcg | 1 mg | 2.5 mg | Doses per vial at 500 mcg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 mg | 1.0 mL | 5,000 mcg/mL | 50 | 5 marks | 10 marks | 20 marks | 50 marks | 10 |
| 5 mg | 2.0 mL | 2,500 mcg/mL | 25 | 10 marks | 20 marks | 40 marks | 100 marks | 10 |
| 10 mg | 2.0 mL | 5,000 mcg/mL | 50 | 5 marks | 10 marks | 20 marks | 50 marks | 20 |
| 10 mg | 3.0 mL | 3,333 mcg/mL | 33.3 | 7.5 marks | 15 marks | 30 marks | 75 marks | 20 |
| 20 mg | 4.0 mL | 5,000 mcg/mL | 50 | 5 marks | 10 marks | 20 marks | 50 marks | 40 |

Adding more water does not change how much compound is in the vial. It changes only how many marks carry a dose. Below about five marks the graduations on a U-100 barrel are too close together to read reliably, which is the practical argument for the more dilute fills when the dose is small.

Handling that ruins the peptide is easy to do by accident. Bring the vial to room temperature first. Run the water slowly down the inside wall rather than squirting it onto the powder. Swirl until clear, never shake — shaking a peptide solution tears the molecules apart at the air-water boundary and makes them clump, and clumping is the exact mechanism FDA named when it raised the risk that the immune system reacts to these products.

Once water is in, a vial keeps about four weeks in a fridge at 2–8 °C. That is the preservative's specification, not a stability measurement on these peptides — nobody has run one. Do not freeze a reconstituted vial; freezing and thawing makes short peptides clump.

## A full day of both compounds, in marks and millilitres

Two common daily patterns, both at 5,000 mcg/mL:

| Pattern | BPC-157 | TB-500 | Total volume | Injections per day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both daily, low | 500 mcg = 10 marks = 0.10 mL | 500 mcg = 10 marks = 0.10 mL | 0.20 mL | 2 |
| BPC daily, TB twice weekly | 500 mcg = 10 marks = 0.10 mL | 2.5 mg = 50 marks = 0.50 mL, Monday and Thursday | 0.10 mL most days, 0.60 mL twice a week | 1, or 2 twice a week |

Do not mix the two in one syringe. They have different concentrations, different volumes and different schedules, and combining them makes every future dose adjustment guesswork.

Where the needle goes was never resolved by the animal work, because the animals were dosed into the belly cavity or by drinking water, almost never at a site chosen to be near an injury. Several of the strongest structural results in rats — cut ligament, muscle torn off bone, spinal cord — came from animals drinking the compound in water and still repairing a specific distant injury. There is no head-to-head study showing an injection near the injury beats an injection into abdominal fat.

## Eight weeks of materials, priced with the arithmetic shown

Prices below are from one named research-chemical vendor, Nationwide Peptides, read on 4 August 2026. They publish a range across vial sizes rather than a per-size price, so the two endpoints are what can be quoted exactly.

- BPC-157: $42.00 for the smallest listed size (5 mg), $63.00 for the largest (20 mg).
- TB-500: $38.00 for the smallest listed size (5 mg), $61.00 for the largest (10 mg).

[[embed:source:s30]]

Eight weeks is 56 days. The arithmetic:

**BPC-157 at 500 mcg a day.** 56 days × 500 mcg = 28,000 mcg = 28 mg.
- Buying 5 mg vials: 6 vials (30 mg) × $42 = **$252**. Cost per day = $252 ÷ 56 = **$4.50**.
- Buying 20 mg vials: 2 vials (40 mg) × $63 = **$126**. Cost per day = $126 ÷ 56 = **$2.25**. Twelve milligrams get discarded, because a 20 mg vial at 500 mcg a day is 40 doses and a reconstituted vial only lasts about 28 days. Even throwing that away, the big vial is half the price of the small ones.

**TB-500 at 500 mcg a day.** 28 mg over the run. 3 × 10 mg vials × $61 = **$183**. Cost per day = **$3.27**. A 10 mg vial at 500 mcg a day is 20 doses, which fits inside the four-week window with nothing wasted.

**TB-500 at 2.5 mg twice a week.** 5 mg a week × 8 = 40 mg. 4 × 10 mg vials × $61 = **$244**. Cost per day = **$4.36**. Each vial is 4 doses, so exactly two weeks per vial.

**Consumables.** Bacteriostatic water, insulin syringes, alcohol swabs: about $30 for a run at retail.

| What is run | Eight-week materials | Per day |
|---|---|---|
| BPC-157 alone, 500 mcg/day, 20 mg vials | $126 + $30 = **$156** | $2.79 |
| TB-500 alone, 500 mcg/day | $183 + $30 = **$213** | $3.80 |
| Both, 500 mcg/day each, cheapest vial sizes | $126 + $183 + $30 = **$339** | $6.05 |
| Both, 500 mcg/day each, smallest vial sizes | $252 + $183 + $30 = **$465** | $8.30 |
| Both, BPC daily + TB 2.5 mg twice weekly | $126 + $244 + $30 = **$400** | $7.14 |

Adding the second compound to a BPC-157-only run costs $183 over eight weeks and doubles the injections. That is the price of the only thing the pairing buys, and the one experiment that measured whether it buys anything found that it did not.

None of these prices buys a verified product. There is no pharmacy channel for either compound, no monograph, and no requirement on any vendor to be accurate. A batch-specific purity test and mass-spectrometry identity report is the only thing standing between a buyer and a vial of something else, and at least one of the reports above — the man who ran 10 mg with no result and wondered whether his source was fake — is exactly that failure mode.

## Twelve weeks with a torn rotator cuff, hour by hour and dollar by dollar

One case, walked all the way through, with the numbers attached and the failure conditions written down before the start.

**Week 0 — what exists.** Partial-thickness rotator cuff tear confirmed on MRI. Pain 6/10 overhead, 2/10 at rest. Cannot sleep on that side. MRI already done: $400–$1,800 cash, $250–$400 typical Medicare allowable, 1 hour. Four things get written down as the baseline, because a result nobody measured is a result nobody has: pain overhead on a 0–10 scale, degrees of pain-free overhead reach measured against a doorframe, nights woken per week, and heaviest weight pressed overhead for five reps.

**Weeks 1–12 — the part that actually has evidence.** Progressive loading, twice a week with a therapist for the first six weeks then once. 18 visits at $75–$150 = $1,350–$2,700, about 18 clinic hours plus 20 hours of home work. This is the arm of the plan with randomised human trials behind it, and it is also the largest line in both the money column and the hours column. Anything else is added on top of it, never instead of it.

**Weeks 1–8 — the compounds, if they are run.** BPC-157 500 mcg a day and TB-500 500 mcg a day, into abdominal fat. Materials $339. Time: about 4 minutes a day for two injections, 56 days, so 3.7 hours over the run, plus roughly 20 minutes total spent reconstituting five vials.

**Week 4 — first decision point.** The stopping rule, set in advance: if nights woken per week has not fallen at all by week 4 and pain-free overhead reach has not gained at least 10 degrees, the compounds stop. That is not a strict test — a rotator cuff on a good loading programme improves over four weeks anyway — but a run showing zero movement on both measures at four weeks has failed its own premise. Money saved by stopping there: $170.

**Week 8 — second decision point.** Compounds end regardless. Both measures are read again. Anything that has improved from here belongs to the loading programme, which is running either way, and that is the point of ending the run while therapy continues — it separates the two.

**Week 12 — the state at the end.** Running total: $1,350–$2,700 in physical therapy, $339 in materials, $400–$1,800 for the MRI, so **$2,089 to $4,839**. Patient time: about 42 hours. The expected result on the loading programme alone, from the trial literature, is substantial improvement in pain and function in most partial-thickness tears at twelve weeks without surgery. The compounds cannot be credited for that, because a single person running one arm cannot separate a treatment from the natural course. What one person can learn is whether they got a side effect, whether they tolerated it, and what it cost.

**What would count as failure.** No change on either baseline measure at week 4. A new problem — swelling, worsening pain in an untreated joint, anything visual. Or pain that improves during the run and returns within two weeks of stopping, which points at irritation settling rather than tissue rebuilt.

## In United States law neither one is a medicine

Neither BPC-157 nor TB-500 is an approved medicine in the United States. Neither is banned outright either. Both sit in a specific and awkward place, and the FDA page that defines it is public.

Both appear on FDA's list of bulk drug substances "nominated but withdrawn" — substances that were put forward for use in compounded medicines, placed in the agency's category 2 for possible significant safety risks, and then pulled by whoever nominated them. FDA's stated concerns, in its own words, are that compounded products containing BPC-157 "may pose risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration" and that for the thymosin beta-4 fragment "FDA has not identified any human exposure data" and "lacks important information regarding any safety issues raised by this drug, including whether it would cause harm if administered to humans."

[[embed:source:s31]]

What follows from that, in plain terms:

- No pharmacy can lawfully compound either one. Neither is on the 503A list that traditional compounding pharmacies work from, nor the 503B list that outsourcing facilities work from.
- On 23–24 July 2026 FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted 8–6, with one abstention, in favour of allowing BPC-157 and TB-500 to be compounded, against FDA's own written recommendation. That vote is advice. It does not bind FDA, it does not make either an approved drug, and the rulemaking it triggers realistically takes eight to twelve months.
- "Research use only" on a vial is a shipping label, not a legal category that makes anything safe or lawful to inject.

[[embed:source:s32]]

## Both are banned in tested sport, at all times

Anyone who competes under anti-doping rules — collegiate, professional, masters, national federation, Olympic pathway — is exposed, and so is anyone serving in the United States military.

- BPC-157 is named in the WADA 2026 Prohibited List under S0, non-approved substances, prohibited at all times, in and out of competition.
- TB-500 is named under S2.3, growth factors, as "Thymosin-ß4 and its derivatives e.g. TB-500", also prohibited at all times, in the harsher non-specified tier.
- The S2.3 catch-all covers substances affecting "muscle, tendon or ligament protein synthesis/degradation, vascularisation, energy utilization, regenerative capacity" — the exact reason someone would take either one is written into the prohibition.
- Strict liability applies. Intent does not matter, and who recommended it does not matter. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport imposed a four-year ban on an athlete for exactly this pair.
- Sanctions can be imposed with no positive test at all, on an admission, a possession finding, or a purchase record.
- The Department of Defense lists BPC-157 on its prohibited supplement ingredients list and states plainly that it is not a dietary ingredient, it is an unapproved drug.

[[embed:source:s33]]

Off-season use is a violation. There is no window in which either compound is allowed.

## What is solid, what is a guess, and what nobody knows

**Solid.**
- TB-500 raised the breaking strength of a repaired rat Achilles tendon against control, 8 animals per arm, four weeks, p < 0.05.
- BPC-157 improved healing in rat tendon-to-bone, ligament, muscle, sciatic nerve and spinal cord models, across many separate experiments from largely one research group.
- Tested head to head in rats, the combination beat neither compound alone.
- Neither is an approved medicine, neither is lawfully compoundable, and both are banned in tested sport at all times.
- Doses in real use are 250 to 500 mcg a day, well below every published human dose of BPC-157, which were all milligram doses.

**A guess.**
- That any rat dose translates to a human dose. Scaling the standard rat dose of 10 µg/kg straight to a 70 kg adult gives about 0.7 mg a day, roughly twice what most people take.
- That injecting near the injury beats injecting into abdominal fat. Nothing has compared them.
- That the vial contains what the label says. Nothing requires it to.
- That the two compounds are worth running together. One experiment says no, and it has the limits set out above.

**Nobody knows.**
- What either compound does in a person over months. The longest human exposure on record for BPC-157 is two weeks in a Phase 1 study.
- Whether the immune system reacts to repeated injections of either. FDA named this as its specific concern and no one has measured it.
- What happens if either is taken by someone with an undiagnosed cancer. Both are proposed to grow blood vessels, which is also what a tumour needs, and thymosin beta-4 is overexpressed in many solid tumours.
- Whether the fragment sold as TB-500 does anything the full protein does, outside the one rat tendon study.

For the version of this stack aimed at a worn disc and nerve pain, with ARA-290 added for the nerve itself, the mechanism table, the evidence grades and the three-compound arithmetic are set out separately.

[[embed:wolverine-stack-ara-290]]

[[embed:what-are-peptides-herniated-disc]]

[[embed:degenerative-disc-disease]]

[[embed:ara-290]]

