I thought this might be right up your alley to discuss @Anthony Castore . I am seeing the topic pick up again about why you should avoid BPC/TB due to possible increase in cancer likelihood. I can't tell if this is all just fear mongering or not. There doesn't appear to be any evidence regarding this outside of referencing a mouse study that was done: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In most solid tumors studied in mice, including fibrosarcoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colon cancer, and glioblastoma, TB4 overexpression promotes tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One person is stating that since BPC up-regulates VEGF, this would be a pathway towards cancer development (below is what they posted). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VEGF is historically a promoting factor in oncological aspects rather than causative, but this isn't the only concern. VEGF was originally named "vascular permeability factor" for a reason. It opens gaps between endothelial cells, letting plasma proteins and fluid leak into the interstitial space. Off-target stimulation means edema in tissues that don't need increased perfusion. The problem is that VEGF receptors sit on endothelial cells throughout the entire body, not just in the tissue you're trying to help. So if VEGF reaches non-target tissues, several things go wrong. It can produce off-target angiogenesis, meaning new blood vessel growth where you do not want it. That can produce abnormal, fragile, leaky vessels rather than healthy functional ones. VEGF also increases vascular permeability, so tissue can become swollen or edematous. PMID: 35969170, 20400620

Every industry has defining moments the ones that separate hype from principle and reveal who’s truly here for the long game. This is one of those moments for ours, and I want to be completely transparent about where we stand. Biomed Industries is the company credited with discovering Bioglutide (NA-931) and developing it as a next-generation GLP-based compound. Our raw materials came from the same supplier Biomed reportedly uses. Recently, serious accusations have surfaced against Biomed claims of fraudulent data, lack of publicly verifiable sequence information, and the absence of a disclosed CAS number or molecular structure. The accuser has raised valid scientific concerns that deserve to be addressed. At the same time, these allegations are new, and Biomed has not yet had the opportunity to publicly respond. That’s why we are pausing not panicking. Even in moments like this, our safeguards remain strong. We can fully document purity through HPLC and LC-MS, confirm sterility and endotoxin levels, and provide verified Certificates of Analysis. However, without a public reference structure or sequence, no lab including ours can confirm 100% molecular identity. We can verify that a compound is clean, sterile, and potent, but we can’t compare it to a molecule that’s never been fully published. To give some context, CB4211 is a great example of how innovation often moves faster than public documentation. This compound, developed for mitochondrial health and metabolic optimization, has been prescribed by physicians and compounded by pharmacies despite its structure, sequence, and CAS never being publicly released. That doesn’t make it ineffective or illegitimate it simply illustrates that, just like Bioglutide, the available data can only go so far. In both cases, these products are sourced, tested, and manufactured to the highest standards, with thorough purity and safety testing but without full structural transparency. That means identity and uniqueness are established through trust, testing, and outcomes rather than public disclosure. For all we know, CB4211 could be a more advanced form or reformulated analog of MOTS-c—or perhaps just a more expensive version under a new label. Until formal sequencing or patent releases are made public, no one can say for sure. This doesn’t discredit its value; it simply reminds us that in early-stage biotech, certainty often trails behind discovery. That’s why rigorous testing, ethical sourcing, and open communication about what is known and what isn’t are so vital.

Peptides are often treated like supplements you can stack for convenience. One for repair, one for metabolism, one for inflammation. That mindset leads people to assume they can simply mix peptides in the same syringe and inject once. The problem is peptides are not pills. They are fragile, information-carrying molecules whose behavior is governed by physics, chemistry, and biology at the same time. A peptide is not just a chain of amino acids. In solution it exists as a three-dimensional structure held together by weak forces like hydrogen bonds, electrostatic interactions, and hydrophobic effects. These forces are highly sensitive to the environment. Small changes in pH, ionic strength, or solvent conditions can change the peptide’s shape, stability, and behavior. When a peptide is manufactured, it is stabilized in a very specific formulation. That formulation controls pH, charge, ion balance, and solubility so the peptide stays folded correctly and remains biologically active. When you mix two peptides together, you destroy that controlled environment and create a new, untested chemical system. One of the first things that goes wrong is charge balance. Peptides carry electrical charge depending on pH. That charge helps keep molecules from sticking to each other. Mixing peptides can shift pH just enough to reduce repulsion between molecules. When repulsion drops, attraction wins, and peptides begin to stick together. Ionic strength matters too. Mixing solutions often increases ion concentration, which compresses the electrical “buffer” that keeps peptides apart. This allows molecules to drift close enough for hydrophobic regions to interact. Water dislikes exposed hydrophobic surfaces, so peptides clump together to lower free energy. This is basic solution physics. Once aggregation starts, it accelerates. A few misfolded molecules form a nucleus, which seeds further aggregation. Early clumps may be invisible, but they still matter. They reduce the amount of active peptide, alter absorption, and change signaling behavior.

Ok, I feel like I have some pretty good resources into the peptide world. I have a mastermind with a well known lawyer. I’ve asked about what’s up and coming in 2026 and nothing concrete has been stated. YET, open social media and everyone is talking about having to stock up on GLP-1s. Is this valid/legit or is this just classic gate-keeping, fear-based marketing at its best. Seems the only ones pushing this agenda are ones ironically selling research peptides or alternatives. And I even sell research peptides but I will not tell my customers things I can’t substantiate. What am I missing? I know there’s some proposed legislation (i.e. Safe Drug Act) but that hasn’t been passed and isn’t even close from what I’ve been told. The truth is, research companies have always been under scrutiny, so that’s not new, so what is this fear that’s being perpetuated? Thanks!

In the latest DDT Method podcast with @Anthony Castore , Anthony discussed NAD supplementation. What I found interesting is that Anthony seemed to be against NAD supplementation via NAD+ and its precursors if I understood correctly, and a more appropriate approach would be to instead use a combination of 5 amino and 1MNA. He suggested using 5 amino pre workout and 1MNA on rest days in the evening. Anthony - would you be able to expand on your thoughts regarding NAD supplementation given it seems like a given in the longevity community that you supplement with NAD+ (injection or IV) or its precursors (NMN, NR).