Looks
Does it actually do anything for skin?
Skin trials are usually small, short, and funded by whoever sells the product. That is not a reason to ignore them, it is a reason to read who paid.
816
people in trials
9
human studies
1
compounds, animal or cell only
1
trials found nothing
Measured in people
Ranked by how many people, which is a fact about the evidence and not a judgement about the compound. The one at the top is the most studied, which is not the same as the best. Counts are never added across compounds, because the same person can appear in more than one trial.
- 538 people1 human study
Whole purified venom, not melittin. 538 patients with knee osteoarthritis randomised 1:2 to histamine control or 100 mcg venom in 15 dermal injections at acupuncture points weekly for 12 weeks. WOMAC pain improved 1.1 points more than control (95% CI 0.3 to 2.0, p = 0.001) and physical function 3.1 points (p = 0.0046). Injection site reactions under 5 percent. Described as a phase 3; funding not stated in the abstract.
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2019 · 538 people
- 93 people1 human study
93 women, 12-week split-face trial: pal-KTTKS significantly reduced wrinkles and fine lines versus placebo moisturizer.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2005 · 93 people
- 60 people2 human studies
60 subjects, 4 weeks: 48.9% subjective anti-wrinkle response versus 0% with placebo; roughness parameters decreased.
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2013 · 60 people
Original report: Ac-EEMQRR-NH2 mimics SNAP-25 to interfere with SNARE assembly; topical use reduced wrinkle depth in a small study.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2002 · no headcount in the line
- 60 people1 human study1 found nothing
found nothing60 subjects randomised 3 to 1 to argireline or placebo applied to peri-orbital wrinkles twice daily for four weeks. Subjective global assessment gave total anti-wrinkle efficacy of 48.9% for argireline against 0% for placebo. Objective analysis of silicone skin replicas found roughness parameters decreased in the argireline group at p < 0.01 with no significant decrease in placebo. Argireline alone, four weeks, on one facial area.
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 2013 · 60 people
What people using it report
- Fine lines around the eyes looking softer after several weeks.
- 41 people1 human study
41 women aged 30 to 65 with moderate photodamage used 0.5 or 1.0 percent idebenone lotion twice daily for six weeks. With the 1.0 percent formula, graders scored a 26 percent reduction in roughness and dryness, 29 percent reduction in fine lines and wrinkles, 37 percent increase in hydration and 33 percent global improvement. The paper describes itself as a nonvehicle control study, so the lotion base itself was never controlled for.
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2005 · 41 people
- 24 people2 human studies
24 healthy subjects wore a hyaluronic acid microneedle patch containing acetyl octapeptide-3 on one eye and a hyaluronic-acid-only placebo patch on the other for 28 days. The active side showed better eye-wrinkle improvement, lower transepidermal water loss and improved elasticity with no adverse effects. As in the 2020 patch study, acetyl octapeptide-3 was one of several actives, so the result is not attributable to SNAP-8 alone.
Annals of Dermatology, 2024 · 24 people
12-week study of a multi-ingredient patch containing acetyl octapeptide-3 reported 25.8% fewer fine lines; not attributable to SNAP-8 alone.
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2020 · no headcount in the line
- no headcount stated1 human study
At about one year, 8 of 10 (80%) POMC-deficiency and 5 of 11 (45%) LEPR-deficiency participants lost at least 10% of body weight, with hunger scores down 27% and 44%; hyperpigmentation and injection-site reactions were near-universal.
The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 2020 · no headcount in the line
Measured in animals or cells, not yet in people
These are separated from the trials above rather than ranked against them, because they answer a different question. A result in a rat is a real result and a reason somebody ran the study; it is not a measurement of what happens in you. Where the human work is missing, the reason is usually money rather than failure, and that is set out at the bottom of this page.
- 1 preclinical study
Measured in animals or cells
Cultured human dermal fibroblasts. 20(S)-Rg3 reversed replicative senescence by restoring ATP and the NAD+ to NADH ratio and modulating Akt, mTOR and sirtuin signalling; the 20(R) isomer did not. Reversal of senescence, not clearance of senescent cells.
Journal of Ginseng Research, 2020 · in vitro
What people using these actually report
Uncontrolled self-reports, gathered from clinic write-ups, regulatory complaint records and public forums, and reproduced here as written. They are the best guide on this page to what people actually do, what they expect, and what goes wrong, and they cannot show that anything works, because nobody was measured against a placebo and the people who saw no effect mostly stopped posting. Both halves of that are true at once. The negative reports are kept in for the same reason.
- Fine lines around the eyes looking softer after several weeks.
Sources: Skincare forums and brand review pages, which are unusually vulnerable to incentivised reviews. The hydration and brightness effects also appear in the pooled randomised evidence; the wrinkle reports do not match its size.
- The negatives named most often are injection site redness, swelling and lumps, and uncertainty about what is in the vial. Three FAERS reports through December 2025 involve injected BPC-157: nine days of redness and swelling at the injection site in a 55-year-old woman who was also injecting compounded thymosin; shortness of breath leading to an emergency room visit in a 28-year-old man; and diffuse skin hyperpigmentation with darkening of the gums in a 40-year-old woman using a research-labelled BPC-157 plus TB-500 product, which resolved on stopping and returned identically on rechallenge. FDA notes that the two-peptide product makes it impossible to attribute that last case to either peptide alone.
Sources: FDA's July 2026 evaluation of BPC-157, which reproduces the FAERS adverse event reports through December 4, 2025, the Human Foods Program complaint records, and the marketed dosage forms and strengths; the three published clinic reports above, which are the only documented clinical practice; the 2025 HSS Journal systematic review and the 2026 American Journal of Sports Medicine and Sports Medicine reviews, which describe how athletes and clinicians are using these peptides and note that indications, dosing, frequency and duration all remain undefined; and public injury logs and question threads on peptide and bodybuilding forums including eroids, iSARMS, Ironsport and FITMISC. Reddit's r/Peptides and r/PeptideSupport could not be retrieved for this entry, so nothing above is attributed to any specific post, and no quotation is reproduced from any of these sources.
- Negatives that come up: no effect at all, cost, lethargy or a flu-like feeling in the first days after a loading dose, and injection site soreness. FDA holds no adverse event reports filed under TB-500, though one report filed under BPC-157 involved a combined BPC-157 and TB-500 product and described diffuse skin hyperpigmentation and gum darkening that resolved on stopping and returned on rechallenge.
Sources: FDA's July 2026 evaluation of TB-500, including its FAERS search, its catalogue of vendor claims and its account of the veterinary preparation; the 2012 Ghent doping-control identification paper; the 2026 Sports Medicine and American Journal of Sports Medicine reviews on how these peptides are used and marketed; and public discussion and injury logs on peptide and bodybuilding forums including eroids, iSARMS, Ironsport and FITMISC, where TB-500 is almost always logged alongside BPC-157. Reddit's r/Peptides and r/PeptideSupport could not be retrieved for this entry. No quotation is reproduced from any of these sources and nothing above is attributed to a specific person.
Why the trial record looks like this
A missing trial is usually a missing sponsor. Nobody runs a nine-figure programme on a molecule they cannot own, so the compounds with the thinnest human records are often the oldest and most freely available ones rather than the weakest. Taking Ginsenoside Rg3 as the example, because it states the problem most clearly:
Rg3 does not fit the senolytic template and should not be filed under it without qualification. A senolytic kills senescent cells. The fibroblast work describes the opposite action, reversal of the senescent state, and the astrocyte work describes a senomorphic action, suppression of the secretory phenotype without killing anything. Elsewhere in the literature Rg3 is investigated for inducing senescence in tumour cells. Three different directions, all in cell culture.
Ginsenosides are unpatentable plant constituents sold as supplements, which is the usual reason a compound accumulates mechanistic papers and no outcome trials. The absence of trials means neither benefit nor harm from long-term use has been looked for systematically.
A compound appears here only when a citation on its own page states this outcome and reports a result for it; naming it is not enough. Human, animal and cell work are counted separately and never merged. Participant counts are read from the study lines and deliberately undercount. Nothing here is advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to take or to avoid anything.