Repair and pain · part of Injury, healing and recovery and Skin, hair and appearance
Does it close a wound faster?
Surgical wounds, ulcers and burns, where healing time is genuinely measurable.
68
people in trials
3
studies in people
0
compounds, animal or lab only
3
compounds people report on
1
trials found nothing
Measured in people
A trial that gave people the compound comes first. A study that only watched people, who happened to have more or less of something related, comes after. Both are studies in people and both are here. Only the first kind tested the thing you are asking about, and the watch-only ones are labelled. Within that, the most people come first. That is a fact about the studies, not a judgement about the compound. Counts are never added up across compounds, because the same person can be in more than one trial.
Peptides and blends
2 compounds · 68 people given one of themWhat this archive is for. Trials of the compound come first, ranked by how many people were actually given it. Studies that only observed people are below them and labelled.
- 01Thymosin alpha-1 with KPV and LL-37BlendStrong. At least two finished studies in people, and at least 1,000 people who took it. 3 completed trials, 1,140 people given it.6 reported34 people given it2 trials1 found nothing
found nothingA cream made from LL-37 healed stubborn leg ulcers faster, in a small first test in people. 34 people first used a dummy cream for three weeks. Then they got LL-37 at one of three strengths, or a dummy, for four more weeks, and nobody knew which. The two lower strengths healed wounds about six and three times faster than the dummy. Ulcer size fell 68% and 50%. The strongest dose did no better than the dummy. This was a cream on a wound, not a shot.
The numbers 34 participants with venous leg ulcers, three week open-label placebo run-in then four weeks of randomised double-blind twice weekly topical LL-37 at 0.5, 1.6 or 3.2 mg/mL or placebo. Healing rate constants at 0.5 and 1.6 mg/mL were about six-fold and three-fold higher than placebo, p = 0.003 and p = 0.088. Mean ulcer area fell 68% and 50% in those groups. The highest dose showed no difference from placebo. Topical, on wounds, first in man.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014· 34 people
LL-37 was tested again, this time as a cream on foot ulcers in people with diabetes. People got it or a comparison by chance, and nobody knew who got what. This is only the second proper study of the peptide in people. Note the form both times. A cream, on a wound. Neither study injected LL-37. Neither tested it for the whole-body immune effects it is sold for.
The numbers A randomised double-blind controlled trial of LL-37 cream in diabetic foot ulcer healing. The second controlled human study of this peptide and again topical, on a wound, rather than injected for systemic immune effect.
Archives of Dermatological Research, 2023· number of people not given
- 02LL-37PeptideModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 2 completed trials, 182 people given it.7 reported34 people given it1 trial
The first human test of LL-37 on wounds looked strongly positive. Thirty-four people with leg ulcers that had refused to heal had the lowest strength applied to the wound, or a dummy. Ulcers on the drug closed roughly six times faster. Nothing worrying turned up on safety. Thirty-four people is a first look, not an answer, and the larger trial that followed did not repeat the result. Read this alongside that one, never on its own.
The numbers First-in-man trial in 34 patients: 0.5 mg/mL topical LL-37 raised the healing rate about sixfold versus placebo, with no safety concerns.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2014· 34 people
What people using these actually report
These are people describing their own use. They come from clinic write-ups, complaint records kept by regulators, and public forums, and they are shown as written. They are the best guide on this page to what people actually do, what they expect, and what goes wrong. They cannot show that anything works. Nobody was compared with people on a dummy pill, and people who saw no effect mostly stopped posting. Both things are true at once. The bad reports are kept in for the same reason.
- People say they use it for long-lasting tendon and ligament problems, shoulder and hip trouble, scar tissue and stiffness, and general recovery between hard training blocks.
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.
- Shots under the skin and shots into the muscle are described as producing the same results. Under the skin is preferred for smaller needles, and for avoiding the scar tissue that builds up from weekly shots into the muscle.
Sources: Testosterone replacement threads on ExcelMale covering injection frequency, cypionate dose protocols and side effect management, found by site-restricted search and read directly, September 2026. Nothing above is attributed to any specific post and no post is reproduced.
- Bleeding is the negative raised most seriously, described as thinner blood and slower wound healing, and there are threads from people who stopped for that reason. Others counter with work showing platelet aggregation falling without bleeding time changing, so its practical significance is disputed inside the same threads.
Sources: High dose fish oil, supplement and mental health threads on LongeCity, found by site-restricted search and read directly, September 2026. Nothing above is attributed to any specific post and no post is reproduced.
Why the trial record looks like this
A missing trial usually means nobody would pay for it. Nobody spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a molecule they cannot own. So the compounds with the thinnest record in people are often the oldest and easiest to get, not the weakest. Taking Thymosin alpha-1 with KPV and LL-37 as the example, because it states the problem most clearly:
The LL-37 dose result is the most useful thing on this page, and it is worth reading slowly. The two lower strengths worked. The strongest strength did no better than the dummy. That is the opposite of the idea behind most blend dosing, which is that more of a good ingredient is better. Where someone actually measured doses in this family, more was not better.
The second point is about the sepsis study. A failed final-stage study in very sick patients does not settle whether a peptide helps the immune system of a healthy person who keeps getting infections. But it does mean the ingredient here with the biggest and best-run study in people did not improve what it was tested for. That fact belongs next to any claim made for it.
Third, how they act together. One ingredient calms swelling. One boosts the immune system. One kills germs and, in some settings, stirs up swelling. Mixing them at a fixed ratio assumes those effects add up. Nobody has checked whether they cancel out.
Read this on the Thymosin alpha-1 with KPV and LL-37 profile
A compound shows up here only when a study on its own page names this goal and reports a result for it. Just naming it is not enough. Work in people, in animals and in the lab is counted separately and never mixed. People counts come from the study lines, and when in doubt they count low. Nothing here is advice. Nothing here tells you to take or to avoid anything.