Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Growth hormone axis

CJC-1295

A long-acting GHRH analogue abandoned after early human studies — it reliably raises growth hormone, but the outcomes it is sold for were never tested.

L3Early human studiesResearch / unapproved supplyDiscontinued
How settled this rating is:
very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Subcutaneous injection
Also known as:
modified GRF (1-29), CJC-1295 DAC, tetrasubstituted GRF
Last reviewed:
2026-08-23
Jump to section

Evidence passport

CJC-1295

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-08-23
Evidence level
L3Early human studies
Confidence
Very low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Research / unapproved supply
Development status
Discontinued

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence28 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence22 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Includes human studies
Furthest established stage
Phase I
Human research maturity
Early human pharmacology studies only; development discontinued
Source curation
Source curation pending

Routes recorded

SC injection

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength28 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength55 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength22 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Early human pharmacology studies only; development discontinued

Routes & formulations

Studied / approved routes

SC injection

Early human pharmacology studies used subcutaneous injection. No approved formulation exists; material sold online is unapproved, and the DAC variant's extended half-life is a formulation property, not evidence of benefit.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

    Development stopped here — a programme status, not a safety verdict.

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Discontinued

Early human pharmacology studies only; development did not continue to approval. The reason development stopped is not established in our curated record.

Why development stopped: Reason not established. The curated record does not establish why development stopped.

Last documented development: 2006 — early human pharmacology studies published; no later development programme identified in the curated record.

What it is

A modified growth-hormone-releasing hormone fragment; the 'DAC' version binds albumin to extend its half-life dramatically.

What people claim

  • Builds muscle
  • Burns fat
  • Improves sleep and recovery
  • Reverses ageing

What the evidence actually says

Early human studies established that it does what it says biochemically — it raises growth hormone and IGF-1 for an extended period. What was never established is that this translates into the body-composition, recovery or anti-ageing outcomes people buy it for. Raising a hormone level is a surrogate endpoint, not a result.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Early-phase pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies demonstrating sustained GH and IGF-1 elevation.
  • No controlled trials demonstrating clinical body-composition or performance outcomes.

Preclinical evidence

  • Standard GHRH-analogue animal pharmacology.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • GHRH receptor agonism increases pituitary GH release.
  • Albumin binding (DAC variant) extends half-life to days, producing sustained rather than pulsatile elevation — a physiologically unusual pattern.

Safety and unknowns

  • Flushing, injection-site reactions and water retention reported in early studies.
  • Sustained non-pulsatile GH elevation is not how the body normally does this, and long-term consequences are unstudied.
  • No modern human safety dataset for the material sold online.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

Theoretical / mechanistic concern only

Same IGF-1 proliferation logic as other growth-hormone-axis compounds: mechanistically plausible concern, no human outcome data. Chronic elevation without monitoring is the specific worry, not a proven cancer link.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.

Not an approved medicine. Development did not continue to approval. Prohibited in sport.

Evidence grade

L3Early human studiesVery low confidence in rating

Preliminary human outcome research, including small or observational studies. Descriptive exposure studies alone do not demonstrate therapeutic benefit.

What would change our rating?

  • Controlled trials with clinical rather than hormonal endpoints.
  • Modern human safety data for chronic use.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Source curation pending
Last editorial review
2026-08-23
Recently reviewed · 54 days ago
Linked curated sources
0
Sources still pending
1
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
To be curated: 1

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

  • To be curatedSources to be curated

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-08-23.

Related claims we’ve checked — in full

Claim verdict

Growth hormone axis

Not supported as wordedL3Early human studies

“Peptides that raise growth hormone will build muscle in healthy adults.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Unsupported as stated — raising a hormone is a surrogate endpoint, not a result.

Why this verdict

  • Early studies confirm GH and IGF-1 rise; that was never the hard part.
  • No controlled trials show meaningful muscle or performance gains in healthy adults from GHRH analogues or secretagogues.
  • Water retention and scale weight changes are frequently mistaken for tissue gain.