Twenty-Six of Sixty-Five Have No Dose Behind Them

01What the count actually says

The reference has a column for what a published study gave a person. When I built a single table of all 65 compounds and counted the empty cells, the number came back at 26.

It is a tempting number to state flatly. It is also slightly wrong if you state it as "no human has ever taken these", so it is worth being precise, because three quite different situations produce that empty cell.

Nobody has been given it. This is most of the 26. For TB-500, the Food and Drug Administration, the American regulator, found no article administering it to a human at all. For the growth hormone fragment sold as HGH Fragment 176-191, six searches across four databases on 5 August 2026 returned no human study. For RAD-150, a search under three different names on 10 August 2026 found nothing in any species.

Only animals have been given it. The published figure exists, it is just not a human one. Every published dose of MOTS-c is a mouse dose, running from 0.5 to 15 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. The only figure in the literature for KPV is 16 micrograms per kilogram per day, in mice, delivered by feeding tube rather than injection. SR-9009 rests on two mouse studies at 100 milligrams per kilogram, injected into the belly cavity.

People have been dosed, but not comparably. This is the smallest group and the one that makes the flat version of the claim inaccurate. LL-37 has been given to people in three randomised wound trials and one melanoma trial, at 0.5 to 3.2 milligrams per millilitre applied to a wound and 250 to 500 micrograms injected into a tumour. Neither tells you anything about the 100 to 250 micrograms a day that circulates for injecting under the skin, because putting a compound on a wound and putting it under the skin are different experiments. GW-0742 has a genuine human figure, a single 15 milligram dose by mouth, but it comes from a doping control study measuring how long the compound stays detectable. Nobody was checking whether it did anything.

So the honest sentence is not "26 have never been given to a human". It is that for 26 of 65, there is no published human dose the circulating convention can be measured against. Three kinds of nothing, one empty cell.

02The number that should not exist

Fourteen of those 26 have a circulating dose anyway.

A specific figure exists, gets quoted on vendor pages and forum posts, and travels as though it came from somewhere. TB-500 circulates at 2 milligrams twice weekly, then weekly. KPV circulates at 200 to 400 micrograms a day injected, against a mouse figure delivered by feeding tube. PEG-MGF circulates at 200 to 400 micrograms two or three times a week, and in the same tables, daily. PEG-MGF has no published dose in a live animal of any species.

The clearest case is BAM-15, where the figures quoted run from 10 micrograms a day to 60 milligrams a day depending which page you land on. That is a six thousandfold spread, and both ends are presented with the same confidence. If a thermometer gave you readings six thousand times apart and each was printed in the same typeface, you would stop treating it as a thermometer and start asking whether it was wired to anything.

SR-9009 is the one that made me check my own work. The circulating instruction is 10 to 40 milligrams a day, redosed every two to four hours. That schedule is precise. It sounds like it came from pharmacokinetic work, meaning measurements of how fast the body clears a compound. The only published dosing is two mouse studies, by injection into the belly cavity, of a compound sold to be swallowed.

03The gap that behaves differently

Here is the part I did not go looking for.

Of the 26, eight are SARMs, and they do not behave like the rest. Seven of those eight have no traceable dose figure in circulation at all. The entries say so plainly: no dosing figure I could trace to a source, for RAD-150, LGD-3033, YK-11, S4, S23, AC-262 and GW-0742. No study, and no convention either.

Meanwhile, thirteen of the fourteen compounds carrying an invented convention are peptides. SR-9009 is the single crossover.

Two absences that look identical in a table are doing different things. For the SARMs, the missing dose is honest in a bleak way: nobody has run the study and nobody has filled the space. You are told to take a compound and not told how much, which at least declares itself.

For the peptides, the space got filled. Somebody produced a number, it acquired decimal places and schedules, and it now travels with more confidence than anything in the literature supports. That is a harder problem, because a convention that sounds sourced is worse than an obvious blank. A blank prompts a question. A figure like 250 micrograms twice weekly answers one that was never asked.

04Where the figures come from instead

If the numbers are not coming from trials, they are coming from somewhere. In the entries written so far, the most common answer is arithmetic on a vial.

BPC-157 is not one of the 26, because a scaled human equivalent can be estimated from the rat work. It shows the mechanism plainly all the same. The convention is 250 to 500 micrograms a day. There is no published derivation for either figure. Both are exactly one twentieth and one tenth of a 5 milligram vial, which is the size the compound is sold in.

That is not evidence. That is a container size doing the work of a study, and once you have seen it you start seeing it everywhere: doses that divide a vial into convenient fractions, schedules that finish a vial in a tidy number of weeks.

05What this does not establish

Two things this count does not say, and I want to be plain about both.

It does not say these compounds do not work. Absence of a published human dose is a statement about the literature, not about biology. Several of the 26 have real preclinical work behind them, meaning laboratory and animal research, and some of that work is interesting.

It also does not say the circulating figures are dangerous. It says they are unsourced. A number can be unsourced and still land somewhere reasonable, by luck or by accumulated experience nobody wrote down. The problem is that you cannot tell which, and neither can the person quoting it to you, because there is no document to check.

What the count does establish is narrower and more useful. For two in five of the compounds in this reference, anyone who gives you a dose is telling you something they cannot source. That is worth knowing before you weigh what else they tell you.

06My take

I did not set out to write this. I built a table so all 65 compounds could be read in one pass, and the empty column was visible in a way it never is when the compounds sit one per page. Sixty-five separate entries, each honestly saying no published human dose, read as sixty-five separate gaps. Stacked in one column, they read as a pattern.

I also got the count wrong on the first pass. I recorded 21 compounds circulating a dose, because I counted every entry whose dose field had text in it, and seven of those entries were saying no traceable figure exists rather than naming one. The real number is 14. That correction is the reason the SARM split turned up at all, and it is a decent argument for reading your own data twice before writing about it.

The thing I keep returning to is those 14. A compound with no human dose and no circulating figure is under-researched, which is a normal state for a research chemical. A compound with no human dose and a confident, specific, widely repeated figure is a different object. Something manufactured that number, and it was not a trial.

The whole table is at the gap if you want to check the 26 yourself. Every one links to its entry, and every entry carries its sources.

If you run any of these, I am genuinely asking: where did your number come from? Not whether it works for you, which is a separate question I cannot argue with. Where the figure itself came from. If you can trace one of the 14 to something published that I missed, I will correct the entry and say so here.