The rumor surfaces periodically in the NAD+ conversation — the suggestion that supplementing with NAD precursors could somehow feed cancer cells. It moves fast through the wellness and longevity communities and loses precision at every step. I went looking at where it actually traces back to.

The concern originates in research on cellular metabolism. NAD is deeply involved in energy production and DNA repair pathways, and investigators studying cancer cell biology have observed that rapidly dividing cells draw heavily on those same processes. That is the kernel the rumor latches onto. What the published literature actually examines is considerably more layered: the studies most often cited are in vitro experiments or rodent models, and the authors themselves tend to frame findings as preliminary and highly context-dependent. The popular summary flattens that nuance into something simpler — and scarier — than what the papers describe.

The video below walks through where that research stands, what specific work the alarm draws from, and why the leap from “NAD participates in cell-energy processes” to “NAD supplementation causes cancer” involves inferential steps the researchers themselves are not endorsing. The literature on this is live and unsettled. That is actually the point — the honest read is that the question is still being examined, not that it has been answered in either direction.

Something shifted in the last couple of years. Peptides used to be a niche corner of bodybuilding forums and academic databases. Now they show up in celebrity interviews, podcast roundtables, and entertainment news cycles in a way that is hard to ignore. Whether that is a signal or noise is genuinely unclear, but it got me curious enough to actually dig into the research literature rather than just scroll past the headlines.

The gap between what gets said in a podcast clip and what appears in peer-reviewed literature is almost comically wide. When public figures reference experimental compounds such as BPC-157, TB-500, or GHK-Cu, the conversation tends to center on personal experience and anecdote. The literature, meanwhile, examines these compounds in tightly controlled contexts: cell culture models, animal studies, and a smaller body of early-phase human research. Studies on BPC-157 look at it in models of tissue injury and gastrointestinal function. Studies on TB-500 examine its role in actin polymerization and cellular repair mechanisms. The pop-culture version and the published version are describing two largely different things.

What I find genuinely interesting as someone approaching 50 is how much the mainstream conversation, even when imprecise, seems to prompt researchers and clinicians to look harder at these compounds. Search volumes spike after a high-profile mention; funded teams notice. Whether that feedback loop produces real signal or just amplifies the hype is still sorting itself out. The video below covers some of the same territory I have been thinking about, looking at what the public conversation around Hollywood and peptides actually sounds like and where the published science sits relative to all that chatter.

GHK-Cu is one of those things that kept coming up in my reading, and I kept setting it aside. I am approaching 50, and I have gotten pretty good at filtering out anything that promises too much. But this one kept appearing in serious academic contexts, and the research history behind it is old enough that it was hard to keep ignoring. So I finally sat down and read through what is actually out there.

GHK-Cu is a naturally occurring tripeptide — Glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine — that binds to copper(II). It was first identified in human blood plasma in 1973 by researcher Loren Pickart, and it has since attracted a substantial body of published literature across multiple biological contexts. The research has examined GHK-Cu in studies related to wound and tissue biology, hair follicle investigations, and various aspects of skin science. What seems to draw continued academic interest is the tripeptide interaction with copper, a trace element involved in numerous enzymatic processes across biological systems. The published literature spans several decades and multiple research institutions, and investigators continue to examine it across different models and contexts.

I found this video a solid primer on what the research is actually examining. It covers what GHK-Cu is, how it was originally identified, and what directions the science has taken since Pickart early work. Good starting point if you want to understand what the literature is exploring. Watch the full video here:

I keep coming across Selank in the research conversations I have been having lately. I will be honest — I was not looking for it specifically. But when a compound keeps appearing in the scientific literature and in serious academic discussions, it gets harder to set aside. I am approaching 50, I came into this whole space pretty skeptical, and I still am about most of what gets hyped online. This one, though, seemed worth actually understanding.

Selank is a synthetic peptide developed originally in Russia, derived from a naturally occurring immune peptide called tuftsin. The majority of the published research has come out of Russian and Eastern European institutions, and most of it centers on animal models — studies examining how Selank interacts with biological systems involved in stress and anxiety responses. There are a smaller number of human studies in the literature as well. Researchers have been investigating how the peptide interacts with neurotransmitter systems, and the findings published so far have been interesting enough to attract continued academic attention across multiple research groups.

I found this video a solid primer on what the research is actually looking at. It does not oversell anything — it covers what Selank is, how it was developed, and what the studies have examined so far. Good starting point if you want to understand what the science is exploring. Watch the full video here:

I will be honest — when peptides started appearing in more research literature, I was skeptical. I am approaching 50, and the last thing I needed was to get swept up in something that was more marketing than science. But the biology here is genuinely interesting, and the more I read, the more I wanted to understand what researchers are actually studying.

Peptides are short chains of amino acids that function as signaling molecules within biological systems. What draws scientific attention is the specificity involved — different peptide sequences appear to interact with different receptor systems in ways researchers are still working to fully characterize. The academic literature on this has grown substantially over the last decade, and it has become a serious area of inquiry across multiple fields of biology.

I found this video a solid introduction to the science — it covers what peptides are, how they are studied, and why the research community has found them worth investigating. Watch the full video here: