Synthetic non-conjugated GHRH(1-29) tetrasubstituted analogue / growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor agonist

CJC-1295 without DAC

CAS: 863288-34-0 MW: ~3367.9 g/mol Formula C152H252N44O42

Key takeaways

  • No published human pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, or efficacy trial of CJC-1295 without DAC has ever appeared in indexed peer-reviewed journals; the widely-cited ~30-minute half-life is an in vitro extrapolation from DPP-IV stability data and class behaviour of sermorelin.
  • No marketing authorization in any major jurisdiction. The FDA Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted 4 December 2024 against including any CJC-1295 variant on the 503A bulks list. Schedule 4 + Appendix D in Australia since 2015. WADA 2026 Prohibited List S2.2.4 names CJC-1295 explicitly, prohibited at all times.
  • Community Score 82 (Tier A). ~18 years in continuous circulation since DatBtrue’s mid-2000s forum publications coined the “Mod GRF 1-29” term. The 100 mcg saturation dose and the CJC + Ipamorelin blend are the most-codified GH-secretagogue protocol in the optimization audience; recent positioning has shifted toward muscle preservation alongside GLP-1 cycles (“Ozempic butt” framing).
  • The no-DAC vs with-DAC vendor-level conflation is the dominant QC problem: molecular-weight similarity between Mod GRF 1-29 (3,368 Da) and sermorelin (3,358 Da) means HPLC alone cannot distinguish them; bait-and-switch substitution is flagged by every community buying guide as the recurring fraud pattern.
  • The only safety signal that has materially affected community sentiment — the fatal MI in the 192-patient Phase 2 HIV-lipodystrophy trial — occurred with CJC-1295 with DAC, not the no-DAC compound, but is frequently attributed to “CJC-1295” generically in podcast and aggregator discourse.

Two-molecule calibration (used throughout)

The single most important fact for this monograph is that “CJC-1295” in community usage refers to two structurally different peptides:

  • CJC-1295 without DAC (synonyms: Modified GRF 1-29 / Mod GRF 1-29 / DAC-less CJC-1295 / CJC-1295 free base). The synthetic 29-amino-acid tetrasubstituted GHRH(1-29) backbone with D-Ala², Gln⁸, Ala¹⁵, Leu²⁷ substitutions conferring DPP-IV resistance. Molecular formula C₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂; MW ≈ 3,368 Da. CAS 863288-34-0. No covalent linker; no albumin conjugation. Predicted plasma half-life ~30 minutes (extrapolated; no published human PK study). [Regulatory document — FDA Briefing Document, FDA-2024-N-4777, December 2024]
  • CJC-1295 with DAC (synonyms: CJC-1295 DAC, the maleimide-albumin conjugate). The same 29-mer backbone plus a C-terminal Lys-maleimidopropionamide (MPA-Lys) “DAC” moiety that covalently bioconjugates to Cys34 of serum albumin in vivo. MW ≈ 3,648 Da. Published human PK shows 5.8–8.1 day half-life with GH/IGF-1 elevations for 6–11 days [Peer-reviewed human study — Teichman et al., JCEM 2006]. A different chemical entity from the no-DAC compound. The FDA’s December 2024 PCAC briefing states explicitly that the two are “not interchangeable” [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777].

Vendor channels routinely flip between the two names within the same product page. Clinic copy describes one molecule while pricing the other. The Vanguard Laboratory March 2026 essay — “CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin: The Stack Everyone Uses, Nobody Verifies” — frames this as the central QC problem in the GH-secretagogue grey market: two compounds, two different molecular weights, one street name, most buyers unaware. Ben Greenfield’s “toast vs CJC-toast” analogy is the most-circulated lay clarification.

This monograph covers CJC-1295 without DAC only. Where the text reads “CJC no-DAC” or “Mod GRF 1-29” it means the 29-mer free base. Where it must reference the conjugated form for comparison, it reads “CJC-1295 with DAC.” The Teichman 2006 PK data and the 192-patient HIV-lipodystrophy Phase 2 (with one fatal cardiovascular event) belong to the with-DAC compound and do not transfer to the no-DAC compound. The community has historically blurred this distinction; the regulatory and peer-reviewed record does not.

1. Identity

FieldValueSource
Common research nameCJC-1295 without DAC[Regulatory document — FDA Briefing Document, FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
SynonymsModified GRF 1-29; Mod GRF (1-29); ModGRF(1-29); DAC-less CJC-1295; CJC-1295 (free base); tetrasubstituted GRF(1-29)[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
INNNone assigned[Academic secondary source — WHO INN database, accessed 2026-05-15]
CAS number863288-34-0 (TGA scheduling reference; the FDA briefing notes inconsistent CAS/UNII conventions across the no-DAC/DAC pair)[Regulatory document — TGA Scheduling Delegate Final Decision, March 2015]; [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
Molecular formulaC₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
Molecular weight~3,367.9 g/mol (free base)[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
Sequence (1-letter)Tyr-D-Ala-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-NH₂ (29-mer, C-terminal amide)[Peer-reviewed preclinical study — Jetté et al., Endocrinology 2005]
Substitutions vs native GHRH(1-29)D-Ala²; Gln⁸; Ala¹⁵; Leu²⁷ — confer DPP-IV resistance and increased GHRH-R binding affinity[Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005]
ClassSynthetic GHRH(1-29) tetrasubstituted analogue, non-conjugated; growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor agonist[Academic secondary source — IUPHAR/BPS GtoPdb, GHRH receptor entry]
Structural distinction from CJC-1295 DACLacks the C-terminal Lys-maleimidopropionamide (MPA-Lys) moiety; therefore no covalent bioconjugation to Cys34 of serum albumin and no albumin-anchored half-life extension. With-DAC MW ≈ 3,648 Da[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]; [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005]
PubChem CIDRegistry entries inconsistent across vendors; FDA notes the GSRS/UNII record for “CJC-1295 free base” contains a mismatched structure (the DAC structure). Registry data are unreliable for this compound.[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024, Table 1 footnote]
GtoPdb / DrugBankNo dedicated ligand page or active monograph for the no-DAC entity[Academic secondary source — IUPHAR/BPS GtoPdb, DrugBank, accessed 2026-05-15]
Brand / trade namesNone — never marketed; no approved formulation in any jurisdiction[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
Half-life~30 minutes (predicted, not measured in humans) — extrapolated from sermorelin (5–7 min) plus in vitro DPP-IV stability data. No published human PK study[Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005]; [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]

2. History and Development

CJC-1295 originated at ConjuChem Biotechnologies (Montréal, Canada) in the early 2000s as part of a programme using their proprietary Drug Affinity Complex (DAC) maleimide chemistry to extend short-peptide half-life by covalent conjugation to the free Cys34 thiol of serum albumin [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., Endocrinology 2005] ⚠️🔴. ConjuChem’s lead clinical candidate carried the MPA-Lys30 maleimide and is the molecule the published clinical record refers to as “CJC-1295” — i.e., CJC-1295 with DAC [Peer-reviewed human study — Teichman et al., JCEM 2006] ⚠️🔴.

The non-DAC intermediate — the bare 29-mer with the D-Ala²/Gln⁸/Ala¹⁵/Leu²⁷ tetrasubstitution — was a synthetic precursor and research tool, not a clinical product. ConjuChem’s commercial focus was the DAC conjugate (and parallel DAC programmes in diabetes and HIV). After ConjuChem’s pipeline collapsed in the late 2000s and the company’s de-listing (2010), neither the DAC nor the non-DAC molecule was carried forward to Phase 3 by any successor sponsor [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024].

The non-DAC compound persisted in the grey market because (a) it is far easier to manufacture by solid-phase peptide synthesis than the maleimide-conjugated DAC form; (b) practitioners and bodybuilding-adjacent users adopted the rationale that a shorter half-life would better preserve physiologic GH pulsatility; and (c) the name “CJC-1295” became a trade label loosely applied to either entity by peptide vendors. The FDA’s 2024 evaluation notes “at least nine different names that have been used over time” for these substances and that “CJC-1295 (free base) and CJC-1295 DAC (free base)…are not interchangeable” [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024].

The molecule’s persistence in community discourse traces to a specific vector: a pseudonymous internet researcher posting under the handle DatBtrue in the mid-to-late 2000s on peptide and bodybuilding forums (ProMuscle, ImmortalHGH, the Phorum boards). DatBtrue’s posts coined the working term “Mod GRF 1-29” to distinguish the tetrasubstituted GHRH(1-29) backbone from ConjuChem’s albumin-binding DAC variant. That coinage stuck and propagated outward through Meso-Rx (Bill Roberts profile), Ben Greenfield’s longevity coverage, and clinic-marketing channels. Bodybuilding/PED audiences drove the early-to-mid wave (2008–2016) before the molecule layered onto the broader biohacker audience from approximately 2016 onward.

Sermorelin (native GHRH(1-29)-NH₂) is the closest legitimate pharmaceutical comparator: FDA-approved as Geref® for paediatric GH deficiency and as a diagnostic agent, withdrawn from the U.S. market in 2008 for commercial rather than safety or efficacy reasons (FDA 78 FR 13900, 2013). Mod GRF 1-29 was developed precisely as a sermorelin-like molecule with DPP-IV resistance; in the FDA’s 2024 characterisation, that is its principal pharmacological rationale [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024].

3. Mechanism of Action

3.1 Demonstrated in humans

  • Binds and activates the GHRH receptor (GHRH-R, class B GPCR) on pituitary somatotrophs — demonstrated by class, not by dedicated human PD studies on Mod GRF 1-29 specifically [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005]
  • Receptor activation couples to Gαs → adenylate cyclase → cAMP → PKA → CREB-driven GH release [Peer-reviewed mechanistic — Frohman et al., Endocrine Rev 2001]
  • Status: demonstrated only by class extrapolation; no dedicated human PD trial of Mod GRF 1-29 published as of 2026-05-15 [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]

3.2 Proposed / preclinical

  • The four substitutions (D-Ala², Gln⁸, Ala¹⁵, Leu²⁷) confer resistance to dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) cleavage at the N-terminus, the principal route of native GHRH inactivation in plasma — demonstrated in vitro [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005]
  • Plasma half-life predicted to be ~30 minutes by extrapolation from sermorelin (5–7 min) and from the in vitro DPP-IV stability data — no dedicated human PK study published for the no-DAC compound as of 2026-05-15 🔴
  • Preserves pulsatile GH release pattern (predicted from the half-life) — proposed, not directly demonstrated in humans for this compound
  • Downstream IGF-1 elevation is the assumed effector axis — extrapolated from sermorelin and CJC-1295 with-DAC; not specifically demonstrated for the no-DAC compound

The FDA characterised the mechanism at the December 2024 PCAC as “stimulation of growth hormone release from the anterior pituitary,” noting the absence of dedicated human pharmacodynamic data for the free-base form [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024].

4. Regulatory Status

4.1 Drug-regulatory status

AgencyStatus (as of 2026-05-15)Source
FDA (US) — drug approvalNo NDA, BLA, or IND on file. Never approved. No orphan designation.[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
FDA (US) — 503A compoundingPharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) voted 4 December 2024 AGAINST inclusion of all CJC-1295-related substances (free base, acetate, DAC free base, DAC acetate, DAC TFA) on the 503A Bulks List. FDA’s pre-meeting proposal was “NOT include.” The substance had been removed from Category 2 on 27 September 2024 when nominators withdrew. No Federal Register notice formalising the bulks-list exclusion has been published as of 2026-05-15, but the substance remains ineligible for 503A compounding because it satisfies none of the three statutory eligibility conditions (USP/NF monograph, active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug, or 503A Bulks List inclusion).[Regulatory document — FDA PCAC Meeting, 4 Dec 2024, FDA-2024-N-4777]
FDA — 503B outsourcingNot on the 503B Bulks List; cannot be compounded by outsourcing facilities[Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777]
EMA (EU)No marketing authorisation; not on EMA pipeline; no orphan designation[Academic secondary source — EMA database, accessed 2026-05-15]
MHRA (UK)No licensing; explicitly identified by UK pharmacy guidance as an unlicensed peptide; supply for human use unlawful under Human Medicines Regulations 2012[Regulatory document — MHRA position, summarised in Bolt Pharmacy UK regulatory analysis 2026]
TGA (Australia)Schedule 4 (Prescription Only Medicine) AND Appendix D, Item 5 under the Poisons Standard, scheduled by the ACMS delegate decision of March 2015, effective 1 June 2015. Listed by name with CAS 863288-34-0 alongside ipamorelin, GHRP-2, GHRP-6, hexarelin, and AOD-9604. Scheduling reasoning: “limited information on risks and benefits…risks from misuse similar to those associated with the misuse of growth hormone…suppliers are making unproven assertions about efficacy and safety”[Regulatory document — TGA Scheduling Delegate Final Decisions, March 2015]; [Regulatory document — TGA ACMS Interim Decisions, February 2015]
Health CanadaNo DIN, no NPN, no NHPD listing. Health Canada issued public advisory March 2026 warning against unauthorized peptide purchase including CJC-1295 and ipamorelin[Academic secondary source — Health Canada DPD; Health Canada advisory, March 2026]
PMDA (Japan)Not approved; not listed[Academic secondary source — PMDA, accessed 2026-05-15]
NMPA (China)Not approved[Academic secondary source — NMPA, accessed 2026-05-15]
MFDS (South Korea)Not approved[Academic secondary source — MFDS, accessed 2026-05-15]
GRLS (Russia)Not registered[Academic secondary source — GRLS, accessed 2026-05-15]
WHO EMLNot listed[Regulatory document — WHO Essential Medicines List, accessed 2026-05-15]

4.2 Anti-doping status

AgencyStatusSource
WADA Prohibited List 2026Prohibited at ALL times (in- and out-of-competition) under S2.2.4 “Growth Hormone Releasing Factors → GHRH and its analogues (e.g. CJC-1293, CJC-1295, sermorelin and tesamorelin).” Explicitly named. Strict liability applies. WADA does not distinguish DAC from no-DAC — both are captured by the “and its analogues” language and the explicit “CJC-1295” naming. Effective 1 January 2026.[Anti-doping document — WADA 2026 Prohibited List, S2.2.4]
TUE eligibilityTheoretically available via standard TUE process; in practice no approved indication exists, so TUEs are not granted[Anti-doping document — WADA International Standard for TUEs]
Specified vs non-SpecifiedNon-Specified Substance (S2 substances are non-Specified)[Anti-doping document — WADA 2026 Prohibited List]
USADAAdopts WADA List; CJC-1295 included by class and by name[Anti-doping document — USADA, cross-reference WADA 2026]
NCAABanned under “Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics” class; covers GHRH analogues including CJC-1295 by class[Anti-doping document — NCAA Banned Drug Classes 2025–26]
DoD / OPSSOperation Supplement Safety identifies CJC-1295 as a WADA-S2 substance with risk for service-member positive tests[Anti-doping document — DoD-OPSS, accessed 2026-05-15]
Global DROReturns CJC-1295 as a prohibited substance under WADA S2.2.4 (cross-check 2026-05-15)[Anti-doping document — Global DRO, 2026-05-15]
BSCGCategorises CJC-1295 under WADA S2.2.4[Anti-doping document — BSCG, 2026]
DetectionLC-HRMS/MS methods published in WADA-accredited literature (Henninge 2010 identified CJC-1295 in a seized preparation; method generalises to no-DAC)[Peer-reviewed analytical — Henninge et al., Drug Test Anal 2010]
Notable sanctions naming CJC-1295 specifically (2024–2026)No high-profile USADA/WADA sanctions in 2024–2026 specifically attributed to CJC-1295 (with or without DAC) as a sole finding; the substance most often co-appears with growth hormone or ipamorelin in adjudicated cases[Anti-doping document — USADA sanctions database, queried 2026-05-15]

4.3 Last regulatory review

Last regulatory review: 2026-05-15

5. Formulations and Routes

No approved formulations exist anywhere in the world. All material in circulation is investigational/research-grade or grey-market.

  • Lyophilised powder for reconstitution, typically 2 mg or 5 mg per vial, supplied by research-chemical vendors. Reconstituted in bacteriostatic water for subcutaneous injection in non-clinical use. Investigational only [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]
  • Subcutaneous injection is the route used in essentially all reported research and grey-market use; no peer-reviewed studies of intramuscular, intranasal, transdermal, or oral administration of the no-DAC compound are indexed as of 2026-05-15
  • The FDA’s 2024 review specifically flagged concerns about immunogenicity of the SC injectable due to peptide aggregation and impurity profiles in compounded preparations
  • No USP-NF monograph exists. No pharmacopoeial reference standard. The FDA noted that “CJC-1295-related BDSs may also introduce risks because of the inability to determine which BDS a particular reference standard is referencing”

6. Preclinical Evidence

Studies specifically on Mod GRF 1-29 / CJC-1295 (free base):

  • Jetté L. et al., Endocrinology 2005;146(7):3052-3058 (and 3060-3066). In vitro and rat subcutaneous studies of three maleimido derivatives of hGRF(1-29) bioconjugated to human serum albumin. The non-conjugated tetrasubstituted free base served as a synthetic intermediate and DPP-IV-stability comparator. The lead in vivo molecule was the DAC conjugate, not the free base; the free-base molecule is characterised primarily for its in vitro DPP-IV resistance [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005] ⚠️🔴
  • Alba M. et al., Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2006 / JCEM 2006: GHRH-knockout mouse model normalisation by CJC-1295. This was the DAC conjugate, not the free base [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Alba et al., 2006] ⚠️🔴
  • Ionescu M, Frohman LA, JCEM 2006;91(12):4792-4797: pulsatile GH secretion persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295. DAC conjugate, healthy adults [Peer-reviewed human study — Ionescu and Frohman 2006] 🔴

Class-level GHRH(1-29) preclinical data extrapolated to Mod GRF 1-29:

  • Native GHRH(1-29) (sermorelin) and DPP-IV-resistant analogues bind GHRH-R with comparable affinity; D-Ala² substitution at position 2 prevents DPP-IV-mediated N-terminal cleavage — first demonstrated by Frohman et al., J Clin Invest 1989 [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Frohman et al., 1989]
  • FDA’s December 2024 briefing summarised nonclinical findings for CJC-1295 (across both forms in pooled data submissions): “reduced food and water intake, softer stools, decreased activity, vomiting, reduced hemoglobin, increased cholesterol, injection site inflammation and necrosis, and DNA damage in pituitary cells” [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024]. The DNA-damage finding (pituitary, animal) drove a substantial portion of the FDA’s safety reasoning

No dedicated published rodent or non-human primate pharmacokinetic study of CJC-1295 free base (Mod GRF 1-29) is indexed in PubMed as of 2026-05-15 [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]. All citations adduced for “Mod GRF 1-29 half-life ~30 minutes” trace back to extrapolation from native sermorelin PK plus the in vitro DPP-IV stability of the tetrasubstituted sequence.

7. Clinical Evidence

7.1 Cochrane systematic reviews

No Cochrane systematic review identifies CJC-1295 (with or without DAC) by name as of 2026-05-15 [Cochrane Library queried 2026-05-15]. Class-level Cochrane work on growth hormone in older adults remains the closest published synthesis (see §7.5).

7.2 Randomised controlled trials

No randomised controlled trial of CJC-1295 without DAC has been published in any indexed peer-reviewed journal as of 2026-05-15 [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]. The closest human data — and the data routinely transferred to no-DAC in vendor and community discussion — are:

  • Teichman SL et al., JCEM 2006;91(3):799-805. CJC-1295 WITH DAC, not the no-DAC compound. Two randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind ascending-dose trials (28 and 49 days); ages 21-61; SC dosing 30–60 μg/kg. Result: GH 2–10× for ≥6 d; IGF-1 1.5–3× for 9–11 d; half-life 5.8–8.1 d. Not generalisable to Mod GRF 1-29 [Peer-reviewed human study — Teichman et al., 2006] ⚠️🔴
  • Ionescu M, Frohman LA, JCEM 2006;91(12):4792-4797. Again, the DAC conjugate [Peer-reviewed human study — Ionescu and Frohman 2006] 🔴

7.3 Observational / clinical-experience data

  • A 508-patient, three-internal-medicine-clinic real-world dataset (Terri DeNeui, DNP) was presented at the December 2024 PCAC meeting as nominator support. This was an unblinded, uncontrolled clinic-utilisation summary, not a peer-reviewed cohort, and was insufficient for PCAC to support 503A inclusion [Regulatory document — DeNeui PCAC presentation, FDA-2024-N-4777-0009, 2024] ⚠️
  • Van Hout MC, Hearne E. “Netnography of female use of the synthetic growth hormone CJC-1295.” Subst Use Misuse 2016;51(1):73-84 — qualitative analysis of online forum discussion; does not provide PK/PD data [Peer-reviewed human study — Van Hout and Hearne 2016]

7.4 Clinical trial registry status

No active or completed trial of “CJC-1295 without DAC” or “Modified GRF 1-29” is indexed on ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR, ANZCTR, or WHO ICTRP as of 2026-05-15 [Clinical trial registry — ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed 2026-05-15].

7.5 Disputed Claims

7.5.1 Class-level GH-anti-aging dispute (Rudman 1990 vs Liu 2007)

This dispute applies to CJC-1295 no-DAC by class, since the compound’s only proposed mechanism of clinical benefit is elevation of endogenous GH/IGF-1.

  • Rudman D et al., NEJM 1990;323(1):1-6 — landmark trial of recombinant GH in 21 older men (61–81 yr) reporting increased lean mass and decreased adipose tissue over 6 months [Peer-reviewed human study — Rudman et al., 1990]. Widely cited as founding evidence for GH-as-anti-aging.
  • Liu H et al., Ann Intern Med 2007;146(2):104-115 — systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 trials of GH in healthy older adults. Conclusion: small changes in body composition (≈2 kg lean, ≈2 kg fat) without functional benefit, and substantial adverse effects (soft-tissue oedema, arthralgia, carpal tunnel syndrome, gynaecomastia, impaired fasting glucose) [Peer-reviewed human study — Liu et al., 2007]. Generally interpreted as rebutting the broad Rudman-derived anti-aging claim.
  • Status as of 2026-05-15: No new meta-analysis published in 2024–2026 reverses the Liu 2007 conclusion. Class-level dispute unchanged. By extension, claims that Mod GRF 1-29 produces meaningful anti-aging or anabolic outcomes in healthy non-deficient adults remain unsupported by Cochrane-level evidence.

7.5.2 Claim that the four substitutions confer meaningful in vivo half-life extension over sermorelin

Industry development materials and vendor-derived secondary literature commonly state that Mod GRF 1-29 has a ~30-minute half-life vs sermorelin’s 5–7 minutes — a 4–6× extension. This number is extrapolated from in vitro DPP-IV stability data and rodent observation, not from a peer-reviewed human PK study of the no-DAC compound [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]. The Jetté 2005 paper’s primary purpose was to validate the DAC conjugate, not to characterise the free base in human plasma [Peer-reviewed preclinical — Jetté et al., 2005] ⚠️🔴. No independent confirmation in humans exists as of 2026-05-15.

7.5.3 Whether the 2006 Phase 2 fatal MI applies to the no-DAC compound

Community discourse frequently cites “a death in a CJC-1295 trial” as a generic CJC-1295 safety signal. The event — a fatal myocardial infarction in the 192-patient HIV-lipodystrophy Phase 2 — occurred with CJC-1295 with DAC, which produces sustained GH elevation and the fluid-retention/insulin-resistance load characteristic of chronic GH excess. Knowledgeable forum posters (Bill Roberts on Meso-Rx; DatBtrue-tradition users) argue this signal does not mechanistically transfer to pulsatile no-DAC dosing at community-typical 100 mcg saturation doses, because no-DAC does not produce sustained elevation. Aggregator and podcast discussion (Huberman April 2024 episode; ScienceInsights; fastlifehacks; Vanguard Laboratory) often blurs the distinction. The dispute remains unresolved: no published study of cardiovascular safety with the no-DAC compound at pulsatile community doses exists [REFRESHED 2026-05-15].

7.5.4 New disputes (2024–2026)

No substantive new published scientific dispute identified specific to CJC-1295 without DAC as of 2026-05-15. The most consequential 2024–2026 developments are regulatory (PCAC vote, FDA bulks-list reasoning, the February 2026 HHS/Kennedy reclassification announcement), not scientific.

7B. Community Evidence Layer

The optimization-audience community treats CJC-1295 no-DAC as one of the most-codified peptides in the GH-secretagogue space. Time in circulation ~18 years; the canonical 100 mcg saturation dose is a community-universal default; the CJC + Ipamorelin blend is the dominant SKU at every major grey-market vendor and the dominant prescribed combination at clinic pharmacies that maintained peptide programmes through 2022–2024.

Documented protocols cluster around three forms:

SourceDateDoseFrequencyCycleRoute
Steroidal.com Mod GRF 1-29 profile (DatBtrue heritage)indexed pre-2020100 mcg1×/day bedtime, OR 3–5×/day ≥3hr apart4–6 monthsSC
AnabolicMinds user log (gphagan1)2014–2015100 mcg CJC no-DAC + 100 mcg ipamorelin3×/day: AM, post-WO, pre-bed3.2 months at report; pre/post bloodwork: IGF-1 227→406 ng/mlSC
Huberman Lab #156 / Koniver clinic protocolOct 2024 (re-released w/ March 2026 update preface)“Ipamorelin 100 mcg or less” + CJC pairedOnce nightly bedtimeLong-term under physician supervisionSC
Perfect B clinic (Doral, FL)April 20260.6 mg → 2.0 mg titration of combined CJC/Ipa blendDaily before bed; 5 on / 2 off1–3 months on / 2–3 offSC

Timing schools: bedtime-only (single pulse aligned with endogenous nocturnal GH window — clinic standard, Huberman framing); 3×/day pulsatile (bodybuilding/DatBtrue heritage — AM, post-WO, pre-bed); empty-stomach rule near-universal (no food 30–60 min pre/post injection to avoid somatostatin/insulin blunting of GH response).

Claimed effects with frequency:

  • Widespread: deeper / longer slow-wave sleep; vivid dreams (often described as a “you’ll know it’s working” signal); improved recovery / reduced soreness; injection-site “GH flush” / facial warmth (dose-dependent above ~400 mcg)
  • Common: fat loss / improved body composition; lean-mass preservation (increasingly framed as Ozempic-butt mitigation in 2024–2026 clinic copy); skin / joint / connective-tissue feel; IGF-1 elevation confirmed by bloodwork in the PED subset that labs itself
  • Occasional: cognitive sharpening / brain-fog lifting; mood / well-being lift post-injection; appetite increase (much more pronounced with GHRP-6/GHRP-2 than ipamorelin pairing)
  • Single-source / rare: erection quality / libido changes (not a primary claim)

Reported side effects:

  • Widespread: GH flush / head pressure post-injection (benign, expected pharmacology); injection-site reactions (redness, itch, small lump — most consistent feedback for first 2–4 weeks at higher doses); vivid dreams (often framed as benefit, occasionally as sleep disruption)
  • Common at higher doses: numbness / tingling extremities (carpal-tunnel pattern from GH-induced fluid retention, clusters at ≥300 mcg/dose); mild edema; headache / lightheadedness; appetite increase when stacked
  • Occasional: morning lethargy (community-internal differential: more associated with chronic-DAC than pulsatile no-DAC); fasting glucose elevation via bloodwork in PED subset
  • Single-source but high-credibility: Huberman disclosed in the Koniver episode that he stopped sermorelin because it “consistently spiked his prostate-specific antigen, which normalized when he stopped.” Sermorelin not Mod GRF, but the GHRH-class pattern is referenced in community discussion as an open question for the broader class

Community dissent (visible fault lines):

  • “Does it actually do anything?” skepticism. Persistent bodybuilding-forum strand: endogenous GH pulses from Mod GRF + ipamorelin are characterised as too small relative to pharma somatropin to produce visible body-composition outcomes. Derek MPMD’s “How To Replicate A HIGH Dose Of Pharma Grade GH With Peptides” codifies this position from inside the PED community: he uses CJC-1295 with-DAC plus MK-677 specifically because he doesn’t believe Mod GRF pulses are sufficient.
  • The pulsatile-vs-bleed debate. Conversely, Bill Roberts on Meso-Rx and the DatBtrue tradition argue the opposite — Mod GRF’s short half-life is the desirable property because it synchronises with GHRP pulses. The two camps cite each other and are unresolved.
  • Whether the 2006 fatal MI applies to no-DAC. Open dispute. Huberman’s April 2024 episode and downstream summaries blur the line by attributing the death to “CJC-1295” generically; knowledgeable forum posters argue the event was DAC-version-specific.
  • DAC-confusion as a dissent vector. Knowledgeable posters routinely complain that casual community discourse calls everything “CJC-1295” and doesn’t distinguish DAC from no-DAC, producing bad protocol decisions (running with-DAC on a multi-daily-pulse schedule, or buying no-DAC and expecting weekly dosing to work). Vanguard Laboratory’s March 2026 essay frames this as the verification crisis.
  • “Just use tesamorelin / sermorelin instead” school. Revolution Health Tulsa and several clinic voices argue that since tesamorelin is FDA-approved (Egrifta) and sermorelin remains compoundable as a component of a previously FDA-approved drug, both are strictly superior choices to no-DAC CJC for users wanting GHRH-axis support under physician oversight. Bodybuilders push back: tesamorelin is more expensive and the half-life math doesn’t fit pulse-stacking protocols.

Stack patterns:

  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + Ipamorelin — the canonical stack by an order of magnitude. Pre-mixed 5 mg + 5 mg blend vials are the dominant SKU. Pharmacological rationale (separate-receptor synergy: GHRH-R + GHS-R1a/ghrelin) is cited identically across community, clinic, and vendor sources; the “3–5× greater GH release” clinic-marketing number traces to the 2006 Teichman with-DAC data, not no-DAC data
  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + GHRP-2 / GHRP-6 / Hexarelin — older bodybuilding pattern, displaced by ipamorelin because GHRP-6 strongly spikes hunger and GHRP-2 elevates prolactin/cortisol
  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + MK-677 — not recommended by knowledgeable voices. Derek MPMD’s central argument: MK-677 produces ~12 strong GH pulses over 24 hours; you cannot manually time Mod GRF injections to those pulses
  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + exogenous HGH — serious-PED protocol; rationale is receptor-level synergy with peptides covering pulse pattern while exogenous GH provides elevation
  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + BPC-157 / TB-500 / PDA (recovery stack) — common in longevity audience; Koniver’s pre-503A-restriction Huberman protocol was bedtime ipamorelin + CJC + BPC-157 (BPC now substituted with pentadeca-arginate after the 2023 Category 2 designation)
  • CJC-1295 no-DAC + GLP-1s (semaglutide, tirzepatide, retatrutide) — emerging and rapidly growing 2024–2026 use case. Advanced Scripts Pharmacy: “The Problem: ‘Ozempic Butt’ (muscle wasting in the glutes and legs). The Add-On: CJC-1295 / Ipamorelin.” This is the dominant emerging clinic-marketing position

Vendor / supply context (2024–2026):

Documented US-facing grey-market vendors selling Mod GRF 1-29 and/or CJC/Ipa blends: Peptide Sciences, Core Peptides, Raw Amino, Eternal Peptides, Amino Club, Ascension Peptides (“FIT Stack” $120, recommended by PeptideDeck 2026 buying guide), Phoenix Gen Research, Performance Clinics Research, Pure Rawz, Paradigm Peptides, Limitless Biotech. Pricing: CJC/Ipa 10 mg blend vials $50–90 at mid-tier vendors; standalone Mod GRF 1-29 2 mg vials $22–30 at major vendors; vendors below $4/mg total are universally flagged as likely-substituted (sermorelin commonly subbed for CJC no-DAC because MW differ by only 9 Da — distinguishable on mass-spec but not HPLC alone).

QC scandals and named incidents: Janoshik Analytical’s 2024 testing showed 43% of peptides tested failed to meet label purity claims; lower-tier vendors hit actual purities of 71–91% against 99% claims. Documented frauds: Modern Peptides caught forging Janoshik COAs; YourMuscleShop “way underdosed” batches; PSL caught selling “primobolan enanthate” that mass-spec’d as testosterone propionate. CJC-specific: bait-and-switch substitution of sermorelin for CJC no-DAC is the dominant pattern (PeptideDeck: “No mass spec at all — cannot distinguish CJC-1295 from sermorelin by HPLC alone”). The FDA’s own 2024 PCAC briefing documents a vial labelled CJC-1295 DAC that mass-spec’d as Mod GRF (no DAC), with the briefing speculating either DAC cleavage during analysis (deemed unlikely) or product mislabeling.

Compounding-pharmacy landscape: Pre-September 2023, US compounding pharmacies (Tailor Made, Empower, ReviveRx, IMCWC, Wells Pharmacy Network, and others) openly compounded CJC/Ipa blends for clinic-prescribed peptide therapy. After September 2023 Category 2 designation, official channels closed. The September 2024 Category 2 removal briefly reopened a gray procedural window; the December 4, 2024 PCAC vote closed it again. February 27, 2026 — HHS Secretary Kennedy publicly addressed the situation; per Amanecia Health clinic coverage, nominators “withdrew” again and the affected peptides came off Category 2 effective April 23, 2026, with PCAC re-review scheduled July 23–24, 2026. March 2026 — Andrew Huberman recorded a pre-roll preface to his Koniver episode stating “three peptides, CJC-1295, Ipamorelin… are now re-allowed for prescription in the United States.” Compounder lobby (APC, Holt Law, Safe Harbor Group) celebrates; Vanguard Laboratory and mainstream-medicine voices caution the regulatory status remains provisional, not equivalent to FDA approval.

Community Score: 82 / 100, Tier A. Component breakdown: Usage volume 22/25 (among the highest-volume research peptides on the US grey market); Protocol codification 21/25 (strong DatBtrue legacy; 100 mcg saturation universal; canonical CJC+Ipa pairing is the most-codified GH-secretagogue stack after possibly BPC-157 monotherapy); Reported effect consistency 17/25 (mixed — strong consistency on sleep/dreams/flush/IGF-1; inconsistent on body composition; persistent skeptical strand argues visible outcomes are placebo or confounded by training discipline); Time in circulation 22/25 (~18 years since DatBtrue mid-2000s; bodybuilding-archive penetration deep; longevity/biohacker audience layered from ~2016).

8. Safety Profile

No dedicated human safety database exists for CJC-1295 without DAC [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]. The safety profile is constructed from (a) class extrapolation from sermorelin, tesamorelin, and CJC-1295 with-DAC; (b) FDA’s pooled nonclinical findings in the 2024 PCAC briefing; (c) post-marketing surveillance signals on compounded peptide products; and (d) community-reported AE patterns.

Class-level GHRH-analogue adverse events: injection-site reactions (erythema, induration, pruritus, occasional nodule formation); transient flushing; headache; mild fluid retention / peripheral oedema (more pronounced with sustained elevation, less expected with short-acting no-DAC); transient hyperglycaemia / impaired fasting glucose via GH-induced insulin resistance.

FDA-flagged nonclinical concerns (December 2024): reduced food/water intake, softer stools, decreased activity, vomiting (rodent); reduced haemoglobin, increased cholesterol; injection-site inflammation and necrosis; DNA damage in pituitary cells (rodent) — drove substantial portion of FDA safety reasoning; immunogenicity concern — peptide aggregation in injectable SC formulation; impurity-driven immune responses with compounded material; cardiac concerns referenced as “risk for increased heart rate and cardiac events” in the broader CJC-1295 safety narrative [Regulatory document — FDA-2024-N-4777, 2024].

Theoretical class concerns: IGF-1 elevation and tumour growth (any cancer dependent on IGF-1 signalling represents a theoretical contraindication); diabetic retinopathy progression (GH/IGF-1-mediated); sleep architecture changes.

Special populations: pregnancy / lactation — no data; class concern for GH/IGF-1 elevation. Paediatric — no data outside sermorelin’s historical paediatric GHD indication. Active malignancy — theoretical contraindication. Diabetes — GH-mediated insulin resistance is a class effect.

Retractions identified: None for the Jetté 2005, Alba 2006, Teichman 2006, or Ionescu 2006 papers as of 2026-05-15 [PubMed Retraction Watch query 2026-05-15].

9. Drug Interactions

No dedicated drug-interaction studies for Mod GRF 1-29 exist. Class-level theoretical interactions, all class extrapolation:

  • Glucocorticoids — blunt GHRH-stimulated GH release
  • Somatostatin analogues (octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide) — directly antagonise GHRH signalling
  • Recombinant GH (somatropin) — redundant; combined use raises supraphysiologic IGF-1 risk
  • Thyroid hormones — hypothyroidism reduces GHRH responsiveness
  • Anti-diabetic agents — GH-induced insulin resistance may require dose adjustment
  • Sex hormones (oestrogens, androgens) — modulate GHRH-stimulated GH release

10. Research Gaps

CJC-1295 without DAC carries arguably the largest evidence gap of any GHRH analogue currently in grey-market circulation [REFRESHED 2026-05-15]:

  1. No dedicated human PK study has ever been published for the free-base / no-DAC compound. The “~30-minute half-life” cited universally is an extrapolation.
  2. No phase 1/2/3 RCT of any indication.
  3. No regulatory dossier (NDA/BLA/IND) ever opened with FDA, EMA, MHRA, PMDA, NMPA, MFDS, Health Canada, or TGA.
  4. No Cochrane review addresses it.
  5. Independent replication is impossible — the entire clinical record for “CJC-1295” of any kind is the Teichman/Ionescu work from a single research group (Frohman, ConjuChem-affiliated), and that work is on the DAC compound, not the no-DAC compound 🔴.
  6. No formal long-term safety surveillance despite >15 years of grey-market human exposure.
  7. No published study of the four-substitution-alone (no-DAC) effect on GH pulsatility versus sermorelin in humans — the foundational claim of “more physiologic pulsing” remains unverified.
  8. No published comparison of injection-site, immunogenicity, or impurity profile between compounded and research-grade material.
  9. Detection-window data in anti-doping testing is sparse; published methodology (Henninge 2010 and successors) focuses on the DAC compound’s albumin-bound metabolites.
  10. No bridging study validating that data from the DAC compound (Teichman 2006) can be applied to the no-DAC compound.

11. Bottom-Line Encyclopedia Note

CJC-1295 without DAC (Modified GRF 1-29) is a synthetic 29-amino-acid GHRH analogue carrying four substitutions (D-Ala², Gln⁸, Ala¹⁵, Leu²⁷) that confer DPP-IV resistance. It is not the same molecule as CJC-1295 with DAC; the published Teichman 2006 PK data (5.8–8.1-day half-life) apply only to the DAC conjugate. The no-DAC compound has never been the subject of a dedicated published human pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, or efficacy trial. Estimates of its ~30-minute half-life are extrapolations. It has no marketing authorisation in any jurisdiction; the FDA’s Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee voted on 4 December 2024 against its inclusion on the 503A bulks list. It is Schedule 4 + Appendix D in Australia (since 2015) and prohibited at all times under WADA Prohibited List S2.2.4. Persistence in grey-market peptide channels reflects synthetic accessibility and ~18 years of bodybuilding-forum codification rather than evidentiary support.

11B. Gap Analysis — Where Science and Community Diverge

CJC-1295 no-DAC sits in the High community + Low science cell of the gap pattern matrix. Subclassification per v3 methodology: untested-not-tested-negative, structurally analogous to the TB-500 heptapeptide case. The science layer is not negative on the no-DAC compound; it is silent on it. The 25-year clinical record for “CJC-1295” of any kind is the Teichman/Ionescu 2006 work on a different molecule (the DAC conjugate), in different indications (HIV lipodystrophy, healthy-adult IGF-1 elevation), with no Phase 3 success in either form.

TopicScience LayerCommunity LayerGap
The molecule in the vialRegulatory and analytical literature unambiguous: no-DAC and with-DAC are different chemical entities (MW 3,368 vs 3,648 Da) with different pharmacology. FDA-2024-N-4777 explicit: “not interchangeable.”Vendor-level conflation pervasive. Clinic copy and forum threads flip between names within the same article. Sermorelin substitution (MW 3,358 Da, differs from no-DAC by 9 Da) is the dominant bait-and-switch.🔴 MAJOR GAP — the community is buying three structurally different peptides (no-DAC, with-DAC, substituted sermorelin) under one name and reporting effects on all three as if they were one substance. Contaminates every downstream effect claim.
Half-life ~30 min, “physiologic pulsatility”No human PK study of the no-DAC compound exists. The number is extrapolated from in vitro DPP-IV stability + sermorelin PK.Treated as established. Cited in clinic copy, vendor pages, forum protocols, biohacker write-ups.🔴 Untested foundational claim. The pharmacological rationale for choosing no-DAC over with-DAC depends on a number that has never been measured in humans for the molecule in question.
2006 fatal MI in 192-patient Phase 2Occurred with CJC-1295 with DAC. The community has not converged on whether the cardiovascular signal applies to short-acting no-DAC at pulsatile community doses.Aggregator and podcast discourse (Huberman April 2024, ScienceInsights, fastlifehacks) attributes the event to “CJC-1295” generically. Knowledgeable forum posters push back that mechanism (chronic GH elevation, fluid retention) does not transfer to pulsatile no-DAC.Community internally split; science silent on the question. No human cardiovascular safety study of pulsatile no-DAC dosing exists.
The canonical CJC + Ipamorelin synergy claimThe “3–5× greater GH release than either alone” number traces to the 2006 Teichman with-DAC Phase 1 data, not to a head-to-head trial of no-DAC + ipamorelin.Repeated identically across community, clinic, and vendor sources as if it were a no-DAC finding.Community extrapolates with-DAC trial data onto no-DAC use case. Bridge of inference is the assumption that the molecules’ pharmacodynamics are interchangeable.
IGF-1 elevation as endpointClass-level: demonstrated for sermorelin, tesamorelin, CJC with-DAC. Not specifically demonstrated for no-DAC in a controlled trial.Confirmed in the PED subset that labs itself. AnabolicMinds gphagan1 log (227→406 ng/ml on 100/100 ×3) is the most-cited single data point.Aligned in direction; ungoverned in magnitude. Community bloodwork is real but unblinded, uncontrolled, single-individual. The class effect almost certainly transfers, but no published dose-response curve exists for the no-DAC compound.
WADA S2.2.4 prohibitionExplicit. CJC-1295 named in the 2026 List. Strict liability applies. Detection method (Henninge 2010) published.Aware; mostly treated as orthogonal to non-athlete use.Aligned in awareness, underweighted in non-athlete contexts. NCAA, USADA, DoD service members face strict-liability exposure independent of efficacy questions.
FDA PCAC December 2024 vote against 503A inclusionExplicit; nonclinical findings include DNA damage in pituitary cells and immunogenicity concerns.Aware; framed by compounder lobby (APC, Holt Law, Safe Harbor Group) as procedurally arbitrary; by mainstream-medicine voices as warranted given grey-market QC realities.Community-split along self-experimenter vs clinician-adjacent lines. The FDA’s nonclinical concerns are real; the compounder critique that PCAC reasoning was uneven across substances is also real. The dispute is unresolved.
DatBtrue 100 mcg saturation doseNo published dose-response curve for the no-DAC compound exists. Class data (sermorelin, tesamorelin) suggest GHRH-receptor saturation in the high-mcg range but is not directly comparable.Community-universal default since mid-2000s. Treated as settled.Community-codified protocol with no published support. The saturation claim is not necessarily wrong, but it has never been tested.
Anti-aging / longevity framingClass-level Liu 2007 meta-analysis: GH in healthy older adults produces small body-composition changes without functional benefit and substantial adverse effects. Conclusion not reversed by 2024–2026 evidence.Universal marketing claim across clinic copy; weakly supported in user logs (sleep and recovery commonly reported; longevity outcomes never measured at individual level).Community marketing claim runs against the closest available class-level evidence. Anti-aging framing should be approached with the Liu 2007 conclusion in mind.
Vendor identity / qualityFDA characterised the impurity and aggregation profile of compounded preparations as a primary safety concern.Janoshik Analytical 2024 testing: 43% failed label purity. Forged COAs at Modern Peptides documented. Public Janoshik database functions as informal post-market surveillance.Aligned in direction; community has built mitigation infrastructure (third-party COA culture) that regulators have not matched.

Net characterisation. CJC-1295 no-DAC is structurally the cleanest “molecular-conflation” case in the GH-secretagogue class — the analogue of TB-500’s heptapeptide-vs-Tβ4 problem, but operating one level deeper because all three commonly-sold “CJC-1295” SKUs (no-DAC, with-DAC, substituted sermorelin) share both a street name and overlapping molecular weights, while the community has built ~18 years of protocol literature without resolving which molecule the literature is about. The three highest-consequence gaps:

  1. The published human clinical record for “CJC-1295” of any kind is on the with-DAC compound, not the no-DAC compound the community uses. Community-cited PK/PD/efficacy claims are transferred-inference, not no-DAC findings.
  2. The dominant QC problem is identity, not purity. Sermorelin substitution at 9 Da MW difference, HPLC indistinguishable, is a real-world bait-and-switch flagged by every community buying guide — meaning a non-trivial fraction of “CJC-1295” injected over the past decade was probably sermorelin.
  3. The compound’s persistence in the optimization audience is sociological, not evidentiary. ~18 years of DatBtrue-tradition forum codification, a clinic-pharmacy ecosystem that built around it 2018–2024, and recent positioning as the canonical GLP-1 muscle-preservation adjunct keep adoption high while the published evidence base on the specific molecule remains effectively zero.

This is not BPC-157’s “community ahead of preclinically-anchored science” pattern — Sikiric/Seiwerth at least produced >300 papers on BPC-157, however single-group-dependent. CJC-1295 no-DAC is closer to TB-500’s “community confident in the absence of relevant evidence” pattern, with the additional twist that for CJC the molecular-conflation problem affects three peptides at once, not two.

12. Three Paths

You choose your risk tolerance. This monograph provides the data, not the recommendation.

Conservative path — wait. Defined as not engaging until at least one of: (a) peer-reviewed publication of a Phase 1/2 human PK or PD study of the no-DAC compound specifically, (b) marketing authorisation for any CJC-1295 variant in any major jurisdiction, (c) full 503A bulks-list inclusion after the next PCAC review cycle, (d) a published head-to-head comparison demonstrating that no-DAC + GHRP synergy data can be honestly inferred from with-DAC + GHRP data, or (e) any independent multi-centre replication of the foundational Teichman/Ionescu work in the no-DAC compound. None of these gates is met as of 2026-05-15. CJC-1295 no-DAC does not meet the conservative bar at all. The conservative path for users wanting GHRH-axis support is sermorelin, which remains legally compoundable under 503A as a component of a previously FDA-approved drug, has a published 30-year human dataset (however thin on optimization-audience indications), and a clinic-codified 200–300 mcg bedtime protocol.

Moderate path — Tier D with supervision. Defined as treating CJC-1295 no-DAC as a Tier-D compound with class-level mechanistic plausibility (GHRH-R agonism is real), no compound-specific human PK or RCT evidence, an unresolved cardiovascular signal carried over from the with-DAC literature, and explicit anti-doping exposure for any WADA-tested athlete, NCAA athlete, or DoD service member. This path means: pre-cycle baseline including IGF-1, fasting glucose, HbA1c, lipid panel, complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and (where age-appropriate) PSA given Huberman’s sermorelin disclosure; on-cycle monitoring of IGF-1 at 4–6 weeks; supply through a compounding pharmacy operating under physician oversight rather than research-chemical grey market; explicit understanding that what the compounding pharmacy can legally produce remains provisional post-Kennedy/PCAC-July-2026; explicit avoidance during any active malignancy, recent malignancy history, or known precancerous lesion; explicit avoidance for any tested-sport athlete or service member; awareness of the Australian Schedule 4 + Appendix D possession risk; absolute avoidance during pregnancy/lactation. The moderate path treats Tier D as “preclinical plausibility plus 18 years of community use without catastrophic safety signal, monitored against the class concerns the published literature identifies.”

High-tolerance path — grey-market with mitigation. Defined as acknowledging that none of the conservative gates are met, that all PK/PD/efficacy claims rest on transferred inference from a different molecule (the DAC compound), that vendor-level identity is the dominant QC problem with sermorelin substitution flagged by every community buying guide, and that the community-canonical 100 mcg saturation dose has no published dose-response curve. The community mitigation stack documented in Pass 2: third-party mass-spec verification (not just COA from vendor — HPLC alone cannot distinguish no-DAC from sermorelin at 9 Da MW difference) via Janoshik Analytical’s public database or comparable lab; preference for vendors that publish per-batch (not per-brand) COAs with mass-spec identity confirmation; titration starting at 50 mcg rather than the canonical 100 mcg; cap at the lower end of the community range (100 mcg pulse, not 200–300 mcg); bedtime single-pulse rather than 3×/day pulsatile if accepting the codified DatBtrue tradition is contested; structured bloodwork including IGF-1, fasting glucose, HbA1c, lipid panel, and PSA where age-appropriate; sterile injection technique; physician-monitoring dialogue even where the physician has not prescribed; anti-doping exposure assessed honestly — collegiate, military, equine, and WADA-tested civilian athletes face strict-liability sanctions for both no-DAC and with-DAC under WADA S2.2.4; awareness that the “Ozempic butt” mitigation framing is currently a clinic-marketing position with no controlled-trial backing for CJC+Ipa specifically in GLP-1 muscle-preservation. If used during a GLP-1RA cycle, explicit understanding that the synergy claim rests on mechanism, not on human evidence.

13. Key References

Scientific layer

Regulatory documents

  • FDA. Briefing Document, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee Meeting, 4 December 2024. Docket FDA-2024-N-4777 (CJC-1295-related and AOD-9604-related bulk drug substances).
  • FDA. PCAC Meeting Materials, 4 December 2024, FDA-2024-N-4777 (agenda, questions, transcript).
  • TGA. Scheduling Delegate Final Decisions, March 2015 (CJC-1295, CAS 863288-34-0, Schedule 4 + Appendix D Item 5, effective 1 June 2015).
  • TGA. ACMS Interim Decisions, February 2015 (Growth Hormone Releasing Hormones / Secretagogues / Releasing Peptides).
  • Poisons Standard (SUSMP), Australia — Schedule 4 + Appendix D scheduling confirmed unchanged as of 2026-05-15.
  • Health Canada. Public advisory, March 2026 — unauthorized peptide products including CJC-1295 and ipamorelin.

Anti-doping documents

  • WADA. 2026 Prohibited List, Section S2.2.4, effective 1 January 2026.
  • USADA cross-listing of WADA S2.2.4 (2026).
  • NCAA Banned Drug Classes, 2025–26 (Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors).
  • DoD-OPSS guidance on WADA-S2 substances.
  • Global DRO query, 2026-05-15.
  • BSCG 2026 reference materials.
  • Henninge J, Pepaj M, Hullstein I, Hemmersbach P. Drug Test Anal 2010;2(11-12):647-650. PMID 21204297.

Peer-reviewed preclinical and human studies (all single-group, all on DAC compound or class)

  • Jetté L et al. Endocrinology 2005;146(7):3052-3058. ⚠️🔴 (ConjuChem)
  • Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. JCEM 2006;91(3):799-805. ⚠️🔴 — DAC compound, not no-DAC.
  • Ionescu M, Frohman LA. JCEM 2006;91(12):4792-4797. 🔴 — DAC compound.
  • Alba M, Fintini D, Sagazio A, Lawrence B, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA, Salvatori R. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2006. ⚠️🔴 — DAC compound.
  • Frohman LA, Downs TR, Heimer EP, Felix AM. J Clin Invest 1989;83(5):1533-1540.
  • Rudman D et al. NEJM 1990;323(1):1-6.
  • Liu H et al. Ann Intern Med 2007;146(2):104-115.
  • Van Hout MC, Hearne E. Subst Use Misuse 2016;51(1):73-84.

Clinical trial registries

  • ClinicalTrials.gov / EU CTR / ANZCTR / WHO ICTRP queried 2026-05-15 — no active or completed trial for “Modified GRF 1-29” or “CJC-1295 without DAC.”

Community layer

Forum / bodybuilding archive

  • Meso-Rx / thinksteroids.com — Bill Roberts CJC-1295 profile.
  • Steroidal.com — Mod GRF 1-29 profile.
  • AnabolicMinds thread (gphagan1) — “100 mcg mod grf 1-29 + 100 mcg ipamorelin x 3 times a day increased my IGF-1 from 227 ng/ml to 406 ng/ml.”
  • AnabolicMinds — “CJC-1295 ‘flush symptom’” thread.
  • TMuscle (UK) — “mod grf 1-29 and ipamorelin; dosing, timings & cycling questions.”
  • ProfessionalMuscle.com — “Whats the latest dosing protocol with GHRP-2 + MOD GRF 1-29?”

Biohacker / podcast layer

  • Huberman Lab #156 with Dr. Craig Koniver (October 2024; re-released with March 2026 update preface) — fastlifehacks transcript.
  • Huberman Lab episode April 2024 — class-level GHRH discussion including the with-DAC fatal MI reference.
  • Ben Greenfield, “How To Use Growth Hormone Stacks For A Better Body”; “Growth Hormone-Releasing Peptides (GHRP) Deep Dive” (2024).
  • Derek MPMD (moreplatesmoredates.com) — “How To Replicate A HIGH Dose Of Pharma Grade GH With Peptides”; “Peptides & UGL Gear”.
  • Vanguard Laboratory, “CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin: The Stack Everyone Uses, Nobody Verifies” (March 23, 2026).
  • ScienceInsights, fastlifehacks.com — aggregator coverage of CJC-1295 and PCAC outcomes.

Clinic / vendor / regulatory-community layer

  • Perfect B (Doral, FL); Anderson Longevity; Tucson Wellness MD; SynergenX; Revolution Health Tulsa; Nulevel; Envizion Medical; Chicago Arthritis; Advanced Scripts Pharmacy (“Peptide Stacking 101: Boost GLP-1 Results with Bioactives”); Montecito Concierge Medicine; Innerbody.com — clinic-marketing layer.
  • Peptide Sciences, Core Peptides, Raw Amino, Eternal Peptides, Amino Club, Ascension Peptides, Phoenix Gen Research, Performance Clinics Research, Pure Rawz, Paradigm Peptides, Limitless Biotech — vendor pages (commercial motive flagged).
  • Holt Law, Safe Harbor Group, Anderson Triggs, LumaLex, Buchanan Ingersoll, Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC), Amanecia Health — regulatory-status community-readable summaries.
  • Janoshik Analytical public database (public.janoshik.com); Peptide Protocol Wiki; PeptideDeck; Peptide Catalog; PeptidePick — third-party COA / verification ecosystem.
  • Syra Aesthetics (2026) — dissenting clinic-side voice on stacking efficacy.
  • Stuart Phillips writing in The Conversation (cited via Health Canada advisory framing, March 2026) — mainstream-medicine critique of self-experimentation.

Retrieval limitations explicitly noted (substantive, carried from Pass 2)

Direct Reddit thread-level evidence was not retrievable for r/Peptides, r/PeptideUmbrella, r/SteroidsHGH, r/Steroids, r/longevity, r/Nootropics, r/Biohackers, or r/PEDs at named-source resolution within the compilation window. Reddit API access policy changes since mid-2023 mean specific permalinks, vote counts, and quoted comment text could not be retrieved. Reddit-community sentiment has been inferred from third-party aggregator summaries (PeptidePick, Peptide Catalog, PeptideDeck, fastlifehacks). No specific Reddit thread titles, permalinks, posting dates, or vote totals have been fabricated. The bodybuilding-forum archive (AnabolicMinds, TMuscle, ProfessionalMuscle, Meso-Rx) layer of evidence is more directly captured than the Reddit thread-level layer. Original DatBtrue forum posts (mid-late 2000s) have been referenced through downstream citation rather than direct retrieval. Telegram / Discord channels were not searched. Several vendors named in the buying-guide ecosystem (BlueSky Peptides, BioLongevity Labs, Limitless Life, Sports Technology Labs, Swisschems) were not opened at per-product detail level. Layne Norton, Dr. Tyna Moore, Kyle Gillett, Rand McClain, Rhonda Patrick — direct podcast/episode-level CJC-1295 coverage was not retrieved at named-source resolution.

14. Audit / Refresh Trail

  • Composed: 2026-05-16
  • Science-layer source: cjc-1295-no-dac_sci_2026-05-15_D6.md (Pass 1; last refreshed 2026-05-15; prior baseline content drawn from Group_B_GH_GHRH_Secretagogues_2026-05-09.md and Growth_Hormone__GHRH_Analogues__and_GH_Secretagogues__Comprehensive_Scientific_and_Regulatory_Review_2026.md).
  • Community-layer source: cjc-1295-no-dac_com_2026-05-15_A82.md (Pass 2; compiled 2026-05-15).
  • Section 4 Last regulatory review: 2026-05-15
  • Two-molecule calibration block status: Last review of molecular-identity ambiguity 2026-05-15. No-DAC vs with-DAC ambiguity unchanged; sermorelin substitution remains the dominant bait-and-switch identity-conflation risk.
  • Next refresh triggers:
    • PCAC outcome July 23–24, 2026 — re-review of CJC-1295 variants on the 503A bulks list. If the substance is added, the regulatory landscape shifts materially; if it is again rejected, the December 2024 vote is reinforced.
    • Any Federal Register notice formalising bulks-list exclusion or inclusion of CJC-1295 variants.
    • First peer-reviewed publication of a human PK or PD study of the no-DAC compound — the single largest possible evidence-base shift for this entry.
    • Any peer-reviewed publication of a head-to-head no-DAC vs with-DAC trial in any indication.
    • Retraction of Teichman 2006 or Ionescu 2006 — would materially alter the with-DAC inference base from which community claims are transferred.
    • Any high-profile USADA, WADA, or NCAA sanction with CJC-1295 (no-DAC specifically) as a named substance.
    • WADA 2027 List changes to S2.2.4 wording or detection method.
    • TGA Poisons Standard revision affecting Schedule 4 + Appendix D Item 5.
    • Any major vendor scandal affecting the CJC-1295 supply chain at scale (sermorelin-substitution exposé, Modern-Peptides-style COA forgery at a major vendor, etc.).
    • Direct r/Peptides / r/PeptideUmbrella / r/SteroidsHGH thread retrieval to ground community-layer evidence in primary thread permalinks with vote counts.
    • Resolution of the “does the 2006 fatal MI apply to no-DAC?” dispute by any new published cardiovascular safety data in either form.
    • Mainstream-podcast adoption shift — if Huberman, Attia, or Rogan publicly retract their March 2026 favorable framing post-PCAC July 2026 vote, that is an inflection-point event for the community-layer score.
    • Class-level Liu 2007 reversal — any new meta-analysis of GH or GH-secretagogue use in healthy older adults that reverses the current conclusion would propagate to this entry.