Side by side
Every figure below is generated from the registry mirror that rebuilds nightly. Neither column is ranked.
Claim by claim
A trial can measure something near a marketed claim without measuring the claim. Each classification opens to show its reasoning and the exact trials it rests on.
Muscle or injury recovery
One Phase 2 trial measures this outcome. Still recruiting.
Trial records and full reasoning
NCT07437547 is a Phase 2 trial in acute hamstring muscle strain and skeletal muscle injury — the marketed outcome itself. It is recruiting, so no result exists yet.
NCT07437547Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Its one trial is a cardiovascular safety study. This outcome is not measured.
Trial records and full reasoning
The same single trial, NCT07487363, studies cardiovascular biomarkers and safety in stable ASCVD. No registered trial lists injury, wound or tissue healing as a studied condition for the fragment. Note that full-length thymosin beta-4 — a different, longer molecule — does have registered wound-healing trials; those do not transfer to this fragment.
NCT07487363Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Tendon and ligament repair
The only injury trial studies hamstring muscle, not tendon or ligament.
Trial records and full reasoning
The only injury trial, NCT07437547, studies acute hamstring MUSCLE strain and skeletal muscle injury. Muscle, tendon and ligament are different tissues that heal differently, so a muscle-strain result would not establish tendon or ligament repair. No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists tendon or ligament repair as a studied condition. This claim previously read "Studied" on the strength of that muscle trial, which overstated the record.
NCT07437547Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Its one trial is a cardiovascular safety study. This outcome is not measured.
Trial records and full reasoning
TB-500 has one registered interventional trial, NCT07487363. It is a Phase 1/2 study in stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and endothelial dysfunction, and its primary outcomes are the incidence of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events — a safety study. Soft-tissue and tendon recovery are not among its conditions or outcomes. The compound is therefore registered in a human trial, but not for this claim.
NCT07487363Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Wound healing
No trial lists a wound as a studied condition. The evidence is animal work.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists wound healing or a skin-wound condition as a studied condition for BPC-157. NCT07437547 studies acute hamstring muscle strain; NCT02637284 is a Phase 1 safety and pharmacokinetics study in healthy volunteers. The extensive wound-healing literature is rodent and cell work.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Wound trials exist for the full-length protein, not for this fragment.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists wound healing as a studied condition for the TB-500 fragment; the one trial naming it, NCT07487363, is a cardiovascular safety study. Registered wound-healing evidence exists for FULL-LENGTH thymosin beta-4 (for example NCT00832091 in venous stasis ulcers), which is a 43-amino-acid protein. TB-500 as sold is the 17-23 fragment, and the registry title of NCT07487363 draws that distinction itself.
NCT07487363Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Inflammation
No trial lists an inflammatory condition. Mechanism only, in the laboratory.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists an inflammatory condition as a studied condition for BPC-157. Anti-inflammatory signalling appears in laboratory work, which describes a mechanism rather than a clinical outcome.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
No trial lists an inflammatory condition as a studied condition.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists an inflammatory condition as a studied condition for TB-500. Endothelial dysfunction, studied in NCT07487363, is a vascular measure and not an inflammatory-disease outcome.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
Gut healing
No trial lists a gastrointestinal condition, despite the compound's origin.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists a gastrointestinal condition as a studied condition. The compound was originally described in gastric-juice research and the preclinical literature includes gut models, but preclinical work is not a registered human trial. FDA's advisory committee evaluated BPC-157 for ulcerative colitis in July 2026 — an evaluation of a proposed use, not a study of it.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
No trial lists a gastrointestinal condition as a studied condition.
Trial records and full reasoning
No trial on ClinicalTrials.gov lists a gastrointestinal condition as a studied condition for TB-500.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30. The classification is editorial; the trial records it cites are not.
BPC-157 + TB-500 together
No qualifying registered human trial found.
Both names searched together in the intervention field. Nothing returned.
How we checked, and why an ingredient is not a combination
No registered interventional trial studies the two compounds together. This was checked against ClinicalTrials.gov by searching for both names in the intervention field, with single-compound searches run first as controls (BPC-157 returned 2 studies, TB-500 returned 1, matching this site's counts) so that a failed query could not be mistaken for an absence. Evidence for an ingredient is not evidence for a combination: two compounds given together can interact, and neither trial on record administered both.
Reviewed by hand on 2026-07-30.
Why thymosin beta-4's evidence is not TB-500's evidence
LKKTETQ
7 amino acids — residues 17-23 of that protein · one registered trial, in cardiovascular disease
How the registry identifies it. The one registered trial, NCT07487363, names the intervention "TB-500" and describes it in its own official title as the "Thymosin Beta 4 17-23 Fragment". The registry itself draws the distinction between the fragment and the full protein.
The relationship. TB-500 is a fragment of thymosin beta-4, not a synonym for it. Full-length thymosin beta-4 has its own registered trials — in dry eye and venous stasis ulcers — run on the whole 43-residue protein under names such as RGN-259 and NL005. A result in those trials is a result about that molecule. The fragment is a different chemical entity, given at different exposures, and evidence does not transfer from one to the other in either direction.
What the name does not guarantee. Products sold as "TB-500" are not verified by anyone to contain this sequence. The name is a commercial label, not a regulated identity: research-use-only material is not manufactured to medicine standards and no independent party confirms what is in a vial. Some sellers describe TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 interchangeably, which is the confusion this section exists to name.
Identity reviewed by hand on 2026-07-31. Sources: UniProt P62328 — Thymosin beta-4 (human) · NCT07487363 — registry record naming the 17-23 fragment
Every registered trial, both compounds
Click any ID to read the original record. We would rather you checked us than trusted us.
What gets confused
TB-500 is not full-length thymosin beta-4
Thymosin beta-4 is a 43-amino-acid protein with its own body of registered trials, mostly in dry eye and venous stasis ulcers. TB-500 as sold is a short fragment of it — the registry title of its own trial calls it the "thymosin beta 4 17-23 fragment". A registry search for the full protein returns many times more studies than a search for the fragment (18 versus 1 when we checked on 30 July 2026). Treating them as the same molecule overstates the human evidence by more than an order of magnitude, and it is the single most common error made about this compound.
Evidence for an ingredient is not evidence for a combination
Even if each compound had strong individual evidence, that would say nothing about the two given together. Combinations can interact, and effects do not simply add. No registered trial has administered both.
Muscle injury is not tendon or ligament repair
These are different tissues with different blood supply, different cell populations and different healing timelines. BPC-157's one recovery trial studies acute hamstring muscle strain. A result there would not establish anything about tendon or ligament repair, which is what much of the marketing describes.
Registered is not recruiting
A registered trial is one that has an entry in the registry. That entry can be for a study that has not opened, is paused, was withdrawn before enrolling anyone, or finished years ago. Recruiting means it is enrolling participants now.
Registered is not completed
Registration happens at the start. Of the three trials across both compounds here, none has completed. A registry entry is a statement of intent, not a result.
Completed is not successful
A completed trial is one that finished its protocol. It may have found nothing, found harm, or been stopped early for reasons the registry does not explain. Completion says the study ran, not that it worked.
Results posted is not results published
Sponsors can post summary results to the registry, and that is different from a peer-reviewed paper. A trial can have one, both or neither. Neither compound here has posted registry results, because no trial has completed.
"Research use only" is not an FDA-approved medicine
Products labelled research-use-only have not been reviewed by the FDA for safety, effectiveness or manufacturing quality, and the label is not a regulatory category that permits human use. Both compounds were nominated for the FDA's bulk-compounding list and both nominations were withdrawn, so neither is an approved medicine by any route.
Safety and regulatory record
Neither compound is described here as safer than the other. Both records are thin, in different ways.
What is known
- Neither compound has an FDA-approved product for any use.
- Both were nominated for the FDA's bulk-substance compounding list and both nominations were withdrawn, so neither is available through that route either.
- Total registered human exposure across every trial on record for both compounds is small — see the trial records above for enrolment figures.
- Trials that are recruiting have not reported safety results, because they have not finished.
What remains unknown
- Long-term safety in humans. No completed trial exists for either compound.
- What happens when the two are taken together. No registered trial has administered both.
- Whether effects seen in animal studies occur in people, and at what exposure.
- Product identity and purity outside a regulated supply chain: research-use-only material is not manufactured to medicine standards, so what is in a vial is not established by anything on this page.
What the current record allows us to say
For both compounds, the recovery marketing runs far ahead of the registered human record. BPC-157 has one trial measuring a recovery outcome, and it is still recruiting, so no result exists. TB-500 has no registered trial measuring any outcome it is marketed for. Nothing has completed, so nothing here has been shown to work or shown to fail. That is not the same as either compound being useless, and it is not a reason to prefer one over the other — it is a description of how little has been tested in people, which is very little for both.