What we got wrong
Corrections
Every correction to a page, newest first: the date, the page, what was wrong and what it says now. Found something wrong? Send the source to kaliospeptides@proton.me.
- Wrong: The two Russian formulations were swapped: the 0.1% solution was given as the stroke product and the 1% as the nootropic. Now: Per the Russian label, 0.1% (50 µg per drop) is for cognitive disorders, post-stroke recovery and TIA; 1% (500 µg per drop) is for acute ischemic stroke — a tenfold difference per drop.
- Wrong: BPC-157 was credited with a Phase II ulcerative colitis trial (NCT05765058, a dental study). Now: No such trial is registered; the page lists the Phase I registration (NCT02637284) instead.
- Wrong: A registered Phase II colitis trial of BPC-157 was cited (NCT05765058, a dental study). Now: The only registration is a Phase I (NCT02637284) with no posted results.
- Wrong: A Phase II ulcerative colitis trial was said to be registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05765058, a dental study). Now: No Phase II of BPC-157 is registered there; its developer’s only registration is a Phase I (NCT02637284) with no posted results.
- Wrong: The cognition trial ID (NCT00675506) belongs to an obesity study. Now: Baker 2012 is the SMART trial, NCT00257712.
- Wrong: The Phase 3 trial IDs (NCT01406964, NCT01403038) belong to unrelated studies, labelled ZA-203/ZA-204. Now: The Repros Phase 3 trials ZA-304/ZA-305 are NCT01993212 and NCT01993225.
- Wrong: The Phase I trial ID (NCT01813071) belongs to a Shigella vaccine study. Now: The MD Anderson Phase I of prohibitin targeting peptide 1 is NCT01262664 (terminated).
- Wrong: The stroke trial ID (NCT05119296) belongs to a thyroid-cancer study. Now: Afamelanotide’s stroke proof-of-concept study is NCT04962503.
- Wrong: The VENTURE trial ID (NCT04966221) belongs to a COPD imaging study. Now: NCT04966741.
- Wrong: The IMPACT trial ID (NCT05908708) belongs to an insulin-pump study. Now: NCT05989711.
- Wrong: The VENTURE trial ID (NCT05946356) belongs to a fibromyalgia study. Now: NCT06068946.
- Wrong: The SYNCHRONIZE-1 and -2 trial IDs (NCT06066879, NCT06066892) belong to unrelated studies. Now: NCT06066515 and NCT06066528.
- Wrong: The Adv Gerontol 2002 cohort paper was credited to Korkushko, Khavinson, Shatilo et al., at 2002;9:80-87. Now: It is Khavinson and Morozov, Adv Gerontol 2002;10:74-84.
- Wrong: The Khavinson mortality cohort was listed under Epitalon. Now: It is listed under Epithalamin, the extract the cohort used.
- Wrong: The Gist called Thymalin’s partner in the elderly study “Epitalon (the pineal extract)”, and the study a trial. Now: The partner was Epithalamin, a pineal extract; the paper doesn’t describe randomization.
- Wrong: The 266-patient mortality data were presented as Epithalon’s. Now: They come from Epithalamin, the pineal extract Epithalon was modelled on, given with or without Thymalin.
- Wrong: The Khavinson 2003 elderly cohort was described as 266 people randomized to Vilon + Epithalon. Now: It followed 266 people given Thymalin and Epithalamin gland extracts, not Vilon, and doesn’t describe randomization; the data table and dosing notes say so.
- Wrong: The tracker’s summary line and search description said the July 23–24, 2026 meeting voted on 12 peptides. Now: It is the PCAC review of 12 peptides, 7 of which were voted on July 23–24, 2026; the other 5 are due before the end of February 2027.
- Wrong: The shortage was said to be resolved in October 2024. Now: FDA’s October 2, 2024 decision was sent back by a court and reaffirmed on December 19, 2024; the compounders’ grace periods ended in March 2025.
- Wrong: The page said compounding discretion ended once Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly “declared” their shortages resolved, in 2024–early 2025, and that the telehealth channels were active through 2023 and early 2024. Now: FDA made both determinations (tirzepatide December 19, 2024; semaglutide February 21, 2025), and its grace periods for compounders ended between February and May 2025; the telehealth channels ran until then.
- Wrong: The timeline started Foundayo at 3 mg and described dose escalation within 3–36 mg, which are trial doses; the data table listed only the trial doses. Now: The label starts at 0.8 mg and steps up through 2.5, 5.5, 9 and 14.5 to a 17.2 mg maximum; the 3–36 mg doses are labelled as the trials’.
- Wrong: The Egrifta SV row gave a 1.4 mg vial mixed with 2.1 mL (~1 mg/1.5 mL); the label dose was given as 2 mg; Egrifta WR was said to have launched in January 2025 as a room-temperature-stable version with unchanged dosing. Now: Egrifta SV is a 2 mg vial mixed with 0.5 mL, and the 1.4 mg dose is 0.35 mL. Egrifta WR (11.6 mg vial, 1.28 mg = 0.16 mL daily for 7 days) was approved March 25, 2025 and available from September 2025.
- Wrong: The page said some US 503A pharmacies dispense bromantane under “USP-grade bulk powder frameworks”. Now: We couldn’t verify that any pharmacy does, and it has no basis: not FDA-approved, no USP monograph, on no 503A list or in any nomination category.
- Wrong: The page said 503A compounding pharmacies dispense 5-Amino-1MQ under a “USP grade bulk powder framework” whose legality was merely uncertain. Now: It is in no FDA list or nomination category, is in no approved drug and has no USP monograph, so compounding it meets none of the conditions of section 503A or 503B.
- Wrong: The page named “503A / 503B compounding pharmacies” without saying on what basis. Now: Glutathione is in Category 1 of both FDA lists, so pharmacies and outsourcing facilities compound it under interim policies; it is on neither final bulks list.
- Wrong: The page said VIP is available from 503A and 503B compounding pharmacies. Now: It is in FDA’s 503A Category 1 (interim policy); it has no 503B pathway.
- Wrong: The page said enclomiphene is compounded by 503A and 503B pharmacies. Now: It is in FDA’s 503A Category 1 (interim policy); it is on no 503B list or category, so outsourcing facilities have no pathway.
- Wrong: Geref was said to be withdrawn “for commercial reasons”, and sermorelin “legally compoundable by 503A and 503B pharmacies under traditional compounding law”. Now: FDA withdrew Geref’s approvals in 2009 at the maker’s request because it was no longer marketed, not for safety. 503A pharmacies compound it as a component of an approved drug; outsourcing facilities only under FDA’s Category 1 interim policy.
- Wrong: CagriSema’s FDA review carried an April 2026 date, and the decision was “anticipated within 1–2 years”. Now: Novo Nordisk filed CagriSema in December 2025; as of September 28, 2026 FDA hasn’t decided, and Novo expects a decision in Q4 2026.
- Wrong: “Under FDA review” carried an April 2026 date, and the decision was “anticipated within 1–2 years”. Now: Novo Nordisk filed the application in December 2025; as of September 28, 2026 FDA hasn’t decided, and Novo expects a decision in Q4 2026.
- Wrong: The page said 503A compounding of hCG was “limited” since the 2020 transition, that access to compounded hCG had improved and some state boards had restored it, and listed compounded multi-dose hCG among the products. Now: Since March 23, 2020 hCG products are licensed biologics, and FDA’s position is that biologics can’t be compounded under 503A or 503B; pharmacies may only mix, dilute or repackage a licensed product under FDA’s 2018 guidance. No hCG biosimilar is approved.
- Wrong: TB-500 was described as a 43-amino-acid peptide with a 2–3-day half-life, a BPC-157 safety study was labelled as TB-500’s, and TB-500 purity problems were blamed on the size of a 43-amino-acid synthesis. Now: TB-500 is the thymosin β4 17–23 fragment, with no measured human half-life; the parent protein’s studies are labelled as the parent’s.
- Wrong: TB-500 was described as full-length thymosin β4 (4,963 Da, Phase III results), and the fragment sold as TB-500 was called a mislabelled product. Now: TB-500 is the seven-amino-acid fragment; full-length Tβ4 is its parent and the molecule in the trials, and the COA mass (889 vs 4,963 Da) tells them apart.
- Wrong: TB-500 was described as full-length thymosin β4 (43 amino acids, 4,921 Da, a 2–3-day half-life, banned by WADA since 2011), with gray-market vials “nearly always” the full protein; it cited a dry-eye Phase 3 miss (SEER-3) that isn’t on record, a heart-attack pilot whose trial never enrolled, and horse repair studies we couldn’t find. Now: TB-500 is Ac-LKKTETQ, residues 17–23 of thymosin β4 (889 Da), as FDA and doping-control labs define it: no human studies, no published half-life, named by WADA since 2018. The human trials are labelled as the parent protein’s, and the TB-500 Fragment page is folded into this one.
- Wrong: The literature tables on 307 pair pages repeated the wrong links and author lists from the compound pages. Now: They carry the same corrections.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: Waglerin was said to be first isolated in 1992 by Schmidt and Weinstein, citing a 1992 paper on its synaptic effects under the wrong authors and journal; ten other citations named the wrong authors or journal. Now: It was first isolated and sequenced in 1991 (Weinstein, Schmidt and colleagues, Toxicon), now in the references; the 1992 paper is Aiken et al., Pharmacol Toxicol. Authors and journals match PubMed.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 5 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: Three hepatitis studies were misdescribed: Poo 2008 as a randomized trial in 352 untreated hepatitis C patients, Chien 1998 as a comparison with interferon, and the Zhang 2009 meta-analysis as 13 trials in 1,034 patients. Eight links opened other papers; three references named the wrong authors or journal. Now: Poo 2008 was open-label, in 40 patients who had failed interferon (21.1% sustained response); Chien 1998 compared Tα1 with no treatment; Zhang 2009 pooled 8 trials in 583 patients. Each link opens the paper named.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 3 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: A 2009 letter to The Lancet was presented as the journal’s expression of concern about the tesofensine trial; three other citations had the wrong link or authors. Now: The Lancet’s expression of concern about the tesofensine trial report is from April 2013 (PMID 23561987); the 2009 items are two letters. Each link opens the paper named.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 3 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 10 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 3 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 10 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 8 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 10 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 5 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 4 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: The trial of nicotinamide riboside in mild cognitive impairment was credited to Vreones 2023 and said to show a trend toward cognitive benefit. Now: It is Orr 2024: 20 patients for 10 weeks; blood NAD+ rose 2.6-fold and cognition didn’t change.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 9 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 10 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: The teenage FAMMM case report behind the mole-change warning was credited to Cardones 2009, and four references named the wrong authors or journal. Now: It is Sivyer 2012 (Dermatol Pract Concept). Authors and journals match PubMed; each link opens the paper named.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 12 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: The central insulin-sensitizing study was cited as Muzumdar, Diabetes 2009, and eleven other links opened unrelated papers. Now: It is Muzumdar et al., PLoS One 2009. Links that could be matched to their paper now open it; five that couldn’t are listed in the report.
- Wrong: 9 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 12 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 8 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 10 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 4 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; 3 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 3 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 4 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 9 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: The review titled “a still unresolved riddle” was credited to Kastin and Akerstrom, 2003, with a link to another paper; four other citations had the wrong link or authors. Now: It is Kovalzon and Strekalova, J Neurochem 2006, and the summary follows its abstract. Each link opens the paper named.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 8 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 8 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 7 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 9 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; 4 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 9 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; 2 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 8 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited; one citation named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited; 3 citations named the wrong authors, title, journal or year. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names, with its details as PubMed indexes them.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: One reference link opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 5 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 6 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: 2 reference links opened a different paper than the one cited. Now: Each link opens the paper the reference names.
- Wrong: Six reference links opened other papers; the two Mendell gene-therapy trials were swapped (Becker muscular dystrophy 2015, inclusion body myositis 2017); the NEJM case report was paraphrased loosely; the WADA category was given as S2 (peptide hormones and growth factors). Now: Links, trials and the NEJM wording now match the papers; WADA S4.3, myostatin-binding proteins: the 2026 Prohibited List names follistatin there.