BPC-157's hidden history and its MAHA moment
A new STAT investigation traces BPC-157 from a 1989 Croatian lab to today's MAHA movement — and lays out why skeptics still question its core science.
June 1, 2026 · 3 min read
STAT published a long investigation on June 1, 2026 tracing BPC-157 from its origins in a Croatian laboratory to its current status as a favorite of the Make America Healthy Again movement. The piece centers on Predrag Sikiric, the 72-year-old University of Zagreb researcher who has spent more than 50 years developing the peptide — and uses his account to confront the questions skeptics keep raising about whether BPC-157's foundational science holds up.
What happened
According to STAT, Sikiric discovered BPC-157 in 1989 while looking for a naturally occurring substance that protects the stomach from stress damage. The peptide was licensed to the Croatian pharmaceutical company PLIVA in the 1990s and entered early human testing, but the program was abandoned after GSK acquired PLIVA's research institute in 2006. Licensing rights returned to Sikiric in 2009, and around 2010 the compound found its way onto gray markets through bodybuilders and biohackers sourcing it from overseas suppliers.
The report lays out the skeptics' case in detail. Among the unresolved issues it cites:
- The sequence of BPC-157's claimed parent protein was never published, which limits reproducibility
- No gene encoding the peptide has been identified in the human genome
- No dedicated receptor for BPC-157 has been definitively established
- A clinical trial begun in Tijuana in 2015 reported safety but remains unpublished
STAT quotes University of Michigan chemist Anna Mapp questioning the original patent, noting there was no demonstration she could see that it was "a single pure isolated substance." A former PLIVA scientific adviser is cited saying the peptide "barely outperformed an existing drug" in wound-healing work. Sikiric's side counters that animal and cell-culture studies consistently show healing with few side effects, supported by independent groups in Taiwan, South Korea, China, and Turkey.
Why it matters
This is the most detailed mainstream account yet of where BPC-157 actually came from, and it arrives as the regulatory question heats up. STAT notes that an FDA advisory committee is expected to weigh allowing pharmacy compounding of seven unapproved peptides — BPC-157 among them — in summer 2026. The peptide's political profile has risen alongside the MAHA movement and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s argument that Americans should be able to access experimental therapies like it.
For readers trying to evaluate BPC-157 honestly, the history matters because it explains the evidence gap. The compound was a real pharmaceutical program that stalled for business reasons, then re-emerged through self-experimentation rather than completed trials — which is exactly why the research evidence remains overwhelmingly pre-clinical. It also frames the legal and sourcing reality: there is no approved version, and every vial comes from the research-chemical market. The piece dovetails with recent academic pushback we covered when a McMaster researcher argued the hype is outrunning the evidence.
What to watch
The summer 2026 FDA advisory committee meeting is the near-term event to track — its recommendation on compounding could reshape how, and whether, BPC-157 reaches patients through legitimate pharmacies. Watch also for whether any of the long-promised human data, including the unpublished Tijuana trial, finally makes it into peer review. Until it does, the gap this STAT piece documents — between a compelling origin story and a thin evidentiary record — is the gap every prospective user is still betting on.
Sources
Sources