Peptide use is moving into the mainstream, with people sourcing chemicals from the gray market in China. This DIY culture involves users mixing their own substances at home, much like a high school chemistry experiment. The topic has a natural virality. When it comes up in conversation, people are often eager to share their specific stacks and seek advice on what they should be taking.

I know people who are buying gray market peptides, DIY, mixing them themselves in their basement, like a little high school chemistry lab. And they love them and it's working. And you start talking about them at a party, people just start floating over, being like, what's your peptide stack?

Jasmine highlights the popularity of the Wolverine stack among those focused on physical performance. This combination of BPC 157 and TB 500 was originally used by bodybuilders to speed up muscle recovery after intense exercise or to heal sports injuries. The name refers to the character's famous ability to heal rapidly from physical damage.

It helps your muscles recover faster after a really hard workout or supposedly helps with sports injuries and things like that. And so I think they probably came up with the Wolverine stack name and now other people use it.

A new trend involving Chinese peptides is emerging in social circles across San Francisco and New York. While the topic is a frequent point of discussion at house parties and on social media, it remains largely unknown to the broader public. This phenomenon has grown to include niche events like peptide raves, where participants gather to discuss these substances.

We all hear about the stuff in our circles. We hear about it at house parties, on Twitter, whatever. And I started mentioning it to friends on the east coast and they were like, I have no idea what you're talking about. You have to write about this.

Jasmine transitioned from a career as a product manager at Substack to investigative reporting about a year ago. Her deep connection to the tech ecosystem allowed her to spot this trend early. She realized that while her immediate peers were familiar with the peptide scene, there was a significant gap in understanding for those outside the tech bubble.

Peptides are essentially mini proteins made of chains of amino acids that stay active in the body. Many common substances are peptides, including insulin and oxytocin. Even the popular GLP1 compound found in weight loss drugs is a naturally occurring peptide that was modified to stay in the system longer. The massive success of these drugs has changed how people view medical treatments. It has made many people comfortable with self-injection as a powerful method for accessing bioactive compounds.

Jasmine explains that this comfort level led many to seek out cheaper alternatives on the gray market. After finding Chinese-manufactured versions of GLP1, users began looking for other substances that are not yet available or approved in the United States. They often purchase these directly from factories for a low cost to experiment on themselves.

Once people started going gray market for GLP1s, realizing that they could buy Chinese manufactured GLP1s for much cheaper on the gray market, they started thinking, what other stuff am I not allowed to access yet in the US that I can be buying straight from these Chinese factories for like 50 bucks a pop and just injecting myself with.

This has sparked a significant boom in experimental peptide use. People are now injecting these compounds, taking notes on the effects, and sharing their experiences with friends to see what happens.

What started as an internet meme is becoming a real trend in health and fitness. People are no longer just joking about Chinese peptides. They are buying these substances on the gray market and mixing them at home. The phrase has a natural virality. When it comes up at parties, people often gather around to ask about specific stacks and how they work.

I know people who are buying gray market peptides, diy, like, mixing them themselves in their basement, like a little high school chemistry lab. And they love them and it's working. And you start talking about them at a party, people just start floating over, being like, what's your peptide stack?

Different groups use these peptides for various goals. While many women focus on GLP-1s, others use the Wolverine stack for physical recovery. Jasmine notes that this combination of BPC 157 and TB 500 was originally used by bodybuilders to heal sports injuries and recover faster after hard workouts. The name comes from the idea of healing quickly like the comic book character.

Many medical professionals express concern regarding the use of unregulated peptides. These substances can stimulate growth pathways in the body. If a person has an undiagnosed tumor, these peptides might cause it to spread more quickly. For instance, some components of the Wolverine stack are known to upregulate pathways linked to tumor growth. Other substances like Melanotan have been connected to skin cancer risks in specific case studies. Most of these products are not FDA approved and do not undergo the strict testing required for human medicine.

On all these websites it is like, not for human use. This has become a hilarious fig leaf because people just look right past it. The suppliers look right past it.

The sourcing of these chemicals in the gray market presents significant safety risks. There is a large gap between the quality standards for human pharmaceuticals and those for research chemicals. Because many of these substances come from overseas suppliers, it is difficult to verify their purity or check for contamination. Jasmine notes that some suppliers try to manufacture trust by posting videos online. They might film themselves dumping out a bad batch of peptides to convince customers of their high standards. However, without official oversight, the true quality of these products remains uncertain.

Frontier Tower on Market Street serves as a vertical village for the tech community. Each floor is themed around a specific field like robotics or biotechnology. On the biotech floor, the atmosphere features purple LED lighting and tables covered in peptide vials and crystals. Demos include people taking their own blood or injecting peptides like BPC 157 to test their effects. The building also hosts robot fights in the basement, creating a unique hub for technical experimentation.

One guy told me that because San Francisco has places on Market Street that you can go to get drugs tested for free, they are doing it for recreational drugs. But he was telling me you can go get your peptides tested for free, sponsored by the city of San Francisco. This is the most San Francisco moment I have had.

Jasmine describes how the event transitioned from scientific demos to a social gathering. Below the lab space, attendees moved to a rave featuring loud techno and projections of organic chemistry structures. The crowd mixed technical discussions about peptide stacks with a party atmosphere. This blend of intense scientific interest and underground social culture defines the local scene at Frontier Tower.

The gray market for peptides like GLP-1s is expanding across different regions and social groups. In Southern California, the trend is fueled by wellness influencers focused on fitness and appearance. In San Francisco, it is viewed more as a biohacking project. While tech professionals were the first to experiment with these substances because of their high risk tolerance, the customer base has broadened significantly. The typical buyer now includes service workers looking for more affordable options than name-brand medications.

Our median customer today is more like a barista who wants cheap Ozempic. The techies were the first because of the willingness to take ridiculous risks.

Social media plays a massive role in this growth. On platforms like TikTok, young people see advertisements for gray market peptides. This is particularly common in communities focused on looksmaxxing, where teenagers and young adults seek ways to improve their physical appearance. This trend is worrying because it targets a younger audience who may not understand the risks involved in using unregulated substances.

Some individuals have even started mixing their own medications at home. Jasmine spoke with people who follow online guides to dilute and prepare their own GLP-1 doses. For those with technical backgrounds, the process can seem straightforward. One person Jasmine interviewed compared the task to high school chemistry. However, the lack of professional oversight leads to dangerous mistakes.

One day I was just super confused. I accidentally doubled my dose and then I couldn't eat for two weeks and my hair started falling out. But I am still going to keep going.

The biggest danger in the gray market is the uncertainty of the supply. While the medical community has tested GLP-1s in clinical trials, there is no guarantee that gray market products are pure or correctly labeled. Contamination is a constant threat. Even when the supply is safe, a simple measurement error can result in severe health consequences. Despite these dangers, many users maintain an adventurous attitude and continue their DIY treatments.

People are experimenting with various peptides like BPC157 and TB500 to stimulate blood vessel growth for healing injuries. Others use Oxytocin to improve eye contact, with some researchers even calling it Ozempic for autism. Beyond standard weight loss, there is a trend of microdosing next-generation drugs like Rettatrue tide to combat vices such as alcoholism, excessive gaming, or online shopping. While anecdotal accounts are enticing, there are no clinical trials supporting these microdosing practices.

Dr. Paul Abramson, a concierge doctor in San Francisco, notes that many high-level tech professionals are asking about these substances. His primary concern is the lack of testing for long-term effects and potential interactions when these substances are stacked together. Clinical trials are designed to account for confounding factors like other medications or existing health conditions. When individuals do their own research, they are essentially running an n equals 1 experiment without control variables.

Part of the things you do in clinical trials is not just like, did it work for one person? But like, are there long term effects? What happens when you take it at the same time as you're taking all of this other stuff? Like, what if you're on other medications, what if you have other health conditions? There's just a million confounding factors that you're testing for during that clinical trial process. And when people do their own research, it's like n equals 1.

There is a significant cultural component to this behavior, particularly in San Francisco. Many users, often in their twenties, acknowledge the risks but feel their high risk tolerance justifies the experimentation. Jasmine explains that these individuals often view biohacking through the same lens as entrepreneurship. They see themselves as charging ahead of a slow, bureaucratic world. They take pride in being early adopters of the future, even when it involves injecting unapproved substances from unknown origins.

I know it's risky and I'm down for that. Because I'm a really risk tolerant person. Like I'm the kind of person who would start a company. So I'm just like willing to try a lot of stuff that might have huge upsides and also big downsides. But like, that's the sort of person I am.

Many people are tired of battling health insurance companies and waiting for doctors. This frustration leads to a feeling that the system is working against patients. Consequently, more individuals are choosing to take control of their own healthcare rather than relying on traditional institutions. Jasmine notes a comparison between financial and health regulation. In this view, the government is seen as an obstacle to both prosperity and well-being.

The SEC is trying to stop you from being wealthy. The FDA is trying to stop you from being healthy.

This anti-establishment perspective is gaining traction. While the comparison is catchy, health issues often become much more complex than financial matters very quickly.

The political landscape surrounding peptides is shifting. Under previous guidance, the FDA issued warning letters to suppliers for marketing research chemicals to humans. However, the current administration has shifted toward a less restrictive environment. There are reports that officials are reviewing lists of banned compounds and taking a more hands-off approach to enforcement. This shift also includes efforts to lower prices for medications like Ozempic and expedite approvals for oral versions of GLP-1 drugs.

The Trump FDA has not done any of that. So basically one is they've just stopped enforcing some of the current regulations against peptide sellers. They are at least taking a more laissez-faire approach to peptides rather than cracking down.

A significant concern remains regarding the safety and origin of these substances. Many popular peptides have only undergone testing in rats rather than human clinical trials. Furthermore, the supply chain for biotech is heavily concentrated in China. This mirrors the hardware industry, where Chinese industrial policies and subsidies have created a dominant manufacturing ecosystem. Almost all active pharmaceutical ingredients and synthesized DNA snippets used in American labs now come from Chinese factories.

China is basically producing a huge amount of not just peptides, but like active pharmaceutical ingredients in general. The US feels that because our hospitals aren't able to get some of the stuff we need. It is kind of concerning that all of the peptides are being manufactured in China.

The peptide market is currently split between proven clinical successes and experimental trends. While GLP-1 medications show strong evidence and are moving into the mainstream, the future of other peptides is less certain. Jasmine observes that injecting oneself is an involved and somewhat annoying process. If these experimental treatments do not produce obvious results, people will likely stop using them. However, a deeper cultural shift is happening where individuals no longer want to wait for the medical establishment. More people are choosing to take their health into their own hands by testing treatments before they reach the mainstream.

What I do think will continue is just this idea that you don't have to deal with the medical establishment. The FDA is too slow. I want to take my health into my own hands. You can test experimental treatments on yourself even before they reach the mainstream, and I think that is going to stick around.

This DIY approach to health is often pioneered by figures like Bryan Johnson, who engages in extreme experimental treatments. These protocols can include procedures that seem unusual to the average person. For example, some treatments involve spinning blood in a centrifuge to isolate specific components. One particularly intense method involves a specialized process where stem cells are administered through the nose. Despite the potential benefits, the barrier remains high for many people because of an aversion to needles and the fear of side effects from unregulated substances.

They sucked up his stem cells and then he snorted and they put it way up his nose. I can feel it in my head. But before that we were doing lasers in our veins.

While some people swear by these treatments, others remain cautious. The idea of randomly injecting a chemical from an unverified source is a significant hurdle. Even those who follow the edge of biotechnology often find the physical pain and the risk of runaway effects to be a deterrent. Ultimately, the trend reflects a growing desire for agency in personal health, even if the methods remain controversial.

The gray market for peptides and other medical treatments exists because of a massive gap in the pharmaceutical industry. Large companies often refuse to fund expensive clinical trials for substances that are difficult to patent or do not target a major disease. For example, a treatment for a sports injury might not be profitable enough for a firm to invest in. When people face chronic pain or health issues with no official options, they often look for alternatives suggested by online communities.

The gray market appears because you have this gap where pharmaceutical companies don't want to invest in the very expensive clinical trials for certain substances because they are hard to patent, because there's no moat, because they don't target a really big disease.

The United States is currently a biotech capital, especially with the biohacking culture in San Francisco. However, high costs and strict regulations often hold the industry back. Many startups now run their clinical trials in Australia because it is faster and cheaper. Jasmine notes that this frustration with the American healthcare system is pushing more people toward unregulated options. There is a clear need for clinical trial abundance and cheaper ways to test new substances.

It makes sense why people are frustrated with requiring a hundred million dollar clinical trials that take a decade to get anything across the line. And why companies aren't going to invest in a bunch of stuff just because that's too expensive.

This culture of experimentation is moving quickly. Young founders are testing treatments on mice and trying to bypass the traditional requirements of the past. At the same time, some in the tech world are pushing boundaries into controversial areas. These include gene editing, embryo selection, and using growth hormones on children to increase their height. This move toward the edge of biology suggests a major shift in how people view health and human enhancement.

Jasmine's career path shows a strategic shift from the technical side of Silicon Valley to a more analytical role in media. After studying sociology at Stanford, Jasmine worked in climate tech and AI policy before becoming a product manager at Substack. Although Jasmine always wanted to be a journalist, she chose to work in tech first because the media market in 2020 seemed nearly impossible to enter. During her time as a product manager, she witnessed Substack grow from a small startup into a major social media entity with video and podcasting capabilities.

I felt like I want to share what is happening here in a way that feels understandable and not scary and analytical, critical to the broader public.

Jasmine eventually left her role at Substack to pursue her original passion for writing and reporting. She noticed a significant gap between the developers building new technologies in the Bay Area and the people outside that bubble who feel a lack of control over those same tools. By working across various platforms like her own Substack and major newspapers, Jasmine aims to understand the future of media and how to communicate complex technical changes effectively.

Success in modern journalism often starts with a personal platform. Jasmine found that building a Substack was the most effective way to attract interest from major publications. While some opportunities come through professional introductions, many editors now discover talent by reading independent blogs. This self-motivated writing demonstrates what a person is interested in and how they write without an editor. Having a blog makes it much easier for publications to bet on a new writer.

When younger journalists reach out, I am always just like, have a blog. Have a substack. People will just find you. I was really surprised at how many editors reach out just because they are on your blog or something like that.

Transitioning into journalism can be risky, especially compared to higher-paying tech roles. Jasmine de-risked her career shift by maintaining her skills as a product manager. Having a backup plan allowed her to pursue writing without betting everything on a precarious industry. While legacy media offers rigor and broad reach, it often fails to drive actual conversations within the tech industry. There is a growing divide between mainstream publications and specialized tech communities.

I do feel like it really sucks that for the most part, stories in the legacy press do not drive conversations in tech. The level of depth I can get by reading weird AI substacks or by being on Twitter just vastly surpasses what I can get by reading these great other publications.

Legacy media remains valuable for its fact-checking and ability to reach a million people with a single story. However, it is losing its feedback loop with the tech industry. This lack of connection means journalists and tech workers are not holding each other accountable or collaborating. Instead, they exist in two totally different ecosystems.

Tech journalism has undergone a significant transformation over the last few decades. In the past, the focus was on explaining how new developments worked with a sense of optimism. This shifted dramatically in the 2010s, particularly following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Coverage began to treat technology like sports or politics, often adopting a critical tone where every action by a tech company was viewed with suspicion.

Once it was really hitting the public that tech is now affecting elections and things like that, then all of a sudden it flips. It is like anything tech does is evil.

A major issue with mainstream coverage is the tendency to oversimplify complex subjects. While people generally understand the rules of basketball or the basics of politics, technical subjects like biology or software require more nuance. When major publications dumb down these topics, they lose relevance within the tech community. This gap in understanding makes it harder for journalists to build trust with sources, leading to a cycle of poor information and decreasing credibility.

Jasmine experienced this firsthand when writing for a major newspaper. Editors frequently requested explanations for terms like biohacker or VibeCamp, assuming the audience would be lost without them. This approach contrasts with the goal of creating content for a more informed audience. It is often more effective to assume that readers can keep up or take the initiative to research unfamiliar terms on their own.

I would rather assume the audience can keep up than assume you have to dumb stuff down. If the audience cannot always keep up, that is okay. They will go figure it out. There is a whole internet and chatbot which you can ask questions about things that you might not be sure about.

Transitioning from a free-form writing environment to a major institution like the New York Times brings a significant shift in creative control. While editors may initially praise a writer's humor and unique perspective, the weight of institutional standards often smooths out those edges. A specific style that gets a writer hired can easily disappear during the final editing stages.

All I want you to do is just be funny and we need that here. And then, famous last words, never got a joke in the paper ever.

Jasmine found this to be true during the editing of a health-focused piece. The story faced intense scrutiny from health, tech, and standards editors to ensure it met strict guidelines and avoided spreading medical misinformation. This rigorous process meant cutting vivid anecdotes, such as a subject using peptides specifically because he wanted to change his natural appearance. Additionally, writers often choose to omit specific sourcing details for unregulated substances to avoid providing unintentional advertising for questionable websites that often import materials from overseas without clear oversight.

The perception of defense technology has shifted significantly on college campuses over the last few years. During the period between 2017 and 2020, students actively protested companies like Palantir and Salesforce for their government contracts. Now, a new generation of students is eager to join these same companies. Jasmine notes that this change stems from several factors. Students often follow where the venture capital money goes. They listen to industry leaders who promote the idea of American dynamism. The proven success of companies like Anduril and SpaceX provides a clear path for a lucrative career.

Young people in the valley at Stanford in particular do kind of follow where the VC money is. They are on the same Twitter feeds that all of us are. There are these career fairs, VCs, CEOs, always visiting campus and giving talks. And so if they are saying American dynamism is a hot thing right now, I do think that just affects what young people are interested in.

Beyond financial motivations, a sense of patriotism is returning to the tech sector. Many young people cite the Russia-Ukraine war and the strategic competition with China as reasons to work in defense. There is also a shift in the political landscape. Some younger men in the industry are becoming more openly patriotic. Jasmine observed that while working at these startups is becoming more popular, it remains highly polarized. An article about this trend even sparked renewed controversy and bullying on campus. The history of Silicon Valley is deeply linked to defense spending. This relationship is cyclical. It moves from heavy government funding in the mid-twentieth century to intense protests during the Vietnam War. While some in the tech world previously viewed military involvement with skepticism, the current era sees a blending of industrial manufacturing and national security interests.

The relationship between technology and defense moves in historical cycles. Jasmine spoke with professors who lived through these shifts. Terry Winograd participated in anti-Vietnam protests as an ethical computer scientist. Steve Blank has tracked the history of Silicon Valley and defense for a long time. These perspectives show that current political and tech tensions are part of a recurring pattern.

A recent focus on "Spy Mania" highlights these tensions. This topic gained traction through social media memes and public accusations of espionage. While these accusations make headlines, the more significant issue is how talent moves between nations.

It ended up being a really fun story about talent flows between China and the US and the AI industry.

The movement of skilled workers in the AI sector is a key part of this dynamic. It reveals the complex connections between the two countries despite growing suspicion in Silicon Valley. Researching these talent flows provides a clearer picture of the industry than focusing only on headlines about spying.

Concerns about espionage in the AI sector are real, but they often lead to the racial and ethnic profiling of Chinese women. This environment creates a culture where some talented individuals avoid networking events or industry gatherings because they expect to be treated poorly. While national security is a priority, the current approach can feel like it paints with too broad a brush, affecting many people who are not involved in any illicit activity.

You might not even be working on anything very high security. They will send your passport back to the US for extra processing. I heard so many stories of people getting stranded in Beijing for months while their visas were getting bonus processing to check if they were spies.

This issue extends to visa policies that create significant barriers for high skilled immigrants. Many Chinese nationals who have lived and worked in the US for years now face the risk of being stranded if they leave the country to visit family. During recent holidays, some tech companies even advised employees against traveling to China because of the high likelihood of visa delays. Some people have even decided not to take jobs in AI specifically to avoid these travel restrictions and the inability to see their families.

The US leadership in AI depends heavily on international talent. Most researchers from around the world want to work in Silicon Valley because it remains the best place for cutting edge research. However, by being overly restrictive, the US risks handicapping its own progress and losing the very people who drive innovation.

We are kind of foot gunning ourselves. We are handicapping ourselves when we are so freaked out about spies that, past the normal amount of security risk, we are basically shutting out all of the talent that we could have.

The conversation around artificial intelligence is shifting away from sensational timelines. Many researchers at major labs often predict that AI will surpass human intelligence within a very short window. However, the reality of the technology suggests a different path. Jasmine believes that while AI will continue to improve, achieving artificial general intelligence this year is unlikely.

I don't think it is going to be AGI this year, surprisingly so. I agree. I think we can expect it to get better.

The initial launch of tools like ChatGPT felt like a massive shock to the system. Since then, the progress has felt more gradual. People are becoming accustomed to the steady growth of these tools. The buzz surrounding specific predictions for when AI will reach human levels has faded. Even media coverage is moving away from timeline based stories because the focus on specific dates has lost its relevance.

AGI timelines have lost their significance because there is no consensus on what AGI actually is. Jasmine reviewed historical definitions and found that every person defines it differently. Whenever a milestone is reached that was once considered AGI, people simply move the goalposts. This makes defining a concrete moment of achievement nearly impossible.

I sort of figured that it was not possible or worthwhile to define AGI because it isn't going to be a concrete milestone. And even if one person sort of declares AGI or their lab declares AGI, everyone's just going to argue about it on Twitter and it's just not really something like nuclear weapons, where you think you either have nuclear weapons or you don't.

The comparison to nuclear weapons is common in safety literature, but AI is far more complex. It is not a binary technology. It involves many steps and has multiple uses. The progress of AI is also uniquely uneven. For example, AI could fold proteins before it could count the letters in a word like strawberry. This jaggedness proves that AI is something entirely different that does not fit into a single milestone.