Peplogue
Back to Sleep & mood

AOD-9604

Failed for fat loss in human trials.

A piece of the growth-hormone molecule that was developed as an obesity pill in the 2000s. The trials failed and the company dropped it. It is still sold as a fat-loss injection. A , also called hGH fragment 177-191 and Anti-obesity drug 9604.

C78H123N23O23S21,815.1 g/mol16 amino acids

What the evidence shows

Failed
Six company trials covered 893 people. Early studies hinted at an effect, but the largest, a 24-week trial of 502 people, found no weight loss beyond placebo.

Side effects and risks

Unknown
Side effects matched placebo in the trials. Nothing is known about repeated injections.
Unknown
FDA has identified serious adverse events that may be linked to AOD-9604, cause unclear, and cites the risk of immune reactions and impurities in compounded versions.

Who should avoid it: Athletes, and anyone expecting fat loss: the trials found none.

Athletes: Prohibited at all times (class S2). Named on the current list as a growth-hormone fragment. WADA said in 2013 it had been banned under S0 since 2011. USADA advisory on 2027 WADA list, 2026-10

How it works

Where it acts
Thought to mimic the fat-burning tail of growth hormone without raising IGF-1.
What it changes
More fat breakdown in animal studies.
What people notice
In human trials, no more weight loss than placebo.

How it has been given in studies

By mouth, 0.25 mg to 54 mg a day for up to 24 weeks. Two small early trials gave single doses into a vein. The under-the-skin injections sold online were never tested.

Getting it in the United States

This describes what people do. It is not advice. The decision is yours.

What users report

Recurring themes in public forum posts, unverified and with no comparison group.

Reported benefits

  • A few report mild fat loss

Reported problems

  • Most notice nothing
  • Injection-site irritation

Consistent with the failed trials.

What experts and influencers say

Recommend0
Mixed view2
Warn against8

Recorded views, not a survey or scientific consensus. Cautions may concern misuse or unapproved products. Statements are paraphrased; check each source for context.

Supportive expert view

No sourced expert view in this category yet. See the full list for other perspectives.

Cautionary expert view

Calls the craze unfounded. He found no randomized human trial showing the advertised benefits for any of the unapproved peptides he reviewed, and warns about stacking several at once. He points to animal work in which TB-500 sped up dormant tumor growth and to a theoretical cancer concern with growth-hormone peptides and BPC-157. He treats the GLP-1 drugs as the well-studied exception.

Source: Eric Topol, "The Peptide Craze", Jul 2025, Associated Press, Nov 2025

Eric TopolWebsiteWarns against

Cardiologist, Scripps Research

See all views 10

Calls the craze unfounded. He found no randomized human trial showing the advertised benefits for any of the unapproved peptides he reviewed, and warns about stacking several at once. He points to animal work in which TB-500 sped up dormant tumor growth and to a theoretical cancer concern with growth-hormone peptides and BPC-157. He treats the GLP-1 drugs as the well-studied exception.

Source: Eric Topol, "The Peptide Craze", Jul 2025, Associated Press, Nov 2025

Eric TopolWebsiteWarns against

Cardiologist, Scripps Research

Publicly acknowledged in 2013 that he was given AOD-9604 in the club program. Later one of 34 players banned over thymosin beta-4. In November 2016 the AFL Commission ruled him ineligible for his 2012 Brownlow Medal and awarded it jointly to two other players.

Source: Wikipedia, Essendon supplements saga, 2016

Jobe WatsonInstagramMixed viewSays they used it

Former Essendon captain - Australia

Told an Adelaide outlet the six-month obesity trial gave a clear negative answer, that no clinical evidence supports tissue repair claims, and that it is at best a failed anti-obesity drug.

Source: InDaily, May 2013

Gary WittertWebsiteWarns against

Adelaide professor, AOD-9604 trial investigator - Australia

Money: Ran the trials for the manufacturer and co-patented it as an antidepressant

Photo source: research.sahmri.org.au

In a briefing memo for its compounding advisory committee, found no evidence of effectiveness for obesity and raised concerns about immune reactions, impurities, poor characterization and animal findings in bone and liver.

Source: FDA briefing memo, Nov 2024

US Food and Drug AdministrationSourceWarns against

Drug regulator, compounding review staff

Stated during the Essendon football scandal that AOD-9604 is banned at all times as an unapproved substance, correcting an Australian Crime Commission report that had said it was not prohibited.

Source: AFL.com.au, 2013

World Anti-Doping AgencySourceWarns against

Global anti-doping regulator - Worldwide

According to a health law firm review, issued suspension orders and settlements against clinics and distributors found holding AOD-9604 and similar peptides, treating them as unapproved drugs that cannot be compounded.

Source: Frier Levitt, Jan 2026

Ohio Board of PharmacySourceWarns against

State pharmacy regulator

The AFL fined the club 2 million Australian dollars and barred it from the 2013 finals over its 2012 injection program. Thymosin beta-4 was the banned substance at the centre. AOD-9604 was also given to players.

Source: Wikipedia, Essendon supplements saga, 2013

Essendon Football ClubSourceWarns againstSays they used it

AFL club - Australia

Its advisory on the 2027 list says peptides are now named in the non-approved class. It lists BPC-157, TB-500, AOD-9604, GHRPs, ipamorelin and thymosin beta-4 and urges caution with any unnamed peptide.

Source: USADA athlete advisory, 2026-10

USADASourceWarns against

US anti-doping agency

More contextCase reports, watch and read, emerging uses and chemistry

Case reports

From journals, regulators and studies of users. One case proves little.

No effecttrial result - 502 people - 2024

The FDA memo cites the largest obesity trial, about 500 people randomised, which found no significant weight loss difference from placebo. The developer ended the obesity program in 2007.

Source: FDA briefing memo, Nov 2024

FDA notes serious events possibly tied to AOD-9604

Harm reportedcase series - 2023

The FDA says it identified serious adverse events that may be associated with AOD-9604 but that causality is unclear. It adds that it has little or no safety information for the proposed routes.

Source: FDA bulk drug substances safety list, 2023

Watch and read

Explainers, reporting and podcasts worth your time. Summaries are ours. No sellers.

Amino-acid sequence

Water-avoidingWater-lovingPositive chargeNegative chargeStructural

Positions 7 and 14 are joined by a disulfide bridge, closing a ring.

Questions people ask

Does AOD-9604 work for fat loss?

The human trials say no. Six company trials covered 893 people, and the largest, a 24-week trial of 502 people, found no weight loss beyond placebo.

Is AOD-9604 safe?

Side effects matched placebo in the trials, which gave it by mouth. Nothing is known about repeated injections, and FDA has identified serious adverse events that may be linked to it, cause unclear.

Were the AOD-9604 injections sold online ever tested?

No. The trials gave it by mouth, and two small early trials gave single doses into a vein. The under-the-skin injections sold online were never tested.

Is AOD-9604 legal?

In the US its nomination for pharmacy compounding was withdrawn. In Australia it is Schedule 4 and Appendix D of the Poisons Standard, so possession without authority is illegal.

Your notebook

Taking it? A ten-second daily check-in keeps a record of how you feel, to talk through with your clinician.

Start tracking

Sources

  1. Stier et al.: safety summary of six AOD9604 trials
  2. More & Kenley: no weight loss in the final trial
  3. FDA: bulk substances that may present significant safety risks
  4. WADA Prohibited List

Structure: PubChem