CJC-1295: what the human research actually shows
A GHRH analog with a single published human pharmacology paper, a Phase 2 program that the developer stopped, and two different formulations that people routinely confuse. I would not treat CJC-1295 as a proven anything in 2026.
Why I looked into this
CJC-1295 shows up constantly in peptide forums, usually paired with Ipamorelin and usually described as if it has real clinical backing. When I went to read the primary literature, I found one Phase 1 paper, a halted Phase 2 program, and a wall of confident writeups that seemed to be quoting each other rather than the underlying research.
The other thing that made me pay attention is that almost nobody online distinguishes the two forms. The DAC version and the no-DAC version are different molecules with different half-lives and different safety stories. Writing a single “CJC-1295” summary that ignores the distinction is how bad information spreads.
What CJC-1295 actually is
CJC-1295 is a synthetic analog of growth-hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH), based on the biologically active 1-29 fragment. It was developed by ConjuChem, a Canadian biotech, in the early 2000s.
Two forms exist and they are not interchangeable. CJC-1295 with DAC carries a Drug Affinity Complex, a maleimidopropionic acid linker that binds covalently to serum albumin after injection. Albumin binding extends the circulating half-life to roughly six to eight days, meaning the molecule keeps stimulating GHRH receptors long after a single exposure. CJC-1295 without DAC, also called Mod-GRF 1-29 or CJC-1295 no-DAC, is the same 1-29 backbone with stability modifications but without the albumin-binding complex. Its half-life is short, measured in minutes to hours. Biohacker writeups routinely flatten the two into one “CJC-1295,” which is the single most common factual error in the retail discourse around this compound.
What the human research shows
Do published human trials exist?
One published clinical pharmacology paper exists in peer-reviewed human research. Teichman and colleagues, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2006, PMID 16352683. It was a single-ascending-dose Phase 1 study in healthy adult volunteers testing the DAC form of CJC-1295. The paper reports sustained elevation of growth hormone and IGF-1 after a single exposure.
Beyond that one paper, the developer (ConjuChem) advanced the DAC form into a Phase 2 program for HIV-associated lipodystrophy. That program was halted around 2007. The company cited safety signals including two serious adverse events (hospitalizations) and one death, with the death reported as potentially unrelated to study drug but still contributing to the decision to stop. No efficacy readout from that Phase 2 was ever published in a peer-reviewed journal.
For CJC-1295 without DAC (Mod-GRF 1-29), I could not find a published clinical trial in humans on PubMed or the WHO trial registry as of this writing.
What evidence actually exists?
The published and public record, such as it is:
- Teichman SL et al., J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2006 (PMID 16352683): Phase 1 single-ascending-dose study of CJC-1295 with DAC in healthy volunteers. Reported sustained GH and IGF-1 elevation after a single exposure. Funded by ConjuChem, the developer.
- Ionescu and Frohman, J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2006: a related human pharmacology report describing pulsatile GH release after CJC-1295 with DAC exposure in healthy men.
- ConjuChem Phase 2 program in HIV-associated lipodystrophy: initiated, halted, never published efficacy results. The public record of this trial is corporate communications and industry press coverage, not a peer-reviewed trial report.
- No published human trial of CJC-1295 without DAC (Mod-GRF 1-29) as of April 2026.
- No published human trial of the CJC-1295 plus Ipamorelin combination that biohacker writeups treat as a standard pairing.
What the research does not show
The research does NOT show:
- That CJC-1295 in either form produces a measured clinical outcome in any human disease state. The Phase 1 paper reports biomarker changes (GH and IGF-1), not clinical endpoints.
- Any completed Phase 2 or Phase 3 efficacy readout for either form, for any indication.
- That the DAC form is safe over repeated exposure. The published human data is a single-ascending-dose study. Repeated-exposure safety in humans was the question the halted Phase 2 was supposed to answer, and that answer never came.
- That the no-DAC form (Mod-GRF 1-29) has any human clinical evidence at all. The online assumption that no-DAC is “safer because shorter” is not supported by a published human trial.
- That the CJC-1295 plus Ipamorelin combination is validated in humans. There is no published combination trial.
- Muscle growth, fat loss, injury recovery, or anti-aging outcomes in humans. These are the claims that drive retail interest, and none of them rest on a completed human efficacy trial.
Known safety signals in humans
The largest single human safety signal on the public record is the halting of the DAC-form Phase 2 program for HIV lipodystrophy. The developer cited serious adverse events including two hospitalizations and one death, with the death reported as potentially unrelated to study drug. That is still a discontinuation event serious enough to end development. It is not a rumor, it is the reason this compound does not have a later-stage clinical record.
Outside that program, the published human pharmacology is limited to single-exposure Phase 1 data. There is no repeated-exposure safety readout in humans for either form. There is no published pharmacovigilance file. GHRH-axis modulation has theoretical long-term concerns (tissue exposure to sustained GH and IGF-1 signaling) that would normally be addressed by a completed clinical program. That program does not exist.
FDA and legal status in the US
CJC-1295 in either form sits outside the FDA-approved drug market. It is not on the 503A bulk drug substances list, and it is not under active PCAC review. Unlike the seven peptides in the July 2026 advisory committee meeting, CJC-1295 has no near-term regulatory event that could change its compounding status.
The original developer halted Phase 2 around 2007, and no other sponsor has picked up a US clinical program since. That combination (halted development, no follow-on sponsor, no compounding pathway) is what the current status looks like when a compound has effectively exited the regulated pipeline.
How to evaluate a source: the safety framework
Why this section exists: people are going to look for sources whether I help or not. My goal here is harm reduction, not facilitation. I do not name vendors. I do not link to sellers. I am teaching you how to think about a source so you can have an informed conversation with a clinician.
- Licensed 503A compounding pharmacy
- Third-party certificate of analysis
- Requires a valid prescription
- US-based with verifiable physical address
- Transparent about what they compound and what they do not
- Anonymous crypto-only payment
- “Research use only” labeling loophole
- No COA or in-house testing only
- No physical address or phone contact
- Willingness to sell Category 2 substances for human use
The wrinkle for CJC-1295 specifically
The specific source-safety problem with CJC-1295 is the DAC versus no-DAC confusion. What gets sold online under the name “CJC-1295” is often not specified clearly on the label, and the two forms are chemically distinct: one has the albumin-binding complex attached, one does not. A buyer who thinks they are receiving the short-acting no-DAC form and receives the long-acting DAC form (or vice versa) is getting a materially different molecule with a materially different exposure profile.
On top of that, CJC-1295 is a research-use-only compound with no US pharmacopoeia monograph, no independent identity-testing standard that retail buyers can verify, and no enforcement of what any given label claims. Identity failures and mislabeling in the peptide research-chemical market are well documented in analytical literature. CJC-1295 is not exempt from that pattern.
Cost reality
Expect $30 to $90 for a single vial of material labeled “CJC-1295” from a research-use-only supplier, with the no-DAC form usually cheaper than the DAC form. A licensed 503A compounding pharmacy would almost certainly not compound it under current 503A constraints, because the compound is not on the bulk drug substances list.
Cost is a particularly bad quality signal for this compound because the cheaper no-DAC form is also the form with zero published human clinical trial data. Paying less for something that has even less evidence behind it is not a win.
Questions worth asking any source
- Exactly which form is in this vial: CJC-1295 with DAC, or CJC-1295 without DAC (Mod-GRF 1-29)? What identity test confirms that?
- Can you provide a certificate of analysis from a third-party lab, not in-house testing?
- Are you a licensed 503A compounding pharmacy with a verifiable US state license, or are you a research-chemical supplier?
- Do you require a valid prescription from a licensed clinician?
- Do you have a physical US address and a phone number I can verify independently?
My honest take
Opinion, not evidence
This section is opinion. I am not endorsing use of this peptide. Everything above this line is sourced from the published record. Everything below is my personal perspective as one pseudonymous reader and one person who has used this peptide. Your situation is not my situation. Do not treat this as a recommendation.
I have not used CJC-1295. If I were going to try a GH-axis-modulating peptide today, I would not start here. The published human data is a single Phase 1 pharmacology paper from 2006 on the DAC form, and the Phase 2 that was supposed to answer the important questions was halted. The no-DAC form that most biohackers actually use has no published human clinical trial at all.
The DAC versus no-DAC distinction is the thing I think serious readers keep missing. The two are different molecules with different exposure profiles and different safety questions. Writeups that collapse them into one “CJC-1295” are building arguments on a category error. Any honest read of this compound has to start by picking which form is being discussed.
The retail popularity of the CJC-1295 plus Ipamorelin pairing is downstream of forum consensus, not of a published combination trial. That does not mean it is inert. It means the evidence you are being asked to trust is anecdotal and self-reported, and the incentive structure around that evidence (forums adjacent to sellers) is not neutral.
For someone who is curious, I would read Teichman 2006 yourself and notice what it is and is not. For someone considering use, I would want to understand why the Phase 2 was halted before anything else, and I would want a clinician in the loop rather than a forum. For someone who has already decided, the source-safety framework matters more here than for almost any other peptide on this site, because the DAC confusion alone can make the difference between a short-acting and a long-acting exposure.
Questions to ask your doctor
If you are considering CJC-1295, or if you are already using it and want to have an honest conversation with a clinician, these are the questions I would bring in with me.
- I have been reading about CJC-1295 and I want to understand the DAC versus no-DAC distinction clearly. Given that the Phase 2 program for the DAC form was halted, how would you think about either form clinically?
- If I were to consider a GHRH analog, what baseline labs would you want first (IGF-1, fasting glucose, HbA1c, others), and what would you re-check later?
- Given that the only published human trial is a single-exposure Phase 1 paper from 2006, how would you weigh that evidence base in your clinical judgment?
- Are there FDA-approved GH-axis options (tesamorelin, sermorelin, recombinant GH in appropriate indications) that you would consider before a non-approved GHRH analog?
- If I developed unusual symptoms while using a GHRH analog (persistent headache, fluid retention, blood-sugar changes, joint pain), what should I do and who should I contact first?
- Is there a conventional option that addresses whatever outcome I am hoping a GHRH analog would produce, that we should try or rule out first?
What to do next
Read the one primary paper
Start with Teichman et al. 2006 in J Clin Endocrinol Metab (PMID 16352683). It is the single published human pharmacology paper. Read it yourself, not the writeups.
Open the primer →Understand the halted Phase 2
Before anything else, understand why the HIV lipodystrophy Phase 2 was stopped. Bring the visit-prep packet and the DAC versus no-DAC question to your clinician.
Get the packet →Identity first, always
The most important source-safety question for this compound is which form is actually in the vial. The 503A checklist and a third-party certificate of analysis are non-optional here.
Open the checklist →Sources
- Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. “Prolonged stimulation of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I secretion by CJC-1295, a long-acting analog of GH-releasing hormone, in healthy adults.” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2006;91(3):799-805. PMID 16352683. Funded by ConjuChem.
- Ionescu M, Frohman LA. “Pulsatile secretion of growth hormone (GH) persists during continuous stimulation by CJC-1295, a long-acting GH-releasing hormone analog.” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2006;91(12):4792-4797. PMID 16968788.
- Sackmann-Sala L, Guidotti JE, Goffin V. “Minireview: the role of prolactin in prostate tumorigenesis.” Molecular Endocrinology. Background context on GH/IGF-1-axis safety considerations. PubMed.
- Sigalos JT, Pastuszak AW. “The Safety and Efficacy of Growth Hormone Secretagogues.” Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2018;6(1):45-53. Review of the GH-secretagogue class including CJC-1295. PMID 28826992.
- World Anti-Doping Agency. “2026 Prohibited List,” category S2 (peptide hormones, growth factors, related substances). wada-ama.org.
I cite sources above to show the reader what is available to read. Inclusion does not imply endorsement of any claim. Every preclinical reference is flagged as animal or in-vitro only.
Related monographs
Ipamorelin
The ghrelin-mimetic half of the forum-standard CJC-1295 plus Ipamorelin pairing. Read alongside to see why the combination case is weaker than it looks.
CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin
The pairing the retail discourse presents as a default. What the combination actually has behind it in human evidence, and what it does not.
Sermorelin
The other 1-29 GHRH analog. Older, with a real FDA history (since withdrawn) and a different evidence base than CJC-1295. Useful contrast.