What did @sooshalt actually say?
The creator listed a weekly peptide and supplement stack that includes Retatrutide ("Rhetto") at 5mg per week, KAG at 2.5mg, GHK-Cu at 2mg daily, MOTS-c occasionally, 1200mg glutathione split across two doses weekly, 50mg NAD+ twice weekly, Semax and Selank daily (called "nootropics"), and Bromantane a few times per week as a "dopamine upregulator" on non-Adderall days. They framed this as "not too much" and noted they get it all for free through a company they own. No dosing rationale, no prescriber mention, no context about their health history or goals was provided.
That framing, "not too much," is doing a lot of work for a stack that includes an unapproved GLP-1/GIP/glucagon triple agonist, a mitochondria-targeting peptide, and a Russian neuropeptide not approved by the FDA. This is not a vitamin stack.
Does the science back this up?
It depends heavily on which compound you're asking about. Some of these have real, if preliminary, human data. Others are running almost entirely on animal studies and anecdote.
Retatrutide (LY3437943) is a legitimate investigational compound. Phase 2 data published by Jastreboff et al. (2023, NEJM) showed significant weight loss in adults with obesity, up to 24.2% over 48 weeks. That is real clinical data. But it was conducted in controlled trial settings with careful titration, not self-administered at unverified doses from a compounding-adjacent source.
GHK-Cu (copper tripeptide) has shown wound-healing and anti-inflammatory properties in cell culture and animal work. Pickart et al. (2012, Journal of Biomaterials Science) reviewed its tissue remodeling effects, but robust human RCTs at systemic injectable doses are still sparse. MOTS-c is fascinating in preclinical work, Hashimoto et al. (2019, Nature Communications) showed metabolic and exercise-mimicking effects in mice, but human data is thin. KAG (a fragment of ACTH) is even less studied in humans.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
Credit where it is due: pairing Semax and Selank daily is consistent with how these compounds are typically used in the Russian clinical literature, and Bromantane's dopaminergic mechanism is pharmacologically real, supported by Morozov et al. work on its DAT upregulation. Using it specifically on non-stimulant days shows at least some awareness of receptor dynamics.
What they got wrong, or at minimum glossed over, is significant. Calling this "not too much" minimizes real unknowns. Retatrutide has no approved status, no established compounded equivalent, and its long-term safety profile in healthy, non-obese users is completely unknown. Combining it with peptides that also affect metabolism and cellular signaling (MOTS-c, GHK-Cu) without any mention of monitoring, bloodwork, or clinical oversight is not a responsible model to present to 164,000 viewers. The glutathione and NAD+ doses mentioned are within ranges used in wellness clinics, but "I own a company so I get it all for free" is not a safety framework.
What should you actually know?
If you watched this and thought about replicating the stack, stop and read this carefully. Several compounds here, specifically Retatrutide, MOTS-c, and KAG, are either in clinical trials or have no FDA approval pathway at all. That does not automatically make them dangerous, but it does mean there is no established safety data for the combinations being described here, no regulatory quality control on sourcing, and no standardized dosing guidance outside of research protocols.
Retatrutide in particular is not the same as semaglutide or tirzepatide. It is a triple agonist. The receptor targets and downstream effects are distinct. Compounded versions are not equivalent to trial-grade material, full stop.
- Semax and Selank are neuropeptides with reasonable short-term tolerability data but no long-term human safety studies in Western literature.
- Bromantane is unscheduled in the US but is banned by WADA. Athletes should know that before using it.
- Anyone considering peptide therapy should be under care of a licensed provider with baseline labs, not taking cues from a TikTok stack reveal.
Is the broader message responsible?
No. The problem is not that these compounds are all fake or useless. Some have genuinely interesting data behind them. The problem is the framing: casual tone, no clinical oversight mentioned, no adverse effects acknowledged, and a closing note that essentially says access equals safety. "I'm lucky, I'm fortunate enough to just be able to do this" treats financial and professional access as a substitute for medical supervision. It is not. Cost barriers are real, but removing them does not remove biological risk. A 164,000-view audience deserves more than a shopping list with no context.