What did @haadmd actually say?
The creator reviewed five injectables, naming NAD+, sermorelin, tesamorelin, tirzepatide, and glutathione, and rated the stack "8.5 out of 10. Strong." They dropped tesamorelin from their personal recommendation, saying sermorelin is better for men and tesamorelin better for women. The core pitch: these compounds together address energy, body composition, metabolic health, and antioxidant load in one protocol.
A few naming errors stood out immediately. "Somoralin" and "Tethymoralin" are sermorelin and tesamorelin respectively. "Tresapatid" is tirzepatide, a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist, not a peptide in the traditional compounding sense. These aren't just pronunciation slip-ups; they matter when patients try to research what they're being recommended.
Does the science back this up?
Partially, depending on which compound and which claim you examine. The evidence quality varies dramatically across the five. Some claims are well-supported in specific populations. Others are extrapolated from narrow clinical contexts into broad wellness promises that the data does not justify.
NAD+ precursor supplementation has shown modest effects on cellular energy metabolism in older adults, though IV NAD+ specifically has limited robust clinical trial data. Sermorelin is FDA-cleared for pediatric growth hormone deficiency, not adult body recomposition. Tesamorelin has one specific FDA-approved indication: HIV-associated lipodystrophy. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro/Zepbound) does have strong cardiovascular and metabolic data, including the SURMOUNT and SURPASS trials. Glutathione as an injectable antioxidant has theoretical appeal but weak direct clinical evidence for the brain fog and gut claims made here.
What did they get wrong (or right)?
They got tirzepatide broadly right. Calling it "much more than a weight loss medication" is defensible. The SURPASS-CVOT data and inflammation biomarker work support meaningful metabolic and cardiovascular benefits beyond weight (Bhatt et al., 2023, NEJM). Credit where it's due.
The sermorelin-for-men, tesamorelin-for-women framing is not supported by the literature. It appears to be clinical intuition or personal preference, not evidence. Tesamorelin's visceral fat reduction data comes almost entirely from HIV-positive patients with lipodystrophy (Falutz et al., 2007, NEJM), not healthy adults seeking body recomposition. Recommending it for general wellness is a significant extrapolation. The claim that sermorelin increases muscle mass and decreases belly fat in healthy adults also lacks strong RCT support. Growth hormone secretagogues have been studied, but effects in eugonadal adults without GH deficiency are modest at best (Svensson et al., 1998, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism). Saying glutathione will help with "toxic free radicals and toxic burden" is vague enough to be nearly unfalsifiable, and the gut health claim specifically has minimal direct injectable evidence.
What should you actually know?
Several of these compounds are only legally available as compounded drugs in the US, and compounded versions are not equivalent to FDA-approved formulations. Tirzepatide compounding has been a moving target with FDA enforcement, and sermorelin's regulatory status as a compounded product has faced scrutiny. None of this is mentioned in the video.
Running five injectables simultaneously also creates a real monitoring problem. There is no published safety data on this specific combination. Growth hormone axis stimulation alongside a GLP-1/GIP agonist alongside NAD+ and glutathione is not a studied protocol. Interactions are not well characterized. A rating of 8.5 out of 10 implies a confidence the available evidence cannot support. Patients watching this should know that an enthusiastic physician review of a friend's stack is not the same as a personalized medical evaluation. These compounds carry real side effect profiles, require lab monitoring, and several have only narrow approved indications that do not include general wellness or anti-aging.
Bottom line on this stack
Two of the five compounds have solid evidence bases in specific contexts. The other three are being used well outside their studied or approved populations. The sex-based sermorelin-versus-tesamorelin split is not evidence-based. The "master antioxidant" framing for glutathione is marketing language, not clinical language. If you're considering any of these, the conversation should start with your own labs, your own health history, and a clinician reviewing you, not a friend's stack.