The short version

Plain English first. Everything below this section is the same material with the sources, the numbers and the caveats attached.

What Wolverine is

Not a compound. A combination — 10 mg of BPC-157 and 10 mg of TB-500, lyophilised together in one vial. Everything that makes it interesting, and everything that makes it hard to write about honestly, comes from that one word: together.

Prices read from our own catalogue on 3 September 2026, not from a flyer. If a component price moves, the saving moves with it.

The fill, which half the market does differently

There is no Canadian standard size for this blend. A sixteen-vendor sweep found nine offerings at 10 mg (5 + 5) and nine at 20 mg (10 + 10), plus one at 12 mg. Median price: $115 for a 20 mg vial, $72.50 for a 10 mg vial. Every vendor that states a split uses 1:1; we found no uneven ratios anywhere in the market.

Where the component evidence lives

This page deliberately does not re-argue the case for either compound. That work is already published and it is where the detail belongs:

• BPC-157 10 mg — a 15-residue partial sequence from gastric juice. FDA's July 2026 review counted roughly 80 people across five published human studies, longest treatment two weeks, and stated flatly: “We found no studies that administered BPC-157 to humans via the proposed oral, SC, nasal, or transdermal ROA.”
• TB-500 10 mg — which is not thymosin β-4. It is the N-acetylated 17-23 fragment, Ac-LKKTETQ, about 889 Da against full-length thymosin β-4's 4,963 Da. A 5.6-fold difference in molecular weight, and it becomes arithmetic on this page.

The question a blend page exists to answer is a different one, and it is the only reason to write one: what changes because they are in the same vial?

The one time these two were given to the same people

It exists. It is human. It is published. And almost nobody selling this combination cites it — which becomes easy to understand once you read it.

What it was

What it found

Adverse events: “Well tolerated with no adverse events noted.” The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and their own stated limitations are unusually candid — patients did not share a condition, no functional instrument was used, and “Measurements were all subjective; no objective testing was performed.”

Four things in it that dismantle the product on the way past

1. They were not mixed. Verbatim from the methods: “the 2 peptides were injected separately into the joint.” Two syringes. Even the one study that co-administered them did not use a blended vial. There is no study, in any species, of a premixed BPC-157 / TB-500 solution.
2. The ratio was not 1:1. BPC-157 was compounded at 2,000 µg/mL and thymosin β-4 at 3,000 µg/mL, given in equal volumes — 1 : 1.5 by mass. Wolverine is 1:1.
3. The route was a knee joint, once. Wolverine circulates as a repeated subcutaneous injection, and FDA's own 2026 review found no human studies of BPC-157 by the subcutaneous route at all.
4. The scale was small. One combined injection delivered 2–4 mg BPC-157 and 3–6 mg thymosin β-4 — that is 20–40% of an entire Wolverine vial, given once, into a joint. House arithmetic against the published concentrations and volumes.

What we looked for and did not find

We searched specifically for studies giving these two compounds together, in any species, at any dose, measuring any endpoint — six distinct queries, including domain-restricted searches of PubMed, Europe PMC, ScienceDirect, Springer, Wiley, MDPI and Frontiers. Lee & Padgett is the only hit.

And an honest limit on that negative: PubMed and PubMed Central served CAPTCHA challenges throughout this research pass, and the literature APIs were unreachable from our connection, so the search ran across scholarly websites rather than as a database query. That is a weaker instrument for proving an absence. Read our finding as “we searched hard and found one” — not as a proof that nothing else exists.

The synergy claim, and what holds it up

Stated fairly first, because it is not a stupid idea.

The argument is that BPC-157 acts locally at the site of injury while TB-500 distributes systemically, so the two cover different ground. Each compound has a preclinical literature pointing at a different node — actin sequestration and cell migration for thymosin β-4, angiogenic and growth-factor signalling for BPC-157. A pharmacologist asked to design a combination for tissue repair would not laugh at that list.

And be exact about what it is. It is a hypothesis about why a combination might work. That is a legitimate thing to have. It is not a finding.

Synergy is a technical claim with a technical test

Demonstrating synergy requires, at minimum, an arm for each compound alone, an arm for the combination, and a comparison against an additivity model — Loewe, Bliss, or an isobologram. No such experiment exists for this pair. The closest anyone has come to the right design is Lee & Padgett, which has a single-agent arm and a combination arm, and it was retrospective, uncontrolled, n = 4, subjective, and came out the other way.

The reason nobody can model the interaction, from the regulator

At FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee on 23 July 2026, agency staff “repeatedly came back to a foundational problem: it is unclear, chemically, what these peptides even are” — there being “no universally accepted chemical formula for each compound.” An official is quoted: “We've never faced a problem of, 'What is it?'” FDA's own briefing document calls BPC-157 “not well-characterized from the physical and chemical characterization perspective.”

What “1:1” actually means

The label says 10 mg and 10 mg. That is 1:1 by mass and 1:1 by nothing else. All arithmetic in this section is ours; every input is shown so you can check it.

By molecule count

Molar ratio BPC-157 : TB-500 = 1 : 1.60. For every BPC-157 molecule in the vial there are 1.6 TB-500 molecules. A vial sold as an even split is, at the level that matters for receptor occupancy, a 62 / 38 split.

Why the label alone does not settle it

TB-500 is a derivative, not thymosin β-4. The name denotes the N-acetylated 17-23 fragment, Ac-LKKTETQ, and that is the molecular weight the arithmetic above uses. The 2026 anti-doping list says the same thing in its own words when it prohibits “Thymosin-β4 and its derivatives e.g. TB-500” — two categories, with TB-500 in the second.

So what does our own certificate confirm? We went and read it. The answer is in the next section, and it is narrower than we would like.

What our certificate actually says

A blend certificate is a harder document than a single-compound certificate, and it is not obvious that buyers know this. So here is ours, in full, including the part that does not help us.

The question first

On a single compound, “99.1% purity by HPLC” has an unambiguous meaning: one peak, one identity, one number. On a two-component vial, purity of what? A blend certificate has to resolve and quantify two analytes whose molecular weights differ by 60%, and it has to establish that the ratio is right — which a purity figure does not address at all.

Ours does itemise both components

Three observations, and one of them is a small point in our favour that we will state plainly because it is unusual:

• It resolves both analytes separately. 10.55 + 11.25 = 21.80, which closes exactly against the stated total. That is what a blend certificate is supposed to do and it is not what every blend certificate does.
• The vial is 9.0% over its nominal fill — 21.80 mg against 20.00 mg expected. Overfill, not underfill.
• The measured ratio is 1 : 1.066 by mass, not 1 : 1. Recomputing the molar ratio from the numbers actually found rather than the numbers on the label gives 1 : 1.70, further from parity than the label implies. House arithmetic: 10.55 mg ÷ 1419.53 = 7.43 µmol; 11.25 mg ÷ 889.0 = 12.66 µmol.

Why it matters what is in a “TB-500” vial generally

The only content analysis of commercial TB-500 we could find from an authority with no commercial interest is a racing regulator's bulletin from 2013, reporting UC Davis laboratory work. Verbatim: “many of these substances do not contain any thymosin β4 or any peptide derived from thymosin β4.” Most samples contained no proteins, peptides or amino acids at all. One did contain N-acetylated LKKTETQ.

Handle that carefully, and we would rather say so than let it do more work than it can bear: it is 2013, it concerns the equine market, and the bulletin does not state how many samples were analysed. It is not a current figure for this market. It is the reason a certificate on a blend matters more than a certificate on a single compound — because a vial can be short or substituted on one component and still weigh right and still look right. Ours are on the certificate register, with the PDFs.

The shared-vial problem

This is the section a component page cannot write.

Do they have different stability profiles in solution?

Honest answer: nobody knows, because the individual studies do not exist either. We searched for an aqueous stability study of BPC-157 and of TB-500 and found none for either. FDA's briefing document for BPC-157 identifies missing impurity, aggregate and microbiological data as a reason the substance is not well characterised. If the agency could not obtain that data for one substance under formal review, we are not going to imply we have it for a mixture.

So the comparison this section's title asks for cannot be made from published data, and that is the finding: we went looking for two stability profiles to set against each other, and there are none to compare.

The oxidation argument, and credit where it is due

The most technically serious defence of blending we found argues that “none of the peptides in this combination contain cysteine or methionine residues — the primary targets of copper-catalyzed oxidation.” Checked against the published sequences, on the narrow point it is correct, and we would rather say so than dismiss a good argument:

Two qualifications. TB-500 is the fragment, so the argument holds for it — but full-length thymosin β-4 does contain a methionine, so a vial shipped with the full-length protein under this name would break it. And house reasoning, flagged as such: absence of cysteine and methionine rules out one oxidation pathway, not the category; histidine, lysine, proline and arginine side chains and the backbone itself are documented substrates in the general protein-chemistry literature, and BPC-157 is 5/15 proline while TB-500 is 3/7 lysine. We have not sourced a study of oxidation in these specific peptides and will not imply we have.

The in-use clock, and what it costs in a blend

Our published house convention is 28 days refrigerated after reconstitution, and our own storage guide already says what that is: “Convention, not a stability study” — a handling rule “repeated as though it were data.”

Two things you give up, which the $43 is the price of

You cannot stop one and continue the other. If you want to run BPC-157 for eight weeks and TB-500 for four, a blend cannot do it. A blend is a commitment to both components for the same duration, at a fixed ratio, from the same syringe.

And you cannot attribute a reaction. If something happens on a Wolverine vial, there are two candidate causes plus the diluent plus whatever else is in the powder, and no way from the outside to tell which. Someone who has run each component separately first knows what they tolerate. Someone whose first exposure to both is a single blended injection does not.

Reconstitution

Straightforward, for once — and then the dose table is where it stops being straightforward.

Our house default is 2 mL of bacteriostatic water, which gives 10 mg/mL total — 5 mg/mL of each component. Nothing about this blend argues for anything unusual: neither component has a published solubility limit that 10 mg/mL threatens, and neither is a metal complex or an acid load.

Computed from the label fill at 2 mL. Against the mass actually found on our certificate the true figures are about 6% higher — roughly 52.8 µg BPC-157 and 56.2 µg TB-500 per unit. And the whole table halves for a 10 mg (5 + 5) vial, which is what half the Canadian market ships. Our reconstitution calculator will do this for whatever volume you actually use.

The fixed-ratio problem

This is the finding. One syringe cannot put two components on two different schedules, and the two conventional schedules for these components are as different as two schedules get.

Look at the shape of that before any numbers. One convention is daily and small. The other is twice-weekly and large. A fixed 1:1 mass ratio in one syringe cannot produce two different schedules. Work it three ways — house arithmetic throughout, at 2 mL:

The 28-day arithmetic, made concrete

Run at the bottom of the BPC-157 convention — 250 µg/day, 5 units — a 20 mg vial lasts 40 days. The clock stops at 28. So 7 mg of each component gets used and 3 mg of each is discarded: 30% of the vial, about $27 of $90, thrown away because the calendar ran out and not because anything went wrong.

That is our existing 28-day rule argument, and it bites harder on a blend, because you cannot rebalance by taking less of one component and more of the other. In a blend, the discard is proportional across both components simultaneously.

Storage

Lyophilised, both components: −20 °C, sealed, dark, desiccated, for long-term storage; refrigerated is fine for shorter periods. Nothing here is blend-specific — the two powders want the same conditions, which is the one handling question where a shared vial costs nothing.

Reconstituted: 2–8 °C, in the dark, and see the in-use clock discussion above. The 28 days is a convention, not a stability study, and for a two-component solution it is a convention standing in for more missing data than usual.

Practical note that applies to any lyophilised vial: let it reach room temperature before breaking the seal, and add the diluent down the side of the glass rather than directly onto the cake.

Reported effects

There is no safety dataset for this combination. There is one clinical-toxicology source that addresses the practice of combining peptides at all, and it is worth reading in its own words.

What the only co-administration study reported

Lee & Padgett: “Well tolerated with no adverse events noted.” Four patients, one injection each, retrospective chart review. That is not a safety dataset and we are not going to present it as one.

The one authority that addresses blends directly

Stated because we must: that page contains no case data, no call-volume statistics and no adverse-event numbers. It is a poison centre's clinical judgement about a practice, not a report of harms observed. Cite it as what it is.

Adverse-event reports involving blends

We searched for case reports, adverse event reports and pharmacovigilance signals naming a peptide blend or stack. We found none.

Immunogenicity, from the regulator

FDA's July 2026 briefing document on BPC-157 is worth quoting because it names a risk that scales with a blend rather than away from one: “we cannot rule out the potential for immunogenicity associated with these impurities and peptide-related aggregates,” and BPC-157 given parenterally “may pose a significant risk for immunogenicity, potentially amplified by aggregation.” A shared vial is a shared solution, and aggregation is a solution-phase problem nobody has measured for this mixture.

Regulatory status

This is the strongest and cleanest statement on the page, and it needs no qualification.

Canada

From the 9 April 2026 advisory, verbatim: peptide products of this kind are “illegal in Canada and have not been assessed for safety, efficacy, and quality by Health Canada”; “In Canada, peptides are generally regulated as prescription drugs”; and on research-use-only labelling, explicitly: “This type of labelling does not make these products legal or exempt from regulatory requirements.”

The United States, and what the July 2026 vote was not

Both components went before FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee on 23 July 2026, each with its own briefing document. Both were recommended for the 503A bulk substances list by 8–6 with one abstention. Three things about that are true and belong together:

• FDA's own scientists opposed all seven substances heard. The briefing materials found the available studies “short in duration, small in sample size, and insufficient to establish safety or effectiveness.” FDA's recommendation on BPC-157 was that “the evaluation criteria weigh against” adding it. The panel voted the other way by two votes.
• A PCAC vote is an advisory recommendation about compounding-pharmacy bulk sourcing in the United States. It is not an approval. Formal rulemaking has not happened.
• It has no effect in Canada whatsoever. Health Canada's position is unchanged.

And a correction we have had to make in-house and will not repeat: neither component is on FDA's Category 2 “do not compound” list. Both appear on the separate “nominated but withdrawn” list. Those are different documents and vendors routinely conflate them in both directions.

Has any regulator addressed a blend as a blend?

We checked Health Canada advisories and recalls, FDA warning letters, the FDA compounding lists, the July 2026 PCAC agenda and the 2026 anti-doping list. Every one of them addresses substances. None names a multi-peptide product. The 1 August 2025 Canadian seizure list runs to 44 substances and contains no blends, though the vendor concerned almost certainly sold them.

Sentient Biogenix supplies this product for laboratory research use only. It is not for human or veterinary use.

Questions we actually get

Have BPC-157 and TB-500 ever been studied together?

Yes — once. Four people, in 2021, as two separate injections into a knee joint, in a retrospective chart review with no control group and a telephone survey for an endpoint. The combination arm did numerically worse than the BPC-157-alone arm. Anyone who tells you they have never been studied together is wrong, and anyone who tells you the study supports the combination has not read it.

Has the premixed blend been studied?

No. Not in humans, not in animals, not in a dish. There is no study of any kind of a premixed BPC-157 / TB-500 solution.

Is it really 1:1?

By mass on the label, yes. By molecule count it is 1 : 1.60, and recomputed from the masses actually found on our certificate, 1 : 1.70 — because TB-500, being the 889-dalton derivative, gives you more molecules per milligram than a 15-mer does. Equal milligrams are not equal molecules.

Is the blend cheaper than buying the two separately?

Yes: $90 against $133, a $43 saving. What you give up is the ability to titrate the two independently, to stop one and continue the other, and to tell which component caused a reaction. That is the actual trade and it is worth making deliberately.

What dose do I use?

We do not give doses. What we will tell you is the structural problem: the conventions circulating for the two components are daily-and-small versus twice-weekly-and-large, and one syringe at a fixed ratio cannot satisfy both. Whichever component you dose for, the other one is off schedule.

Should I buy the 10 mg or the 20 mg?

The Canadian market is split almost exactly down the middle and there is no standard. Ours is 20 mg (10 + 10). The thing to check before comparing any two prices is which fill you are looking at, because a great many listings do not say.

How do I know the vial contains what the label says?

Read the certificate. Ours resolves both components separately — 10.55 mg BPC-157 and 11.25 mg TB-500 — which is what a blend certificate should do and not what every blend certificate does. What it does not print is a molecular weight, which is the line that would confirm the molecule as well as the name. We have asked our supplier's lab to add it.

So why do you sell it?

Because it is a legitimate research combination, it is cheaper than its parts, and researchers have their own reasons. What we will not do is tell you the two work better together, because the only human data anyone has says nothing of the kind — and everyone else selling this blend has had the same five years to find something better and has not.

References

1. Lee E, Padgett B. Intra-articular injection of BPC 157 for multiple types of knee pain. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2021;27(4):8–13. PMID 34324435. asipp.org — the only co-administration study. Read in full.
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Briefing document, BPC-157, Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, 23–24 July 2026. fda.gov — the “not well-characterized” finding, the immunogenicity language, and the agency's recommendation against listing.
3. US Food and Drug Administration. Meeting notice, 23–24 July 2026 Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee. fda.gov
4. Steinzor P. FDA panel backs 6 peptides for compounding. AJMC, 3 September 2026. ajmc.com — the vote counts, and “FDA scientists uniformly opposed adding any of the 7 substances.” Corroborated by Pharmaceutical Executive, 24 July 2026.
5. Health Canada. Think twice before injecting peptides bought online. Public advisory, 9 April 2026. recalls-rappels.canada.ca — names both components. Read directly in-house on 29 August 2026; the host blocks automated fetching.
6. Health Canada. Unauthorized injectable peptide drugs seized and sold by Canada Peptide may pose serious health risks. Public advisory, 1 August 2025 — 44 substances, both components named, no blends.
7. Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. Thymosin β4 Bulletin, v2.0, July 2013. rmtcnet.com — the UC Davis content analysis of material sold as TB-500. 2013, equine market; sample count not stated.
8. Missouri Poison Center. Is peptide stacking dangerous? The risks of unregulated injections. 11 May 2026. missouripoisoncenter.org — clinical judgement about the practice; contains no case data.
9. GlobalRPh. BPC-157 and TB-500: background, indications, efficacy, and safety. November 2025. globalrph.com — a monograph on exactly this pair that cites no combination study.
10. Esposito S, et al. Synthesis and characterization of the N-terminal acetylated 17-23 fragment of thymosin beta 4 identified in TB-500. Drug Testing and Analysis 2012. DOI 10.1002/dta.1402. PMID 22962027. Could not open — publisher returned 403. The identity finding here rests on the RMTC bulletin, which we did read, not on this paper.
11. Anti-doping: Prohibited List 2026, read through the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association's reproduction (ver. 1-1-2026), the official host blocking automated fetching. Section numbering differs between reproductions; the content quoted is what was checked.
12. Sentient Biogenix certificates RB-BPCTB-20-050126 (Wolverine 20 mg) and RB-TB500-NA-050126 (TB-500 10 mg), Testides, tested 9 May 2026. Certificate register.

What we could not check, listed rather than hidden. PubMed and PubMed Central were CAPTCHA-blocked throughout this research pass and the literature APIs were unreachable from our connection, so the search for co-administration studies ran across scholarly websites rather than as a database query — a weaker instrument for proving a negative. We could not open the Esposito 2012 characterisation paper, a 2026 narrative review of BPC-157, or a peer-reviewed netnography of how these compounds are actually used in the UK, which would have let the dose conventions above cite a study instead of vendor pages. A ResearchGate review titled BPC-157 and GHK-Cu in Wound Healing is access-gated; we record that it is a review, not an experiment, so nobody mistakes the title for a finding. And our own TB-500 certificate does not print a molecular weight — it confirms the material by name and purity rather than by mass, which is a line we have asked the lab to add.