Reach Wellness Buyers Without FDA Warning Letters or TikTok Shadowbans — Through Creators Who Know the Claim-Language Line.
We run creator campaigns for peptide, GLP-1-adjacent, and longevity brands navigating the FDA’s wellness-vs-disease claim distinction. Every script reviewed for banned words. No “treats,” no “cures,” no warning letters.
What we do
Peptide — results we run on
Peptide — results we run on
2+
Peptide / longevity brands shipped
Includes BPC-157, GLP-1-adjacent, and NAD+ category.
0
FDA warning letters from creator content
Pre-flight claim-language review on every script.
40
Phrases auto-flagged by our pre-flight check
Includes “treats,” “cures,” “clinically proven for X.”
6d
Average claim-review cycle
Brand brief → final script → FDA-clean approval.
Why this category is different
Research-use-only vs consumer wellness — the script-language map
The FDA treats peptides differently depending on how they’re sold. Research-use-only (RUO) peptides — the kind sold through compounding pharmacies and labeled “not for human consumption” — cannot be marketed as wellness products under any circumstance. Saying “I take this for recovery” on a sponsored creator post can trigger both an FDA warning to the brand AND an enforcement action against the compounding pharmacy.
Consumer wellness peptides (oral collagen peptides, casein-derived peptides, marketed as supplements under DSHEA) have more flex but cannot make disease claims. The line: “supports skin elasticity” is allowed. “Reverses skin aging” is not. “May improve recovery from exercise” is allowed. “Heals injuries faster” is not.
GLP-1-adjacent products (berberine, semaglutide-mimicking herbal blends) are the hardest case: the FDA has explicitly warned brands not to imply they’re comparable to Ozempic/Wegovy. We script GLP-1-adjacent content around mechanism (“activates AMPK pathway”) rather than outcome (“for weight loss”). It reads stiffer but it doesn’t get pulled.
Our pre-flight check categorizes every script into RUO / wellness / GLP-1-adjacent and applies the correct claim-language template. Case in point: Lift Bio (a BPC-157 brand we shipped in Q1 2026) reduced their TikTok pull rate from 18% to 0% over 60 days after switching to our claim-language template — same creators, same product, only the script language changed.
You won't have to fill out a form, wait two days, and then receive a generic slide deck. Instead here is how we work:
- 01
You start by booking a call with us
You book a call with us and 12 other agencies.
- 02
We send you everything before we talk
You get all the info before the call. If something looks off, please cancel. We don't waste your time and you don't waste ours.
- 03
On the call we cover three things
What do you want? Can we deliver it? If not, we refer you to one of our 24+ agency partners who can.
Not ready to talk to us?
Next issue, every Monday
We found the best performing creators for May 25 → May 31.Hand-picked, not the same five names.
Plus the Influencer Advisory Consultant GPT.
FAQ / 005
Common Peptide questions
Yes, with strict limits. The creator content cannot describe personal use, cannot show ingestion or injection, and must include the “research use only — not for human consumption” disclosure. Most research-peptide brands run creator content as category education (what peptides are, how they work in the literature) rather than product promotion. We’ve shipped 8 RUO campaigns this way — they convert at lower rates than wellness campaigns but stay completely inside FDA boundaries.
Peptide playbooks + guides
Know the rules of this category.
Plain guides on what to say, what to skip, what gets pulled, and what passes.
- upcomingPeptide creator rate card 2026
- upcomingBPC-157 creator rates
- upcomingFDA wellness claim language for peptides
- upcomingLongevity creator vetting playbook
- upcomingGLP-1-adjacent brand TikTok policy
- upcomingCompounding pharmacy creator marketing rules
Meet the team
