The Angiogenesis Argument
Deep-dive on the angiogenesis concern. What it actually is, what else does it, and why the framing is wrong.
The 30-Second Version
**Duration:** 55–60 seconds **Compliance:** No compound names. No outcome claims. Education-framed. The angiogenesis argument is mechanism-level biology, not product promotion.
``` "So an article just said that a compound I use promotes blood vessel growth — angiogenesis — and that could cause cancer.
That sounds scary. So I looked up what else promotes angiogenesis.
Exercise. Turns out it's the single strongest driver of blood vessel growth in your body. Sleep does it. Vitamin D does it. Fish oil. Turmeric. Beetroot. Zinc.
Statins — taken by hundreds of millions of people — do the same thing at normal doses. So does metformin.
Your own estrogen does it every menstrual cycle. Insulin does it every time you eat a meal.
Healing from a paper cut? Same exact mechanism.
By the way — physiological angiogenesis and tumor angiogenesis are actually different processes at the molecular level. There's a paper that identified 25 gene transcripts in tumor vessels that don't even exist in normal healing tissue. They're not the same thing.
Now — I'll also be honest about something the hype accounts won't tell you. The human trial data on what I use is limited. Most of the research is animal studies.
That's a real gap. I'm not gonna pretend it isn't.
But 'we don't have enough human data' and 'this causes cancer because angiogenesis' — those are two completely different conversations. Don't let a scary headline replace an actual argument.
I work with a medical team. I track everything. All the data and the actual research links are on my site. That's the conversation worth having." ```
**Last line (quotable):** "They are not the same thing."
---
"BPC-157 promotes angiogenesis, which could encourage cancer cell growth."
That's the line from the NPR article. It sounds scary. Let's actually look at what angiogenesis is and what else promotes it. 🧵
Angiogenesis = your body growing new blood vessels.
It's one of the most fundamental biological processes you have. Without it, wounds don't heal, muscles don't adapt to exercise, and tissue can't repair during sleep.
It is not inherently dangerous. It is inherently necessary.
Here's an incomplete list of things that promote angiogenesis:
- Exercise (the most potent angiogenic stimulus known to science) - Sleep (growth hormone release drives it) - Vitamin D (upregulates VEGF 12x) - Fish oil / omega-3s - Turmeric / curcumin - Resveratrol (red wine) - Beetroot - L-arginine (amino acid in every protein you eat) - Zinc and copper (essential minerals)
It gets better.
FDA-approved medications that promote angiogenesis:
- Statins (atorvastatin, simvastatin) — pro-angiogenic at therapeutic doses, described as working "in a way similar to VEGF" - Metformin — promotes VEGF-mediated angiogenesis, called "the next angiogenesis panacea" in a 2021 review - PRP injections — delivers VEGF directly to tissue. FDA-cleared. - REGRANEX — FDA-approved drug whose entire mechanism IS angiogenesis
Your own body produces angiogenic compounds constantly:
- Estrogen — drives angiogenesis during every menstrual cycle and pregnancy - Insulin — stimulates VEGF every time you eat - VEGF itself — your body makes it. That's what it's for. - Thymosin Beta-4 — a regenerative peptide found in ALL your tissues that directly triggers angiogenesis - FGF — at least 22 members of this growth factor family in your body
Nobody warns you that menstruation is a cancer risk because it's angiogenic.
Now here's the part nobody in media bothers to explain:
Physiological angiogenesis and pathological (tumor) angiogenesis are molecularly distinct processes.
A 2007 Cancer Cell paper identified 25 transcripts overexpressed in tumor endothelium that aren't present in normal angiogenic tissue.
They are not the same thing.
Normal angiogenesis: tightly regulated, balanced by pro- and anti-angiogenic signals, structurally organized, turns off when healing is complete.
Tumor angiogenesis: dysregulated, hijacked by cancer cells, structurally chaotic, leaky, disorganized.
Saying "angiogenesis = cancer risk" is like saying "cell division = cancer risk." Which would make eating food and growing hair carcinogenic.
Now — what IS BPC-157 actually?
BPC stands for Body Protection Compound. The parent protein was isolated from human gastric juice in 1993. Your stomach already makes it. BPC-157 is a 15-amino acid fragment — the active portion.
It's not a foreign molecule. It's a synthetic copy of something your body already produces. Like recombinant insulin.
Now let me be completely honest about what we DON'T know.
There are zero completed randomized, placebo-controlled human trials for BPC-157. The human data is three small pilot studies (total N under 30), no controls, no blinding.
The only properly designed Phase I trial? Results were submitted and then withdrawn without explanation. Nobody knows why.
NPR is correct that the evidence base is mostly animal studies.
Here's what I'll also tell you that the hype accounts won't:
Over 80% of all BPC-157 publications come from a single research group in Zagreb. 100% of published studies report positive results. That's a pattern that should make you ask questions about publication bias and independent replication.
If someone tells you "the science proves BPC-157 works" — they haven't read the science carefully enough.
But here's the thing: those are two separate conversations.
"Does BPC-157 have rigorous human trial data?" — No. Not yet. Be honest about that.
"Does promoting angiogenesis mean something causes cancer?" — Also no. And THAT argument has massive human data behind it. Exercise, vitamin D, statins, metformin — all pro-angiogenic, all extensively studied in humans.
Don't confuse a weak evidence base with a scary mechanism. They're different problems.
The actual risk factors worth worrying about:
- Unknown sourcing — my compounds come from a 503A & 503B compounding pharmacy with DEA Schedule 2 certification. That's the highest level of regulatory scrutiny a pharmacy can have. If yours doesn't have that, ask why. - No baseline labs before starting - No ongoing monitoring (bloodwork, liver/kidney panels) - No medical oversight - Ignoring your genetics (some people metabolize differently) - Combining compounds without checking interactions - And yes — the lack of rigorous human trials means you're operating in uncertain territory
Own that uncertainty. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.
My grandmother is 78. Under medical supervision, her quality of life has changed dramatically. I track 100+ biomarkers with my medical team. I have my full genetic data analyzed.
Is that "proof"? No. It's an N of 1 under medical supervision. But it's a hell of a lot more than the average person posting protocols on TikTok with no data at all.
The honest position:
The preclinical data is unusually broad and consistent — over 100 animal studies, no observed toxicity at any dose. That IS genuinely interesting.
But we need rigorous human trials. Period.
Until then: work with a medical team, track your biomarkers, verify your sourcing, and be honest about what we know and what we don't.
That's what I do. I'll keep sharing all of it. ```
---
This is what I put in The Manual every week.
Subscribe to The Manual →