Skip to content

Bronchogen

Khavinson bioregulator

Also: AEDL · Ala-Glu-Asp-Leu · peptide complex AKS-B · Бронхоген

CautionImmuneRecovery & healingInjection / Oral

Khavinson's bronchial tetrapeptide AEDL; rat COPD studies and cell work, barely any first-hand reports.

Safety tier
Caution
strict bar
Positive
45%
of 3 reports
Per month
≈ €60–120≈ $67–130
estimate
Rank
#24
of 86 research peptides

At a glance

Onset
Not felt acutely; the few users judged it over a course of weeks.
Lasts
Taken as 1-month capsule courses repeated every 4-6 months, or 10-30 day injection cycles; the one detailed report says the benefit faded within a couple of months.
Access
Grey market
Best effects
Claimed: easier breathing and fewer flare-ups in asthma, chronic bronchitis or COPD (two first-hand reports, one mixed) · claimed: lung recovery after smoking (manufacturer)
Downsides
Benefit, if any, may not outlast the course · grey-market 20 mg vials are dosed about ten times the Russian capsules, with no published rationale · no effect can be separated from inhalers or the Chonluten usually taken with it
Typical use
Grey-market vials: users describe about 1-2 mg a day subq for 10-20 days, a dose with no published basis. Capsules: 1-2 capsules (100-200 mcg) once or twice a day with meals for 1 month, repeated after 4-6 months (Russian label).
Stacked with
Stacked with
Chonluten: The usual pairing for asthma, COPD or ex-smokers' lungs; the one detailed first-hand report ran both. · Taxorest (lung extract capsules): The manufacturer recommends a course of the natural lung extract after Bronchogen; no reports of the sequence.

Safety

Watch
In human bronchial-epithelium cultures it raised the proliferation marker Ki67 and the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1, most strongly in 'old' cultures; a single-group in-vitro signal of unknown meaning · Grey-market injectable vials: purity, sterility and identity unverified
Tier by safety barStrict CautionBalanced CautionEvidence only Clean
  • Seen harm0 of 3
  • Mechanism1 of 3
  • Data gap3 of 3
  • Silent harm1 of 3
  • Product3 of 3
Never if
Pregnancy or breastfeeding (no human reproductive data; the Russian label also excludes them) · Asthma or COPD patients replacing prescribed inhalers or steroids with it
Why each score
Seen harm 0/3
No serious adverse event has been reported in any source or first-hand account, but the zero reflects almost no documented human exposure (two first-hand Reddit reports and no published human study), not reassurance. r/BodyHackGuide: Asthma help (Bronchogen and Chonluten)
Mechanism 1/3
No named pathway to serious harm. The only signal is the developers' in-vitro work, in which AEDL raised the proliferation marker Ki67 and the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1 in human bronchial-epithelium cultures, most in 'aged' ones, and appeared to bind DNA; single-group and unreplicated, so speculative. The rat COPD studies reported repair, not harm. Khavinson et al. 2014: AEDL in bronchial epithelium (Lung, PubMed 25015171)Kuzubova et al. 2015: Bronchogen in rats with NO2-induced COPD (PubMed 26468022)
Data gap 3/3
Registered nowhere as a drug and no published human safety data for AEDL: the record is two rat COPD-model studies, cell cultures and the patent's rodent toxicity tests. The Russian capsules are sold as a food supplement without a human trial. US Patent 7,625,870 (rodent toxicity, no human example)Titova et al. 2017: peptide therapy in a rat COPD model (PubMed 30199201)
Silent harm 1/3
With no credible mechanism, rated on the most plausible harms: injection-site or allergic reactions to grey-market vials and stomach upset from capsules, mostly noticed at once and gone with the course.
Product 3/3
Western users mostly buy grey-market 20 mg vials of AEDL powder (Swiss Chems among others) for subcutaneous injection, of unverified purity and sterility; the Russian 100 mcg capsules sold as a supplement are the lower-risk alternative. Some vendor copy confuses AEDL with Cartalax, so identity is a real question. Mendias & Awan 2026 preprint: 6,441 grey-market peptide samples, 42-71% failed quality criteria, 15% had endotoxinDosage Peptide: AEDL printed on Cartalax listings

User reports

All 4 reports
Users report
Far too few reports to judge. Two genuine first-hand accounts were found: an asthmatic who ran it with Chonluten felt better during the course, then the asthma came back worse within a couple of months; and someone who took it for a few weeks, accidentally more than intended, describes much deeper breathing. One X user lists it among peptides that did nothing for him. A biohacking coach who reviews products says it helped his asthma without an inhaler, kept out of the counts. Everything else on Reddit is smokers, COPD, asthma and pulmonary-fibrosis patients asking for a protocol, plus vendor-affiliate guides. Felt nothing: Too few reports to count (two first-hand Reddit reports and one X post).
Positive 1Mixed 1Nothing 1
  • r/pulmonaryfibrosis

    i tried it for a few weeks. accidentally took a bit too much but boy was i taking some deep breaths. it was amazing

    • 1 point
    Positivea few weeks
  • @kashmir480

    DSIP, Vilon, Fox04-dri, cartalax, bronchogen, Mots-C As for thise that work: CJC, Reta, PT-141, Tirz, Semax

    • 2 likes
    Nothing

Studies

Evidence
Animal only — Two rat studies of a nitrogen-dioxide COPD model from a St Petersburg pulmonology institute (a month of Bronchogen reversed goblet-cell hyperplasia, metaplasia and neutrophilic inflammation), the developers' cell-culture and DNA-binding work, and patent toxicity tests in rodents. No human study has been published; the Russian capsules are sold as a food supplement on the strength of the animal work.
Caveat
The case for Bronchogen in the lungs is stronger than for Chonluten, since it has actually been tested in airway cells and in a rat COPD model by a pulmonology group, but nobody has published a human study, and the developers' own papers disagree on how to write the sequence (Ala-Glu-Asp-Leu in the patent and most papers, Ala-Asp-Glu-Leu in two). AEDL is a small acidic tetrapeptide with no named harm pathway; the in-vitro rise in proliferation and anti-apoptotic markers is the only signal and is unreplicated. Injected grey-market vials at milligram doses are a different exposure from the 100 mcg capsules, and some vendor pages print AEDL on Cartalax (which is AED), so a vial's identity is worth checking.
3 more studies and 5 sources

Sources

Similar peptides

Research notes, not medical advice. Updated . Also as Markdown.

Sequence

The peptide's chain of amino acids from its start (the N-terminus) to its end, one bead and one letter for each: A alanine, C cysteine, D aspartic acid, E glutamic acid, F phenylalanine, G glycine, H histidine, I isoleucine, K lysine, L leucine, M methionine, N asparagine, P proline, Q glutamine, R arginine, S serine, T threonine, V valine, W tryptophan, Y tyrosine. A modification such as an N-acetyl cap or a C-terminal amide changes how long it lasts in the body. Length tells related peptides apart, from a two-residue dipeptide like carnosine to a 43-residue protein like thymosin beta-4, and predicts neither effect nor safety.

Report grades

Every first-hand Reddit or X report is graded on its own, from glowing through positive, mixed, nothing and negative to bad reaction, and the bar shows how those grades split. Posts that look vendor-adjacent stay on the peptide's page but are left out of the counts.

GlowingPositiveMixedNothingNegativeBad reaction

% positive

The share of a peptide's graded Reddit and X reports that are glowing or positive, vendor-adjacent posts left out. A peptide with few reports is pulled toward the average of all reports, as if it had eight average ones besides its own, so two glowing posts cannot top the list. Peptides rank by this figure, those with no graded report yet after those with one, and Avoid ones after every other entry.

Researcher estimate

No first-hand report of this peptide has been graded yet, so the figure is the researchers' own rating out of 10 from what they read about it. It ranks after every peptide with graded reports until its own arrive.

Safety tier

Each peptide is tiered Clean, Caution or Avoid from its five risk axes under the chosen safety bar. An Avoid peptide carries a real risk of harm, a plausible route to serious harm rather than mere unpleasantness, so it stays listed with the reason but ranks behind every other entry, however good its reviews.

Safety bar

The safety bar sets how much risk it takes to rate a peptide Avoid. Strict: out on any serious mechanism with little human data, or any documented serious harm. Balanced: out on documented serious harm (unless it is obvious, reversible and from a regulated product), or a serious mechanism whose harm would be silent with no human data at all. Evidence only: out only on documented serious harm in humans that is lasting, delayed or from grey-market product.

Seen harm

Documented serious adverse events in humans, from 0 for none despite real exposure to 3 for deaths or several well-documented serious harms. Serious means a hospital or emergency visit or harm lasting weeks, so a headache or a bad night does not count.

Mechanism

A plausible biological route to serious harm at the doses people use, such as growth-factor signalling, hormone-axis suppression, heart or blood-pressure effects or immune activation. It runs from 0 when none is known to 3 when a dangerous pathway has been shown in living animals.

Data gap

How little human safety data exists for the molecule actually sold, from 0 for an approved drug with large trials and years of use to 3 for no human safety data at all. A modified analogue does not inherit its parent's trials.

Silent harm

Whether the feared harm would show quickly or stay hidden, from 0 when it is obvious and goes on stopping to 3 when it is silent and delayed, like tumour promotion or slow organ damage. User reports cannot reveal a harm that takes years to appear, so a high score here limits what good reviews can tell you.

Product

The risk of what people actually buy, from 0 for a regulated pharmacy or supplement product taken by mouth or on the skin to 3 for a grey-market injectable. In one dataset of 6,441 grey-market samples, 42–71% failed basic quality criteria and 15% carried endotoxin; taken by mouth or in the nose, a pack avoids the injection risks.

Evidence

The strongest kind of study behind the peptide's effects, from an approved drug through human controlled trials and small human studies to animal work or nothing of its own. Animal results often fail to carry over to people.

Access

How people get it: as an approved drug, a compounded prescription, an over-the-counter supplement or from the grey market, where nobody checks the vial. The channel decides both the legal position and the risk of a bad batch.

Price per month

Thirty days of the typical dose, from its low end to its high end, priced at the listing a careful buyer would choose: in stock, from a shop scoring 4 of 5 on trust (third-party tested where no score is set), failing that 3, a pure pack before a blend, a European shop first, then the cheapest per mg. The range is the dose's, not the shops'. A per-dose amount counts once a day unless the dose says otherwise. The shop table keeps each listing's price per mg, per gram for bulk supplements. Where no listing can be priced the researchers' own estimate stands in, and says so.

Dose users report

The middle half of the daily doses stated in at least five first-hand reports, vendor posts left out. Where its middle sits more than twice above or below the declared dose, the month is priced at it as well, since what people take is what they pay for.

Shop trust

Each shop's trust on a 1–5 scale, read from its testing and its reputation: 1 for serious red flags (fabricated COAs, scam reports, impersonation, a closed shop), 2 for no public testing, a new shop or active complaints such as seized parcels, 3 for its own COAs or a short track record, 4 for verified third-party testing or a strong reputation, and 5 for third-party batch reports that name the shop, with years of good independent reputation. A shop without a score counts third-party batch testing as 4, its own COAs as 3 and no public tests as 2.

Best value

Within a category or a goal, a peptide that no other beats on both counts: none is rated more positively for the same or a lower monthly price, and none costs less for the same or a higher rating. The chart joins these into the best-value line; the cheapest of them and the best-rated of them both make it, so the line spans the trade-off from cheap to best. Avoid entries never count, and a peptide needs both a % positive and a price to be compared.

Testing

Whether the shop publishes lab results: third-party tested means an independent lab checks each batch, own COA means the shop's own certificate of analysis, and no public tests means neither. A certificate shows purity, not safety.

Added peptide

Some packs sold under one peptide's name hold a second one, such as 5 mg GHK-Cu in a nasal kit, stated only in the description. Sprayed in the nose or injected it reaches the blood like an injection, so it carries the risk of that route and is tiered as the injectable form, whatever its tier on the skin. A pack whose page gives no contents list may hold more than its name.