Nothing acute; the developer's report assessed patients after a 30-day course.
Lasts
Taken as 10-30 day courses every 2-6 months; users run it indefinitely as maintenance.
Access
Supplement
Best effects
Claimed: better visual acuity and retinal electrophysiology in early retinal dystrophy (developer report only) · eyes 'feel a little better' (one confounded user)
Downsides
No discernible effect for presbyopia (one user) · impossible to separate from the rest of an eye stack · cost of a course every few months, indefinitely
Typical use
1-2 capsules (10-20 mg) twice a day before meals for 30 days, repeated after 3-6 months (manufacturer); users report 10-day courses every 2-5 months.
Stacked with
Stacked with
Red-light therapy: Almost every Visoluten user also runs 670 nm red-light goggles or morning sunlight, which makes the peptide's share unknowable. · NAC eye drops (Can-C): The usual companion in myopia and cataract-prevention stacks. · Lutein, zeaxanthin and astaxanthin: Taken daily alongside the courses.
Safety
Watch
Made from eye tissue of calves up to 12 months old or pigs: bovine eyes are specified risk material in older cattle because of BSE, so a prion route is theoretical, not impossible · Allergy to bovine or porcine proteins · Grey-market 'Visoluten' vials exist; there is no injectable Visoluten from the Khavinson line, so their content is unknown
Tier by safety barStrict CautionBalanced CleanEvidence only Clean
Seen harm0 of 3
Mechanism1 of 3
Data gap2 of 3
Silent harm1 of 3
Product1 of 3
Never if
Pregnancy or breastfeeding (no human reproductive data) · Allergy to bovine or porcine proteins · Anyone using it in place of treatment for glaucoma, macular degeneration or retinal detachment
Why each score
Seen harm 0/3
No serious adverse event reported; the developer's 49-patient report noted none, and the two first-hand users mention no harm. The zero reflects little documented exposure, not reassurance. Visoluten institute clinical report, 2011 (Russian) ↗
A Russian food supplement with no drug approval; the only human data are one open 49-patient report from the developer's clinic, unpublished. The registered injectable Retinalamin has Russian trials, but it is a different extract given by injection and does not bridge to oral capsules. Trofimova & Khavinson 2001: injectable bioregulators in diabetic retinopathy ↗
Silent harm 1/3
Rated on the most plausible harm, an allergic or digestive reaction to an animal-protein extract, noticed at once and gone on stopping. The theoretical prion route would be silent for years but does not set this axis at mechanism 1.
Product 1/3
Mostly bought as sealed capsules or sublingual drops from bioregulator supplement shops: OTC, but an animal-tissue extract with no published batch analysis. Grey-market 'Visoluten' vials also circulate with unknown contents, a minority channel. Peptide Medix: Visoluten capsules (retina-derived peptide complex) ↗
Too few reports to judge. Visoluten is a fixture of Biohackers eye-health stacks (high myopia, borderline eye pressure, presbyopia) but only two users said how it went: one tried it for presbyopia with no discernible effect, and a long-term user with high myopia who takes a course every 4-5 months says it is hard to say, since his eyes feel a little better but he also uses red-light goggles, NAC eye drops and lutein. Nobody reports a measured change in vision or eye pressure. Felt nothing: 1 of 2 first-hand reports; too few to judge.
Small human studies — One open 2011 report of 49 patients (29 Visoluten vs 20 standard care) from the developer's own clinic, never published in a journal; PubMed has no record of Visoluten. The published Russian retinal work is on Retinalamin, a registered injectable bovine retina extract, which is a different product and route.
Caveat
Consistent with Cerluten and Pinealon: no telomerase or growth claim, so the theoretical harms are prion contamination of bovine eye tissue (remote with calves under 12 months, and pigs are an alternative source) and allergy. The evidence for any eye benefit is one unpublished open report; refraction errors (myopia, astigmatism, presbyopia) are structural, and nothing suggests an oral peptide changes them.
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. Prices are in euros at ECB rates of 2026-10-29, before shipping; 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.