You might also like...
Check out some other posts from University of Connecticut
Peptides are having a moment. People injecting them at home are chasing everything from weight loss and muscle recovery to sharper thinking and better sex drive. But according to UConn pharmacist and clinical pharmacologist C. Michael White, the bigger danger isn't just what's in the vial. It's what happens when untrained people try to draw up and inject these products themselves.
White has been researching the gray markets for peptides, where companies sidestep FDA oversight by selling products labeled "for research purposes only." Because that labeling is a legal workaround, the companies can't legally tell buyers how to actually use what they're selling.
"This means consumers must purchase any supplies they need and figure out the proper technique on their own," White writes. So he decided to test just how well people manage on their own. In a new study published in Public Health Reports, White and his colleagues recruited 20 people, 10 college students and 10 adults in their 60s, and asked each to reconstitute a semaglutide peptide product, draw it into a syringe, and inject a mannequin. They were allowed to research the process online or with AI beforehand.
The results were rough. On average, both age groups got fewer than half the steps right. Some picked expired or cloudy dissolving liquid. Many miscalculated doses, couldn't clear air bubbles from the syringe, or injected into muscle instead of fat. Roughly half didn't know how to safely engage the needle's safety mechanism or dispose of it afterward.
"These errors were serious and could increase the risk of infection, bleeding, over- or under-dosing, and needle sticks," White notes. What stood out most: Confidence didn't track with competence. After doing their homework, most participants in both groups felt "somewhat confident" they could do the injection correctly. Younger participants stayed confident even after fumbling through the process. Older adults, by contrast, adjusted their confidence downward once they saw how it actually went, which tracks with prior research showing older adults tend to be more accurate judges of their own ability on complex tasks.
White's piece also digs into a potential fix on the table: In late July 2026, an FDA advisory panel recommended adding six widely used peptides, including BPC-157, TB-500, and Semax, to the list of substances compounding pharmacies can legally prepare. The panel's argument is that compounded versions would be safer than gray-market ones, since compounding pharmacies follow rules on sourcing and sterile production that the gray market doesn't.
White isn't fully sold. Even if the FDA adopts the recommendation, he points out it would only apply to a handful of products, and it wouldn't change the fact that none of them have actually been tested for safety or effectiveness as finished drugs. The bulk of the gray-market risk stays exactly where it is.
For more on the peptide boom and what the FDA is weighing, NBC News broke down the basics here: What are peptides and why is the FDA considering easing limits? Read the full article:
Dr. White is Head and Distinguished Professor of the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Connecticut, and co-director of the university's Health Outcomes, Policy, and Evidence Synthesis (HOPES) research group. His research focuses on drug, dietary supplement, and illicit drug safety, quality, and cost, with a specific throughline into adverse events tied to drugs, devices, herbal products, and substances of abuse.
View complete profile He's a recurring voice on drug and supplement safety specifically, most recently quoted in Health magazine's "4 Major Risks of Unregulated Peptides" (Aug. 18, 2026) and on KCBS Los Angeles radio discussing GLP-1 drugs and youth mental health (Aug. 10, 2026).
Dr. White is available for interviews on peptide safety, the gray-market supplement industry, GLP-1 and weight-loss drug trends, and drug/dietary supplement safety more broadly. Media can reach out by clicking this profile icon below.
For the first time in FIFA World Cup history, every match at the 2026 tournament includes mandatory three-minute hydration breaks midway through each half.
Introduced as a player welfare measure amid concerns about extreme summer temperatures across North America, the breaks have quickly become a much discussed development in the tournament. Coaches, players, broadcasters, sports scientists, and fans are all weighing in on the impact the stoppages have on player safety, game flow, strategy, and even commercial opportunities.
The conversation has intensified as several matches have been played in challenging heat conditions and prominent coaches have publicly questioned whether the mandatory breaks alter the rhythm of the sport. At the same time, medical experts continue to emphasize the risks posed by heat stress and dehydration during elite athletic competition, particularly in tournaments spanning multiple climates and venues.
Experts like UConn's Douglas Casa have been front and center when the media call for insight and perspective.
The three-minute mandatory hydration breaks are meant to protect players, and referees, from extreme heat illness and help them maintain their physical performance. In that time, players can cool off and replenish lost water and salt from sweating, but how effective it is depends on how aggressive the cooling methods are. That could mean putting wet, cold towels on the exposed parts of a player's body, such as the neck, head, back and arms. If done well, that could reduce their body temperature by about 0.22 F (0.12 C) per minute, said Douglas Casa, CEO of the University of Connecticut's Korey Stringer Institute who also co-signed the letter to FIFA. "Some people can tolerate a little more fluids comfortably and then do intense exercise. Some people can't because it sloshes around in their stomach and they don't feel super comfortable, so they might not drink as much in such a short period of time," he added. The time, he said, dictates the volume of impact, whether from fluid or cooling, and "that's why we're suggesting doing something like five or six minutes, because it just makes such a big impact when you're dealing with a change of that magnitude." June 18 - NPR Douglas Casa is a professor of kinesiology and chief executive officer of UConn’s Korey Stringer Institute. He is a leading authority on research, advocacy, and education about exertional heat stroke View his profile While the standardized breaks represent a major step forward for player welfare, some leading heat illness experts argue the new policy does not go far enough. Dr. Douglas Casa, a professor of kinesiology at the University of Connecticut and chief executive officer of the Korey Stringer Institute, expressed skepticism regarding the efficacy of such brief intervals. Dr. Casa warned that prolonged, high-intensity physical exertion causes a rapid spike in core body temperature, which dramatically degrades athletic performance and increases the risk of exertional heat illness. He noted that a mere three minutes from whistle to whistle provides insufficient time for optimal physiological cooling and active rehydration, recommending instead that tournament officials expand the mandatory breaks to five or six minutes. Faced with these demanding environmental conditions, several competing national teams are taking proactive measures to gain a competitive edge. Multiple countries have expanded their technical staffs to include specialized sports scientists tasked exclusively with designing aggressive heat-acclimatization and thermal-management strategies. According to Dr. Casa, these data-driven preparation strategies will likely play a monumental role in determining player durability and ultimately crowning the world champion. June 09 - NBC News Covering? We can help. Douglas Casa, who leads UConn's renowned Korey Stringer Institute, is available to discuss:
The science behind hydration and cooling breaks in elite sport Heat illness risks facing World Cup athletes Whether mandatory breaks are sufficient to protect players How extreme weather is changing sports medicine and event management The balance between player safety, competition, and fan expectations Check out the video below featuring Doug Casa explaining what happens when the human body gets too hot.
Media interested in speaking with Doug Casa can contact the UConn media relations team to arrange an interview.
As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, a major new podcast series is drawing renewed attention to the Reconstruction era and its lasting impact on American democracy.
Reconstruction: The Unfinished Promise, hosted by Malcolm Gladwell and featuring former President Barack Obama, examines the turbulent decades following the Civil War and the ongoing struggle to define citizenship, equality, and political participation in the United States.
Among the historians featured in the series is Manisha Sinha, a leading scholar of the Civil War, abolition, and Reconstruction. Her participation brings decades of research and scholarship to a national audience at a time when Americans are revisiting the people, events, and ideas that shaped the nation.
Manisha Sinha is the James L. and Shirley A. Draper Chair in American History at UConn and past president of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. She is an expert in American political history, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. View her profile Sinha is the author of The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: Reconstruction, 1860–1920, a widely acclaimed examination of Reconstruction that challenges conventional timelines and interpretations of the era. Her work argues that Reconstruction was not confined to the years immediately following the Civil War, but instead represented a broader struggle over democracy, citizenship, civil rights, and political inclusion that continued well into the twentieth century.
In interviews discussing her research, Sinha has emphasized the transformative nature of Reconstruction and its importance in understanding the development of modern America. Her scholarship explores how debates over voting rights, constitutional protections, racial equality, and citizenship during Reconstruction continue to influence public life today.
As interest in Reconstruction grows through America 250 programming and broader public discussions about democracy and civil rights, Sinha's expertise offers valuable historical context for understanding the era's enduring significance.
Connect with an Expert Manisha Sinha is available to discuss:
The history and legacy of Reconstruction Why Reconstruction remains relevant today The concept of America's "Second Republic" The evolution of citizenship and voting rights in the United States The relationship between Reconstruction, civil rights, and democratic reform Historical perspectives connected to America 250 commemorations How historians are rethinking the traditional timeline of Reconstruction For journalists and audiences seeking deeper insight into one of the most important periods in American history, Sinha offers expert analysis on the debates, achievements, and unresolved questions that continue to shape the nation more than 150 years later.
