The Real Peptides of Beverly Hills

What's in your "status stack"?

A small confession, and no, it’s not that I’m in the Epstein files. (My net worth isn’t nearly high enough to have even made a third-party appearance.) This letter ran long because there’s simply a lot I want to share, which is why I’m splitting it in two.

We’re not even three weeks in, and I still have more ideas than space. And a lot of that is because of you. You’ve been sending thoughts, tips, interview and image ideas via email (Carson@readrps.com), text, the comments section, and DMs. Please keep doing that. And if you aren’t already following @readrps on Instagram, consider this your cue.

A lot of that also has to do with me. I will admit, I thought January in New York might be quiet. I underestimated how little the cold deters my editors. Still, I’m here, I’m building, and I’ll keep going as long as you keep reading, weighing in, and sticking with me while I sort out a bit of wonky formatting. We’ll get there.

NOTED: Now we’re “status stacking” too?

Lately, status isn’t stacked at the wrist, the way Cartier bracelets once were. It’s stacked internally—and it comes with acronyms.

Peptides have been everywhere if you know where to look. New York magazine recently devoted a full spread to them, in an excellent reported piece by investigative journalist Ezra Marcus that traced their rise through a largely male ecosystem of founders, biohackers, and grey markets (if you don’t know a thing about them, it’s a great place to start). It captured the scale of the trend and the speed with which experimental compounds were moving from the margins into polite conversation. What it didn’t quite capture was how differently that is showing up among women— and particularly those with money to spend.

That shift has been more aesthetic, especially on the West Coast. Peptides are less about performance and more about alleged outcome (especially if it shows on your face). Although it hasn’t been discussed much in the media, KLOW and GLOW come up often, usually in the same breath, along with a newer term: status stacks.

“KLOW and GLOW are part of the broader 'aesthetic peptide trend' bundling popular peptides into a single stack marketed for glow, skin quality, hair support, and faster healing. The trend is being driven mostly by social media, wellness clinics, and biohacker communities that favor simplified, branded combos over single-ingredient protocols,” Dr. Amanda Kahn , a New York-based physician who graduated magna cum laude from Columbia College and earned her medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College, tells RPS. She’s also affectionately dubbed as the “Peptide Princess of Park Avenue.”

In the version making the rounds right now, GLOW is the recovery-and-skin stack, built around BPC-157, TB-500, and GHK-Cu, peptides people associate with collagen, repair, and inflammation control, all working together toward what’s casually described as a “glow” from within. KLOW—sometimes referred to as the Radiance Recovery Blend—starts with the same base and adds one more thing people tend to mention: KPV, a fragment of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone that’s described as reducing inflammation. No one is memorizing peptide lists. It’s more that a certain group of women has agreed on a new miracle formula. That, and a new question to ask each other between pilates classes: Your face looks great. What’s your stack—KLOW or GLOW?

I heard this on a call with a friend in Beverly Hills, someone I once lived a very New York life with, and who now lives a very different one. Her house sits on a street adjacent to where the Menendez brothers once lived. She spends part of the year yachting with people whose last names function as cultural shorthand. We were mid–catch-up when she asked, almost absentmindedly, whether I was on KLOW or GLOW. I was shame-faced (peptide-faced-less, as it turned out) to report that I was on neither. These status stacks, along with retatrutide, a next-generation weight-loss peptide that isn’t technically available yet but somehow already everywhere, have taken Beverly Hills by storm.

Where people actually get these peptides is less standardized, and more telling. Access tends to move through private clinics and concierge longevity practices, and not all run by doctors. In Los Angeles and along the coast, names circulate quietly, passed between friends the way facialists once were. Pricing follows the same logic, and unsurprisingly, it’s not always cheap. On the lower end, people sourcing peptides on their own are paying a few hundred dollars total—often $150 to $500 for a basic stack—mixed and managed privately. At the other extreme are high-touch clinics, where curated stacks, labs, and ongoing oversight routinely land between $3,000 and $10,000 per cycle. Most people seem to fall somewhere in between, working with private practitioners who charge by the round, with prices starting around $500 and climbing into the low thousands as the stacks become more tailored.

Some bypass clinics altogether, relying on private forums and message boards to trade information the way people once did about injectables before they were mainstream. Others order from companies like Peptide Sciences, where individual vials (often $50 to $150 each) arrive unconstituted, with the powder and bacteriostatic water shipped separately. If you were worried about feeling like a pincushion, wait until you realize you’re also expected to play mad scientist.

But is this “status stacking,” or peptide stacking, even…safe? Well, it depends how you do it. Taken separately, peptides (even multiple) can be very safe. Mixed together, probably not.

“Mixing peptides should not be taken lightly,” Dr. Kahn explained to RPS. “Many peptides require different solvents, concentrations, and pH or acidity levels for stability. When peptides are combined in the same vial or solution, they can interact chemically, potentially binding together, degrading, or forming new off-target fragments. This can alter potency, increase sterility risk, and lead to unpredictable biological effects. For these reasons, peptides are best kept separate and prepared exactly according to pharmacy instructions.”

Where Dr. Kahn is most emphatic is on sourcing. In her view, the biggest risks around peptides usually have less to do with the molecules themselves and more to do with how casually they’re obtained, mixed, or handled. Quality control, sterility, dosing, and preparation are where things tend to go sideways, especially when people try to shortcut the process or play pharmacist at home.

“Access and availability vary by state and regulation, and this level of sourcing is not reliably available everywhere,” she said, “including in some states like California.”

NEWS: A Sinner Amongst Us

Our story about Jes Staley ran last Wednesday. Yesterday, the New York Post resurfaced a detail from the Epstein archive involving a Snow White costume (vomit) and a series of emails that later caused Staley considerable trouble.

That same day, congregants at All Souls received an email from the Board of Trustees. The email explained that the New York Post had contacted the church about concerns over a “controversial person” attending services. It declined to name the person, declined to address the concern or disclose financial giving, and reiterated the church’s commitment to privacy.

The timing did the rest.