are some peptides more inheritantly dangerous than others specifically those that raise hgh

The short version: yes, peptides that raise growth hormone carry a different risk profile than most peptides, and the clearest documented one is a metabolic hit, not a mystery.

The best human data here is on MK-677 (ibutamoren), an oral drug that pushes the body to make more growth hormone. In a 12-month randomized trial of about 560 Alzheimer's patients, it raised IGF-1 (the hormone growth hormone drives) by roughly 60% at six weeks and 73% at a year [1]. That is the whole point of these compounds, and it is also where the danger sits. Fasting glucose rose in about 15 in 100 on MK-677 versus about 5 in 100 on placebo, and HbA1c (a three-month blood sugar average) rose in about 11 in 100 versus about 1 in 100 [1]. Drug-related side effects were reported by 100 people on MK-677 versus 67 on placebo [1].

That is a real, measurable cost: pushing growth hormone and IGF-1 up tends to push blood sugar up with it. This is the inherent hazard of the class, not a contaminant. The trial was in older Alzheimer's patients over one year, so it does not tell us the risk in a healthy young person taking it for years, and it says nothing about the unregulated "HGH peptide" market, which has no required safety data at all.

Growth-hormone-releasing factor itself, given by infusion, produced no side effects in a small 1984 study of normal and deficient subjects [2], but that was a single short infusion, not chronic use. The long-term cancer and organ-growth questions for sustained GH/IGF-1 elevation are not answered by anything in front of me.

My call: yes, GH-raising peptides are inherently more dangerous than most peptides, chiefly through blood-sugar and metabolic effects, and the human evidence for that is direct. Confidence: moderate.