I think we are sort of in the worst of both worlds right now re: medicines/supplements/gray market.
FDA approval is expensive slow process. Doctors train for a long time and then work 40+ years entire careers, some without a ton of continuing education.
But then we have an entire gray market because enough legal and practical loopholes to drive a freight train through, such that people are self medicating with dubious substances of dubious origin of dubious purity sourced via dubious means.
Even if peptides work, you have no idea what side effects they have, or if the ones you are taking are even real, not contaminated/tainted in some manner, etc. Given a lot of the hype comes from social media for otherwise healthy people to take them for lifestyle / augmentation reasons.. to me the risks still outweigh the rewards.
Real solutions like regulatory reforms to find ways to bring down testing costs seem more important than reforms to make it easier to slap anything on the shelf at GNC as a completely untested “supplement”.
A truly post-modern form of anti-authority: I refuse to inject things the government recommends but willingly inject things strangers on the internet write about and which originate from random Chinese laboratories.
There's a mind-boggling market of un[der]studied and un[der]regulated substances for people who desire peak health and performance, many of whom refuse to engage in regular physical activity or a regular diet.
They don't seem to be any happier for it. If anything, they live at a higher and more diffused state of anxiety. I think it is rather sad.
Is there any evidence supporting the claim there is a significant overlap between the group of people who "refuse injections the government recommends" and the group of people who take "peptides"? The article is carefully crafted to evoke this impression without clearly stating it, listing only anecdotal evidence.
It has a certain logic to it, and I think US tipping culture basically follows the same rules.
Even if you almost always end up paying the bill + 20% tip, Americans like the idea that they could not pay the tip if the service was bad.
The appearance of free action is appealing and preferable to being forced to pay the extra amount, even if you almost always pay the amount willingly anyway.
In my experience, everyone who defends tipping culture is defending not paying the tip. I don't buy this idea that someone likes tipping culture and still pays it. After all, you're free to tip anyone you want regardless of culture.
The problem is it is so ingrained in US culture that switching to tip-free has generally failed where tried, even in pro-labor lefty hoods in blue cities.
Numerous restaurants in NYC tried and flipped back over the last 10 years. Restauranteurs reported illogical / innumerate behavior where sales went down when they switched to untipped higher prices.
I have recently been through the rabbit hole of peptides and most of the people engaged or involved in peptides seem to be healthy individuals. There are some exceptions like lookmaxxers and anti vaxers. The vast majority of people are normal and majority are outside of USA where anti vax sentiment are not in vogue. Some explore peptides for their dogs and cats too.
To assert that people are sad and anxious while not putting the effort to understand the people involved is such an intellectually lazy position to hold.
The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence.
HN, in particular, loves anything that allows them to discredit science (like the constant banging on about the replication crisis) and replace it with their own pet theory.
Is HN particularly drawn to this over other platforms? I gotta say I don’t quite recognize this. In general, I think there’s a good dose of respect for science around these parts, but maybe I’m blind to it.
Extra points for people partying hard on shady synthetic drugs, but being actively anti-vax because government. Case in point, Miguel Bosé, a very well known spanish artist that spent the first 50 years of his life abusing everything except heroin (his own words), but now he is a vaccine negationist, for him and for his two children.
The article frames these supplements as being purely appealing to "anti science" people but I think that's really unfair. You can believe in medication, believe in science, trust government systems, etc, and still feel like you're not being served by the medically approved options.
It can also depend on people's politics vs who is on power. In general British anti-vaxers are left wing (very lefty affluent hippie types - you can see this from the areas with low MMR rates), and even more so during covid when a right wing government was in power. There is evidence for this in a survey KCL did of anti-vaccine beliefs during covid. I personally know of British students who declared they would not have covid vaccines because they "did not trust the Tories"
The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers. Collagen powders and vitamin C (oj) at breakfast might kick start this.
The second contradictory point is that this entire thread makes me want to shout GELL MAN AMNESIA because it's an exercise in otherwise intelligent people who can distinguish between anecdata, their personal experience and some cold hard facts in their core field, but not when it's self injecting unknown chemicals from China bought off-script.
I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors.
That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.
It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?
I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.
Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.
Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.
Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...
Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowing why they work. I think people are just going to circumvent the fundamentalist and chase after whatever works.
I owe my health to early adoption of experimental peptides, I have life long ME/CFS and there is no known treatment for this nor is there any on the horizon. At least they finally have a diagnostic test and know it's not psychosomatic but I could have told them that from day 1. Most doctors are not researchers and have little understanding on statistics instead preferring to rely on discrete classifications and simple decision tress. As someone with hEDS from TNXB I am a walking bag of symptoms and yet not a single doctor could figure it out. I had to research it myself which involved post-doc level textbooks and research journals. I came across the work done by Prof. Khavinson (USSR) and it did appear to me that peptides were incredibly under-explored. Given the poor quality of life with ME/CFS I was willing to take serious risks so previous trials were helpful to give an idea on dosing and lethality, I went through most of the research peptides one by one. I actually waited on semaglutide a bit because I suspected there was a small minority who would have hyper sensitivity and I both expected that to appear in the data, which it did, and I expected to have hypersensitivity, which I did. Others who were less careful ended up with pretty bad gastroenteritis. Semaglutide has been the most effective and with it and a few others I am largely able to lead a normal life. I was getting gray market from the US but now I get it direct from China.
> There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism.
This is a deeply unfair statement, and also a false dichotomy. Medical science is of course empiric. What you call "fundamentalism" is that compounds need to undergo a rigorous regiment of empiric testing before they are given to potentially millions of people. And no, it's not just because of Thalidomide. Many, many compounds fail clinical trials because of severe side effects, like liver toxicity, severe immune reactions or heart problems. Then there's of course increased risk of cancer, which can take many years to manifest itself empirically. You argue that you prefer living with these uncertainties rather than ME/CFS, and that's of course entirely understandable, but disparaging the field of medical science as focused on "fundamentalism" because we do not give large patient cohorts untested compounds is polemic. I understand where you are coming from, and I'm sorry that you suffer from this terrible condition, but likewise, you should try to understand the other side.
I think the grandparent meant "fundamentalism" as "mechanistic", and lots of things we can know (as you say using the scientific method) to be useful long before we have a good mechanistic explanation of how they work.
Some examples: aspirin (willow bark used for thousands of years, drug synthesized in 1897 and mechanism explained almost 100y later), or general anesthesia used again since mid 1800s and the mechanism is quite still debated.
This is not to downplay all the long term, or developmental, risks that using something novel can result in. But we can empirically know something about the effects without having good mechanistic models.
But it is usually not necessary for approval of a compound to be able to describe how it works on a molecular or cellular level. What you need to show are three things: efficacy, safety and quality, so basically: the compound has the intended clinical benefit, has an acceptable safety profile and can be produced with a consistent manufacturing quality. Most compounds fail because of lack of efficacy (roughly half), and roughly a third because of lack of acceptable safety.
Non blinded self experimentation is not a useful branch of empiricism.
I had an ME/CFS patient that had tried 100s of things and documented the effects thoroughly. She had a quite impressive list. Roughly 30% had had an effect to begin with, but the trend she observed was that it lasted for around a month at most. Placebo was her overall conclusion, but she occasionally got relief anyways so we both agreed that there was no harm in continuing. I'm sure several "peptides" is on her list by now.
There is nothing new under the sun, and fad cures for diffuse conditions have come and gone many times before. This is especially the case for conditions involving pain or tiredness, which are extremely sensitive to both placebo and nocebo.
What would be revolutionary would be 2-3 double blinded RCTs showing a lasting effect. Which would be great if someone did! But you have to actually bother to do it. And personally I would put money on the outcome being "no effect".
I'm pretty sure there is no diagnostic test for ME/CFS. What are you referring to?
Also I don't understand how semaglutide did help you while you're at the same time part of a minority risk group with a hypersensitivity to it. Isn't that a contradiction?
I think I would need to see testing on a control group of housebound patients with other conditions to believe this. It's easy for ME testing to pick up markers for being housebound and limited exercise for an extended period of time.
I agree with this, but we don't have a good understanding of the mechanisms of how most drugs work, and what else they do. That's why, generally speaking, we require actual observational safety data, and not just a thorough description of the mechanism(s) of a drug. And sometimes we find out years or even decades later we were badly wrong. "Safe" is a very qualified term when it comes to drugs. What actually distinguishes $randompeptide from $approveddrug is the safety data - there are papers all about the proposed mechanisms for most of them.
Im sorry for your quality of life problems but calling doctors bad at statistics and then giving anecdotal evidence as proof has to start ringing some logical bells right? You dont even have to take our word. Use an LLM as judge. Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.
I didn't read their whole comment, but I worked in the Internal Research department of a medical school. I did their statistical studies and built software for analysis pipelines.
Doctors, at least 15 years ago, were definitely bad at statistics.
They were not required to take a statistics course at all. Most programs would require Algebra and Calculus as part of their science reqs.
Some would maybe take one basic research course, and they would then become obsessed with p values of 0.05.
They did not have a basic understanding of how to interpret research unless they were an auto didactic and went out of their way to improve. It's something my director (a doctor and software engineer), and the Dean complained about relentlessly.
I guess it depends on how you frame it. "I've just posted this comment, what do you think" vs "Someone online has just posted this comment, what do you think".
But it does require to know the bias that LLMs have ahead of testing this.
Clinical trials are not looking for fundamental mechanisms, they are there to ensure an effect is strong enough to say a product should be sold for that purpose. Otherwise you end up with snake oil salesmen. Because how can you be sure you are even injecting the thing the sellers claim it is?
I would encourage everyone interested in peptides to read about the state of medical science before the establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
I used retatrutide for weight loss and went from 199.3 lbs to just under 175 lbs. I kept daily notes through the process. Here's a quick AI one-paragraph summary if you're curious: https://pastebin.com/XACNYKvs
Overall I'm quite pleased with the effects and many of the properties of this treatment that people dislike are actually properties I was looking for. Essentially, for pharmacological interventions I want impermanent effects with a clear dose-response relationship and ideally minimal or no adaptation.
So the fact that people gain weight when they go off it and then lose weight again when they go on it was good. That meant it's fairly easily undoable. The fact that the more you take the more you lose also was pretty good to know though for the majority of the time I took less than any tested dose (and the effects were quite strong on those).
I did experience quite a bit of adaptation so I needed to up the dose until I was in the range tested by the end. I've been off it for a month now and been pretty much flat, but we've been traveling since I stopped and so a lot has changed (no more lifting, lots more eating, lots more walking).
Was cost the reason you went for it over tirzepitide? I feel like retatrutide is still way too early to mess with, it's giving me real "vioxx" vibes of messing with too much at once.
No, I had access to free tirzepatide. I chose retatrutide because early results seemed promising and safe and since I was going to run a short-term self-trial I wanted the most effective peptide.
I know a couple of people that should know better (phds in biosciences but now doing corporate management) taking expensive weird Chinese peptides that would probably be better off if they did some cardio a few days per week and ate better.
I'm not inclined to be a guinea pig for these. I suspect maybe later in my child's life they will have been proven long-term safe (or not). I'll be old or dead at that point. I'm really wary of putting anything not known to be standard food or medicine into my body.
I tried retatrutide for 10 weeks, here are my results:
Before:
5'7, ~182lb
Bench 1rm: 315
Squat: 5x10 225
Deadlift: 5x5 315
After:
same height lol, 154lb
Bench 1rm: 285
Squat: 5x10 205
Deadlift: 5x5 275
Suffered some anhedonia towards the end but that went away ~1wk after stopping.
Overall pretty good, not any side effects. Definitely fixed my food craving problem. I didn't have a high intake of protein during the 10 weeks, so I suspect thats why I lost muscle mass :/
I used a combo of low-dose retatrutide, tesamorelin, and ipamorelin and lost about 15lb over 45 days, including 60% of my visceral fat, and put on 4lb of muscle, per before-and-after DEXA scans. I lifted regularly, ate well, and prioritized protein, and while I definitely under-ate protein, I was very pleased to find that I was able to increase muscle mass while cutting the fat. My visceral fat was the primary target here, since I'd been unable to get it to budge despite consistent training and diet. Very pleased.
You lost muscle because you lost around 1.54% of body weight per week, which is way too aggressive. The maximum recommended amount for losing weight while retaining muscle is around 1%. You will also most likely experience a weight rebound.
Hasn't this mostly been debunked? You lose muscle mass because you lost mass overall, and whether you lost it too quickly or not is not the major factor. AFAIK maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is borderline impossible for anyone who isn't extremely fat and/or very disproportionate composition to begin with.
Not as far as I know. The ratio of fat-to-muscle loss depends on several factors, most notably the rate of weight loss (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34371981/). In fact, retatrutide is popular notably because it is known to preserve lean body mass better than other weight loss drugs.
Did you work out during those 10 weeks any? TBH if you went from regular lifting to not for 10 weeks I'd expect a similar decrease in your lifting numbers (though not a .4lb/day weight loss of course)
The author is missing a massive segment of that gray market: people who buy FDA-approved weight loss drugs (e.g., semaglutide or tirzepatide) at 2–5% of the brand-name price. This route carries some risk, but there are ways to mitigate it, such as performing third-party testing. I assume most people who do this couldn't realistically afford the brand-name drug anyway, making this their only viable treatment.
Even if you test a batch once, do people who get testing done do testing on all batches?
The synthesis of peptides uses some NASTY chemicals. I would be worried about lax manufacturer policies leading to contamination, even if one batch passes. The costs of FDA certification are the effect of that protection.
But whatever, this is the same attitude that people have against owning insurance. It is hard to recognize the cost of risk.
Won't be anywhere near that. I don't have prices handy, but Lilly sells tirzepatide (a bit better than sema, and usually a bit more expensive) at 500/mo (maybe a bit less now on the trump rx site, I don't recall). Depending on dose, that'll be about 10 bucks a mg give or take. At 50c/mg for sema you were paying a bit of a premium. These days even tirz is only about 30-35c/mg.
I used to buy from Peptide Sciences so I was certainly paying a premium for reputation at $20/mg. I think Semaglutide is now at a bit of a premium due to it falling out of favour and most people switching to Triz and Reta. I only take a low dose and am happy to stick with what's working.
There must be an irony that it was Trumps crackdown on peptides, I presume to prop up his prescription company, that forced me to switch to Chinese supply. By doing it all at once it created a critical mass for that market.
IIRC the biggest impetus for cracking down was Lilly throwing a fit about the gray market supplying reta well before it even becomes available via the normal channels (who knows when that will be). But as you say, it just pushes people to buy direct from Chinese vendors (and it is basically impossible to stop direct imports like that). Would be safer if more reputable US-based sellers could supply it semi-openly as before. Nexaph is still selling it, but I figure the clock is ticking on that.
> and it is basically impossible to stop direct imports like that
How so? Is there a particular characteristic of the US that makes it so, or of the channels through which this is done? I get that in general it's impossible as with recreational drugs, but when you look at cocaine then at least to traffick it to most wealthy countries it takes a large amount of resources and is at high risk of getting caught. Which is why they're increasingly starting to use narco submarines. This greatly increases the price of the product. Why can't the same happen to peptide imports?
Last I checked, Ozempic (Semaglutide) is around $1000/month in the US. A typical 1 month pen is 4-8mg, so around $250/mg to $500/mg. So yeah, I may have understated how much cheaper the gray market version is.
I imagine it's legally risky to buy a large quantity, test it, and then resell smaller quantities. That's a shame because the alternative is probably that some folks settle for products of dubious quality and end up getting hurt.
Yes, I believe most people buy directly from somewhat shady Chinese factories. I tried contacting a few and they all refuse to meet or send samples from within China, so I assume what they're doing is illegal in China. In the US, it's legal to sell them as a "research chemical" but the FDA is cracking down on companies that are clearly engaging in b2c.
Right, but I don't know the people at those companies. I have local chemists that I trust. I'm just lamenting the fact that developing that kind of trust network everywhere, so everybody can be similarly sure of what they're putting in their body, is likely to run afoul of local laws.
FWIW, finnrick's claim to fame is being free. Someone is paying for it. They have also failed blind tests in the past, Janoshik (IIRC) never has. There are several US-based labs but none of them have the same reputation as Janoshik.
Actually, you just described most of the tele-health and compounding pharmacies that carry GLP1s!
Where do you think Hims, Ro, Brello, or the rest get the APIs they sell to their customers? They get them from grey market suppliers in China. They don't go to Ely Lilly or NovoNordisk and say, "politely sir, may I skirt around your IP and sell your drugs for 10x what they cost instead of 10,000x what they cost?" Hopefully, they test them and filter them and use sterile/pharma processes for what they sell to their customers. Well, except for the Medspas, those are just wild west snake oil farms.
Things have changed a little, but during the time that compounding was explicitly allowed, the licensed pharmacies were buying from FDA approved manufacturers, sometimes in China, and sometimes the same manufacturers who also do contract manufacturing for Lilly.
Today ... who knows? It might just be the same gray market stuff us plebes can get.
It probably is, but that does not stop people from effectively doing it. There are a number of groups that specialize in conducting group buys, doing a bunch of testing on randomized samples, and then shipping out the product to individuals.
Also, if you plan to be on it a good long time, you can buy a bunch of kits yourself (a kit is 10 vials), run a bunch of tests, and then just have a nice stockpile that will last you years. The testing will likely cost as much or more than the product itself, but given how inexpensive the product is, you still come out way ahead financially.
>I imagine it's legally risky to buy a large quantity, test it, and then resell smaller quantities
It is illegal, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. In fact, if you don't have any sort of test results for your peptides people will absolutely avoid buying your wares until you have them. Purity and mg/ml are the 2 basic test results that any shop worth their stuff will have.
To be fair, most everyone I know who is buying on the gray market considers vendor tests to be minimally required, but still insufficient -- there is no assurance they tested the product they shipped to you. Plan on testing it yourself. I'm sure some people do trust nexaph enough, though, to not worry so much. Whether that trust is well placed, that is a separate discussion.
With most of these you can really tell if they work or not and there is a pretty predicable dose dependent reaction profile. With slow meds like semaglutide you'd maybe not notice it in the first week but you will by week 3. I had mine tested but if that wasn't available I probably would have considered the anecdotal evidence to be sufficient. It appears that most of the scamming is just people taking the money and not shipping anything.
The most dangerous failures I've seen have been sending the wrong peptide. 15 mg of tirzepatide and 15 mg of semaglutide is a very different experience.
After nearly getting hosed in a group buy (I did get refunded, but that is far from a guarantee) because of a product mismatch, I decided to just pay for nexaph. Love him or hate him, his popularity relies on his reputation and he has been more careful than most suppliers to cultivate it with more extensive testing and quality control.
That makes sense, I don't like that the bottles are unlabelled so the first thing I have to do is label them. The box is labelled and this seems to be standard practice. Semaglutide is falling out of favour so I guess they're substituting. I have 4 years supply now so I guess I'll check back then and see where the market is at.
I know a bunch of people with multi-year stockpiles. I've got ~5 years of reta and ~6 years of tirz. This is too much, of course, but I determined a while back that under no circumstances do I ever intend to find myself unable to source it. My life is immeasurably better after losing 110 pounds.
Could you direct me to some resources you used to figure out dosing and sourcing? I’ve been interested in trying it out (need to lose a lot of weight) but have been paralyzed by too much contradictory information.
Lowe has a point, but the FDA has painted itself into a corner by (a) forcing up the costs and the various bureaucratic demands associated with clinical trials, (b) allowing drug advertising , but then forcing those comical "may cause death" disclaimers, both of which have become totally ubiquitous, and (c) inconsistently following its own rules, and in some cases flouting its own rules.
At this point, broscience is considered no less valid than actual clinical trials, and the FDA should blame itself for this. Not "human nature being what it is in this fallen world" in a sort of general or abstract sense.
Another point I could raise is that telemedicine has turned the entire prescription system into nothing more than a parasitic middleman/gatekeeper.
FDA reform is very badly necessary. That ought to come before harsher enforcement, and I think that much of the populace already intuitively understands this.
Medicine doesn't really ignore nutrition, but the problem is:
1. Most people don't believe it anyway. People want to hear they can eat hamburgers and milkshakes and be healthy. Telling them "we know that gives you heart disease and cancer" does nothing.
2. Nutrition is complicated and different for every person, because everyone has different things they can tolerate. The "perfect" diet is actually worthless because it has a 0% success rate. Really, we have to optimize for how miserable people are willing to be.
3. Most people are unhealthy enough that nutrition is the least of their concerns. That sounds crazy, I know, but if you're obese (which most people are!), then priority is being not obese. Not your nutrition. I know those sound related but they're way less related than you think.
> hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer
They absolutely do, particularly if you're getting most of your calories from them. If evidence-based medicine doesn't convince you, uh, hamburgers and supermarket milk tends to be processed.
They absolutely do not, unless you’re getting too many calories.
Individual foods are—with some exceptions—neither bad for you nor good for you. A healthy diet can occasionally include doughnuts, and milkshakes. Your overall diet is what matters.
Sure, they are not mercury-level toxic. However, these recommendations are for people who consume way too much of these dishes, and it's a safe assumption that this is the case for a significant part of the population.
Sure. We’re saying roughly the same thing. For most Americans, hamburgers cause heart disease because we don’t exercise enough or eat enough plants. If you’re backpacking twenty miles a day, sure, eat whatever, you won’t suffer inflammation or obesity from it. (Though you may run nutritional deficiencies. And you’re building bad habits for when your activity necessarily tapers off.)
Depends on the nutrients that comprise them to the extent they contain a lot of omega-6 or not. Not heart disease so much but the other killer - might as well mention in this context. 'A high omega-3, low omega-6 diet with FO for 1 year resulted in a significant reduction in Ki-67 index, a biomarker for prostate cancer'. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00608.
Also Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2024) 27:700 – 708 'Our preclinical findings provide rationale for clinical trials evaluating ω-3 fatty acids as a potential therapy for prostate cancer'.
Seed oils are not as bad as painted but some caution is needed given for instance the industrial processes used to bring them to market sometimes. Plus the way the oils are cooked when they create free radicals. This is not nonsense.
You don’t have to wonder. It’s public record that 45% of the FDA’s budget incomes from user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.
In the drug division specifically, the number is about 75%.
Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit. Nutrition supplements ended up being a loophole that allows pharmacies and pharma companies to sell all kinds of random stuff that they can't or don't want to, show is safe, or doing anything at all.
Medicine doesn't ignore nutrition, you just don't like the answers.
And it shows on the research: e.g. does creatine help muscle building? No.[1] But cue some anecdote from someone where they also changed a dozen other things at the same time but are sure it was that.
Creatine is probably the most well-studied nutritional supplement we have, and one of the most efficacious. You are presenting a single study to counter that. Not even a meta-analysis, but a single study of just 54 participants who did not exercise at all previously (from the study; "Apparently healthy individuals, with a body mass index of ≤30 kg/m2 and not meeting current physical activity guidelines of at least 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise were included. Individuals who undertook [resistance training] within the previous 12 months were excluded"). The general consensus is that it is absolutely helpful in muscle-building. See, for example [0] and [1]. Beware the man of one study. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-...
[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/17/2748 - "A total of 69 studies with 1937 participants were included for analysis. Creatine plus resistance training produced small but statistically significant improvements... when compared to the placebo."
But there's a core problem with this, in many states doctors are legally forbidden to give nutrition advice. The academy of nutrition and dietetics has worked very hard to make it so that only dietitians can provide nutrition advice. Take Ohio for example, a medical doctor in Ohio is legally forbidden and actually in jeopardy of losing their license and going to jail if they were to provide nutrition advice without a dietetics license. Dietitians are not doctors, but the academy of nutrition and dietetics wants you to think they are.
Doctors in the US receive an average of under 20 hours of training in nutrition over four years of medical school. What little they do receive is often focused on nutrient deficiencies rather than on meal planning for health and chronic disease prevention. Less than 15% of residency programs include anything on nutrition.
To become a registered dietician requires at least a Master's degree in dietetics or nutrition or a related field, and at least 1000 hours of supervised internships.
PS: before any Europeans hold this up as an example of the poor US health care system, doctors in Europe average 24 hours of nutrition training.
Aren't doctors actually exempted specifically from such regulations in almost all states? AFAIK they can actually give nutritional advice legally in nearly every jurisdiction in the US.
People want GLP-1 drugs. They can't get them without a prescription. They pay $$$ to a "telemedicine" "doctor", recite a list of well-known symptoms, and buy the prescription.
The system is that you can't buy these drugs without the piece of paper, and the piece of paper is basically something that anybody can buy regardless of whether or not they actually need the drug. Wanting it is usually enough.
I think access is a good thing. The issue isn't with telemedicine but the fact that there's a prescription wall for helpful meds like GLP-1 in a country where we've failed people by creating one of the worst food environments.
Also, most doctor's visits aren't any different from getting it if you want it except it's gated on the mood/attitude of the doctor, maybe your ability to sell some sob story. And then you book a different doctor until you get it. Telemedicine just makes the process easier an arbitrary system.
GLP-1 prescriptions are easy to get in the US. It's filling the prescription that is the problem, because insurance rarely covers it and it is beyond the disposable income of most Americans.
The prescription hurdle is absolutely necessary -- these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. It's the price that needs to be fixed.
I know a lot of people on GLP-1 meds and even took a dose myself out of curiosity.
You take a dose every two weeks. And if you accidentally double dose because you misread 1U to mean 1 dose, it just gives you some nausea.
Are we going to pretend it's hard to take this drug now too? Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on? Remember to eat. That's it. I guess a few people might need the doctor to go "you're eating, right?" but I don't believe in infantilizing everyone over that.
Weekly, if you are following guidelines correctly. The half-life of most GLP1 peptides is 5-6 days.
I otherwise agree with your point entirely. Though anecdotally, I may have given my brother-in-law a single small vial of tirzepatide at his request so that he could experience it, and the results were ... not good. Turns out he's an idiot, thought that 'more is better', 'drinking enough water is for weenies', and 'I am not an alcoholic even though I get plowed most evenings.' All against my very specific advice on how to give it a try. Whoops.
My fault, yes, I should have realized he was too stupid to do it without adult supervision. He made himself so sick he almost went to the ER. Nothing really dangerous, of course, tirzepatide is pretty safe stuff, but overdosing on it can make you feel very shitty for a few days until the blood concentration drops.
One dose is one thing -- but there are other risks that can lead to complication or death here if taken improperly for a long period of time. Musculoskeletal issues, cardiac issues, thyroid issues, etc.
Additionally, getting the correct dose is not straightforward for a layperson as it is for other OTC drugs with standard doses.
There are similar risks, and probably more likely, to all sorts of consumables that aren't regulated at all. It is reasonable to ask whether the prescription regime for GLP-1s makes sense. It isn't the only substance posing that conundrum! Ondansetron is OTC in a lot of countries, but not in the US, Canada, or UK. But ondansetron is arguably less dangerous and more helpful than pseudoephedrine.
Pseudoephedrine, of course, isn't BTC because it's dangerous to take or complicated to dose. It's there because of the war on drugs. But I do agree that not all drugs are regulated appropriately. Marijuana also comes to mind.
I do think GLP-1s are just about right. It is appropriate to take them under personalized professional guidance.
Right, and I actually see the logic of that (unlike virtually everyone else on HN, and let's not rekindle that debate; the search bar avails). The point is you don't need a prescription to get it. People might be better off if GLP1s were also BTC. Hard to say!
Certainly you can abuse a GLP1 and get yourself very sick, or not abuse it and still end up with pancreatitis. But smoking and alcohol presumably cause way more cases of pancreatitis, and you don't need a script for a handle of Popov.
There used to be prescriptions for alcohol products and cigarettes have been sold as medical products -- the reason we accept them in society today is not because we think they have relative less risk to other things, but that their acceptance as recreational vices outweighs the harm that we know they cause.
> smoking and alcohol presumably cause way more cases of pancreatitis
Indeed. In fact, I think just recently there were updated studies for at least one of the popular GLP1s that disclaimed entirely a link to pancreatitis.
To be clear I don't think it's actually reasonable to suggest GLP1s should be OTC in 2026. Were that to happen it would be part of a regime change in drug regulation that I'd categorically oppose. The timeline on GLP1s (unlike Zofran) doesn't support it. There are arguments for why your doctors would want to know that you're taking it, and on what schedule. But it should be extremely easy to get.
Agree, it does feel like a class of medication that deserves more control than OTC would provide. I do think it should be largely voluntary, however, with doctors expected to provide it unless there is a specific contraindication that would make it harmful.
> Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on beyond a couple questions they ask you in your visit? Remember to eat. That's it.
Apparently we have forgotten people who died from eating disorders (previously called anorexia nervosa)?
There is a VAST difference between someone who weighs 300lbs asking for GLP-1 to combat morbidity and someone who is barely 100lbs asking for a GLP-1 to take off weight for bikini season. That's what needing to ask a doctor for a prescription is for.
You're totally missing the point thought. The prescription hurdle effectively does not exist. It's just a paywall.
You pay your $100, get a 3 minute call with a NP/PA/whomever, and basically the robot writes you a prescription for whatever you want. The point is you pay and you get the prescription. Patient safety has nothing to do with anything.
It's cheaper for most people to get the prescription written at a PCP.
The advantage to a telehealth is not getting the prescription written -- it's that they'll fill it for cheap through a tiny compounding pharmacy that is making it, technically illegally, but are small enough to be off the FDAs enforcement radar for the moment.
I have used both my PCP and telehealth for prescription writing, never once have I used a compounding pharmacy.
It's slightly cheaper for me to use telehealth vs. billing through my insurance. The downside is it doesn't go towards my deductible of course.
The stuff you are describing are entire supply chains of a sort where you want a GLP-1 or perhaps a few other things like TRT. Those you are signing up for the drug itself, which happens to include the prescription part with it.
Telehealth can be used for any old medication you want. It removes the permission slip part of the process and replaces it with a payment gateway. If you have $75-150 you can just click some buttons and have a prescription for nearly anything you want at most a day later. This includes antibiotics, ADHD meds (getting harder on these), certain benzos, etc.
HIMS/HERS/etc. and their smaller ilk are super popular, but they are the tip of the iceberg.
Telehealth providers can certainly work with compounding pharmacies but not necessarily. If you are looking to get a prescription for Diazapam you are going to be getting that sent to your local Walgreens or whatnot.
> It's slightly cheaper for me to use telehealth vs. billing through my insurance.
How? Usually PCP visit are cheap and everyone gets one for free.
> HIMS/HERS/etc. and their smaller ilk are super popular, but they are the tip of the iceberg.
> Telehealth providers can certainly work with compounding pharmacies but not necessarily.
Yeah I’m aware there are a whole host of services telehealths provide but the primary reason people use them for GLP1s is to avoid the name brand cost.
The "perscription system" used to be that you'd have to go see a doctor, the doctor knew who you were, and would make decisions on what prescriptions/medications you should be given.
Due to drug advertising rules, the prescription system has been turned on its head, and the patient now goes to their doctor asking for a specific prescription.
Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middleman (the doctor) in many cases and you just sign-up look at a person on a camera, and get your drugs sent to you.
> Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middleman (the doctor) in many cases and you just sign-up look at a person on a camera, and get your drugs sent to you.
This is only true for a handful of drugs that are basically OTC already (or that have OTC formulations). Additionally, telemedicine didn’t take advantage of drug advertising- that’s an odd assertion.
Go to doctor, get prescription for restricted medicine, pick up prescription.
If you can call up a teledoc and they give you a prescription based on your description why could you not just go buy the meds yourself without a prescription. You have essentially diagnosed yourself and just asked the doctor for permission to buy the drug you want.
That’s… not how actual telemedicine works. That’s how jackasses “disrupt” healthcare for very specific drugs. Mostly birth control, ED meds, and various hair regrowth meds.
It’s really clear that some of you are really mad about something you don’t understand.
I take certain medications--nothing interesting, nothing controlled, nothing abusable. I have to deal with a whole thing just to get refills, because my PCP forces me to come in every time--and even that is now just a telehealth call that is annoying.
In Mexico, for meds like mine, you can just buy them at the pharmacy. There's no reason for all this nonsense.
(Edit: same PCP refused to prescribe GLP-1s early, without any scientific or medical reason not to. Delayed my weightloss by months until I found a place that would.)
> I’m curious what you mean by this. I’m not sure what you mean by “prescription system” specifically.
They basically operate as a "pay for a prescription" service.
Figure out what drug you want, google the drug name and telehealth. You will be marketed in a wink wink sort of manner over how easy it is to get them, just hours away! Then if you are not a total idiot, you answer certain questions in the right manner on the intake form, the doctor (usually NP/PA or similar for most things) will quickly run through that and expect you to answer correctly - perhaps guide you a bit if you don't.
5 minutes later you have a prescription in the web portal and it's sent to your pharmacy of choice.
It really shows how the whole "permission slip" program is BS. I've used these services a couple times vs. my normal doctor just to save time and expense of an office visit. If I can click some buttons, have a call 30 minutes later, and be on my way to the pharmacy for $50 it's sometimes the path I take now vs. traditional route.
Someone used to the traditional doctor/patient relationship thing and prescriptions being "holy" would be shocked at how easy and gamed it all is.
Well that's a problem with the profit driven US health system (although admittedly other countries have similar problems to varying degrees) not prescriptions in general though? In particular the take home from this should be to make it more difficult to get the prescriptions not to do away with prescriptions.
To your first point, if you know where to look, you can get tens of vials of GLP-1s that have much higher dosing per vial for cheaper than you can get a third of the amount on the grey market. A lot of these sites even have purity testing to soothe consumers worries that they're getting garbage. For your third point, you have the FDA limiting HGH, yet you can buy the growth horomone releasing factor peptides (tesamorelin, sermorelin, ipamorelin) after doing a simple Google search.
As for broscience, moving into peptides was a logical next step after exhausting anabolic steroid "research". In fact, I'd say that biohackers are actually behind the bros when it comes to trying various peptides out and documenting experiences.
I think if you're a cloudflare customer they set a cookie in your browser that let's you bypass the waiting period. Just wait until next year when they show ads during the wait.
I take a small issue with the claim that we don't test peptides. Some of us test them extensively before injecting. Granted, probably the same people who also understand how little science there is backing up most of the popular peptides today. I enjoy being able to buy my own GLP1s, however, at least those which have made it through phase III trials succesfully. As tempting as the claims are about things like BPC-157 and such ... no thanks, that is past my comfort level a good bit.
It seems we are treating Peptides like drugs here. It's my opinion that amino acids regardless of how they are chained do not belong under and stricter regulation than food given I eat peptides every day from my food. Then again I do not believe in the concept of prescription drugs. Everything with a NDC code should be at the grocery store and I should be able to stock up on it without permission especially given how fragile global shipping is these days. Drugs risks do not enter into the picture given the fact I can buy ammonia and bleach along with a myriad of other dangerous compounds. Worse, I could crush up apple seeds from the veggie isle. One can also make just about anything using fourth thieves vinegar. Maybe put expensive high demand things like cocaine behind locked glass along with the underwear and condoms.
As a side note more dangerous than any drug is stopping a prescription drug cold turkey. Watch what happens when global trade to/from China and India are cut off for a year. Attitudes will change.
This is briefly addressed in the article, but basically it's one thing to eat a peptide and quite another thing to inject it. Your digestive system is extremely adroit at taking peptides and proteins and breaking them down into individual amino acids, which are then absorbed via "transporters" in the gut. (e.g. SLC6A14 for glutamate and cysteine.)
If you eat insulin, absolutely nothing will happen. If you inject just a little bit too much, you're dead.
So, generally: Ingested proteins/peptides aren't drug-like, whereas they can be extremely potent drugs if administered via injection.
Granted, there are exceptions. If you accidentally get a drop of botox into your mouth, you'll be okay, but if you drink a vial, you'll be poisoned. And people have been trying to make orally-active peptides and proteins for decades, with some noteworthy successes, however few and far between in the general case.
I agree with some of this. There are most certainly orally active peptides such as BPC-157 and its replacement PDA penta deca arginate that can repair the gut and still circulate throughout the body especially in those with leaky gut. People with leaky gut should be able to buy a clean source of BPC-157 or PDA without a prescription and without visiting dark alleys. It is very safe and tolerable.
GLP's are all the rage these days. Doctors seem to be giving GLP peptides out like candy and those are injected. People are looking like zombies. That said if doctors are going to be so liberal with them I should be able to buy it in the grocery store and slap it down on the conveyor belt. Again I can buy things far more dangerous than any prescription drug. There are very dangerous supplements, some that are shilled heavily on youtube. For example, Glycine (for me specifically used without a specific process) is more dangerous than heroine and the vast majority of doctors would have no idea what I am talking about.
Also LOL at the notion "peptides are safe because GLP-1 exists".
Pretty much all venoms are mixes of short (10-15 base) peptide chains.
It's the naturalistic fallacy in an utterly perverse form ( and also goes to show why a regulatory system is good: the average person has no idea that they're dealing with or even common sense about it).
Injected BPC-157 to a wound is a magic healing potion as far as I'm concerned. That it's not more broadly available is a crime, imo. If I had a billion dollars, I'd push so many things through the FDA.
This is entirely theorical, but the $2.6 billion figure that's commonly quoted accounts for all the failures as well. If I took something that's proven in Europe but wouldn't get a patent, it presumably would manage to pass FDA regulations, it's just that without the patent protection, there's no financial incentive for an existing company to do that.
The regulation of drugs or most any consumer product is not due to the inherent danger of an item itself, but the danger presented to a consumer inside the context of societal mechanisms that influence behavior. You're right that many regulations don't make sense outside of a societal context -- but that's because they also don't exist outside of a societal context.
The reason we don't need tight regulations on bleach is because we don't have a societal issue causing people to drink it and hurt themselves... at least, not anymore: most of the locking lids on household cleaning chemicals are there by law.
I'm all for laxer regulation of substance control e.g. buying cocaine at the grocery store, but I think its also a bit misleading to describe arbitrary sequences of amino acids as if they're meaningfully comparable to food.
That's like saying that since neither one nor zero requires regulation, neither does software. Maybe software does or doesn't, but in either case its best based on the nature of the aggregate, not the nature of its components.
> It seems we are treating Peptides like drugs here
That’s exactly what some biological drugs are too - peptides!
And peptides are just short chains of amino acids. Almost all the other biological drugs are just longer chains of amino acids - antibodies, enzymes, antigens, some hormones, and others.
Derek is right that the safety risks are exponentially higher when you inject peptides - you basically skip a bunch of protective mechanisms like enzymes that quickly break them down if taken orally or routes.
As a former R&D scientist there is no way I’d inject any peptide that hasn’t at least gone through a phase 1 safety study in humans. Otherwise you have no idea what it could be doing to your body.
A good example was a drug that was quickly pulled from market for causing fatal anaphylactic reactions. It wasn’t even caught in the clinical trials!
At the same time, I think people have the right to take whatever substance they want. But I worry a lot of people aren’t aware of the risks.
>As a former R&D scientist there is no way I’d inject any peptide that hasn’t at least gone through a phase 1 safety study in humans. Otherwise you have no idea what it could be doing to your body.
A lot of people do not understand the trial system or the value of Phase 0/1 tests when it comes to the substances that they put into their body. And thanks to the influencer/grifter/biohacker ecosystem that exists, more people would put their trust in accidental evidence, from people who's incentive it is to make money off of them, while complaining about the pharmaceutical industry operates off of a profit motive.
> It's my opinion that amino acids regardless of how they are chained do not belong under and stricter regulation than food given I eat peptides every day from my food.
I mean, why regulate anything? Everything is just different arrangements of hydrogen and time. It's so weird that certain arrangements of hydrogen and time try to claim to have things like "morals", and try to force other arrangements of hydrogen and time to not do arbitrary contrived concepts like "murder".
All is one. Just hydrogen and time. Therefore everything should be legal.
> Drugs risks do not enter into the picture given the fact I can buy ammonia and bleach along with a myriad of other dangerous compounds.
This is a deeply weird take. You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement? We should let parents self-diagnose diabetes and administer insulin without a prescription or discussion? We should just hope that patients heard their doctor say hydralazine and not hydroxyzine?
> As a side note more dangerous than any drug is stopping a prescription drug cold turkey.
Abject nonsense. It was very easy to stop my prescribed amoxicillin. It’s clear you don’t have any actual idea what “prescription drugs” are, in aggregate, and that should maybe inform your decision to have Big Opinions about them.
> Why do you think only the people taking it would be buying it?
I don't. But the cost of access is significant. And with pharmacies in India, China and Mexico willing to ship basically anything into America, it's a purely-cosmetic tax now.
> This is a deeply weird take. You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement? We should let parents self-diagnose diabetes and administer insulin without a prescription or discussion? We should just hope that patients heard their doctor say hydralazine and not hydroxyzine?
Weird examples. You can buy insulin without a prescription today in the USA.
In much of the world -- including almost all of Asia, Africa, and much of Eastern Europe -- you can buy almost any drug without a prescription. The only exceptions are potent CNS stimulants or narcotics, and in some rare cases antibiotics.
This is legitimately a better system. Takes out the middleman.
In the US you can get any drug if you pay $120 and recite the magic words to a telemedicine "doctor."
Funny you mention this... I bumped into a VP of Merck at a conference and that's the exact example he gave: in the US, you can't adjust your own coumadin dosage without a M.D. consult, but here, have 200 doses of insulin to take home with you.
In much of the world -- including almost all of Asia, Africa, and much of Eastern Europe
Doctors in the US get a nice $200 to $500 per doctors visit, required to extend the prescription drug. I only notice because I pay cash. This is why they will argue against anything I am saying until they are code-blue in the face. I will leave them with my code brown.
In the US you can get any drug if you pay $120 and recite the magic words to a telemedicine "doctor."
That's how a number of us in a particular circle stock up on anti-biotics. That said anti-biotics are a last resort for me whereas I find doctors are quick to prescribe them.
Your argument is even worse lol. Obviously he's proposing that you can take your doctors note to the pharmacy and get what the doctor prescribed in addition to being allowed to self purchase behind the counter drugs.
> My patient is refusing a drug studied in 170,000 people because of side effects that a 124,000-person analysis just confirmed do not exist — while injecting a compound studied in 14 humans, from unregulated sources, based on the recommendation of someone who profits from selling it. She’s probably not the only one. And those using it believe they are “doing their own research.”
Ok, and? At worst you waste a couple hundred dollars and deem the alternative therapy not worth it and go back to your doctor but I know dozens of people at my gym that used BPC 157 and TB 500 that fixed their chronic tendon/joint issues within weeks of starting the therapy that physios couldn't fix for years.
I don't doubt it. You make casual friends sometimes at certain gyms, especially if any sort of sports are involved like tennis or even group classes.
I am a super introvert and know at least half a dozen folks with such issues, more if you include my close friend group.
Any place that has a lot of physically active people stressing their limits a bit is going to have a lot of injured folks over a decent period of time. And of course it gets talked about quite a lot, since it limits performance and ability.
My trainer knows I have a chronic shoulder issue, and an adductor issue at the moment I'm working through that we need to avoid stressing too much. The few other folks who tend to work out around my schedule know of this, and I know of theirs.
My partner's grandfather died of cancer because when he was having pains they believed their homeopathic medicine would work. When he finally when in to see a real doctor it was too late. If he had gone in earlier, he would been able to have a chance. This is not a rare occurrence for these types.
Why would you stop going to a real doctor though? It's not one or the other.
I'm very on the fence over BPC-157/TB500, I really want to see some actual clinical trials ran on it. I have a feeling the effects are overstated, but I also have had a number of "insider" conversations where I know these and other compounds are very much being utilized in pro athlete injury recovery programs. Those athletes certainly are getting state of the art medical care via traditional sources, plus elite level physio therapy - so it's hard to say if the illicit injury recovery drugs are doing much or not.
I don’t think either of those are patentable so I doubt you’ll see studies or trials any time soon. A lot of strength athletes at all levels, not just elite, are absolutely convinced of their efficacy and their usage sometimes seems as common as ibuprofen.
According to our new AI overlords, a short synopsis of potential risks of BPC 157 based on mechanistic and animal work to date (don't know human risks because there haven't been sufficient clinical studies):
* Possible pathologic angiogenesis (abnormal blood‑vessel growth), which theoretically could support tumor growth or inflammatory and autoimmune processes.
* Modulation of nitric‑oxide pathways that, at high levels, might contribute to anemia, altered drug metabolism (CYP enzyme activity), and possibly neurodegenerative processes in theory.
* Concerns that its pro‑healing, pro‑growth signalling (e.g., FAK–paxillin) could encourage cancer spread if malignant cells are already present; this remains theoretical, with no proof in humans.
* Possible liver and kidney toxicity suggested in some commentary and extrapolated from preclinical work, but not well characterized in people.
* Immune reactions or allergic responses, including fevers, rash, hives, muscle aches, or systemic inflammatory responses
These do not appear to be results that would appear overnight. It would be "nice" if the folks injecting random shit into their bodies also disclaimed any subsequent medical intervention as a result of said shit, but that I suspect that's unlikely.
We have no specific reason to believe there are concerns with GLP-1s for cancer or anything else, beyond the mildest signal in rodent studies around thyroids.
We do not have robust clinical data for things like BPC-157 but we do have strong preclinical data and an understanding of the mechanisms in play.
I use BPC-157/TB-500/Ghk-CU/KPV - so I'm certainly OK taking the risks. But those mechanisms mentioned before? The same things we're counting on for healing and inflammation reduction are the same things that we know can cause an increase in tumor growth rate and chance of metastasizing. VEGF/VEGFR2 expression are even suppression targets for some cancer therapies.
Are there powerful and useful medications out there, available today, that we both don't have good scientific data on and are free enough of serious side effects? For sure! Is everything out there that, though? No. Some things that work will have too serious of a side effect profile to be feasible. Some things won't work at all, despite however much anecdata is out there.
As for the general idea... I agree there's no law that says a medicine with a strong positive effect must also have strong side effects. And we have plenty that don't - statins, particularly the latest generation, like pitavastatin, are effectively side effect free for the hugely overwhelming majority of people and have great lipid lowering effects. Even older ones showed extremely minimal incidents of things like muscle pain - a vanishingly small number of people relative to the total amount on the medications report muscle pain, and when investigated, quite a lot of even that ends up being unrelated to the statins. Yet the narrative persists that make it sound like anyone on statins is going to have their muscles ache 24/7
I'm glad we have GLP-1, and I don't think there are really major side effects. But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity.
It seems to be like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: it's a miracle in clinical trials but in the real world the patients just lower the doses or discontinue treatment after 1-2 years and go back to their old habits.
I hope it sounds less wild if you think obesity as disease of addiction. Reducing GLP1 dose can increase the enjoyment in eating, so it makes sense why treating obesity with GLP1 is like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: Effective in theory but hard to adhere outside trials.
Type 1 diabetes (or majority of diseases) doesn't involve addiction.
I can't reply elsewhere so I will reply to this again.
> In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to. Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
Anecdotes like this are interesting but in medicine they are not sufficient to make factual statements about drugs. In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment [1].
The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached.
> In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment
What does "steeper" mean? The studies I've seen show a net weight loss, even after regain, for the median patient.
> The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached
Maybe. Right now, however, the evidence shows solid effects outside clinical settings. Your original statement was wrong–your sources own refute the claim.
If you're arguing the effects in the real world haven't consistently been as ridiculous as they were in clinical trials, sure, you get a brownie point. But broadly speaking, these drugs are terrifically effective, both when taken for life and when taken intermittently.
If only there were a federal administration whose responsibility it was to collect data about food and drugs so we could rely on something more than anecdotes from random strangers on the Internet.
I emphasize it's like the drug disulfiram: Very effective as long as patients take the full dose, but the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment.
> the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment
Do you have a source for this "lack of real-world efficacy"?
> This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years
"With a with a median on-treatment weight change of −2.9%" [1]. Of those who discontinued and experienced "weight gain since discontinuation," they were "associated with an increased likelihood of GLP-1 RA reinitiation."
I'm genuinely struggling to see how this source shows real world inefficacy. In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to.
Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
It is not ineffective outside of clinical trials. All the evidence says that people gain some weight back after they discontinue treatment - which is not a lack of efficacy. But they also usually gain back less then they lost.
You mean the ones that are the result of experience through controlled clinical trials with statistical analyses and error bars, yep, sure. I guess I have a bit more faith in those leaflets and the testing regimes that generates them than the word of some gymbro or influencer who injected themselves and didn't immediately fall over dead.
> a patient who is discontinuing her statin therapy - very inadvisably, given the clinical presentation described - but is enthusiastic about “BPC-157”
This feels new. I thought the methylene-blue-for-cancer types continued their medicine while taking other things as extras.
Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine. At the end of the day, if you're an adult, it's your body. You should be given the chance to educate yourself. But if you want to inject yourself with a prion, like, go for it. Maybe you won't fuck up your own research.
(Marketing should be tightly regulated, possibly banned.)
Exactly my point of view. Medications are like drugs, if we failed to forbid it we might as well allow it but regulate it, aka make seller accountable for the purity.
> Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine.
Chesterton’s Fence rears its ugly head again. This is the same thing as vaccine skepticism (those diseases can’t be that bad, I never hear about them killing anyone these days) applied to a different context
Arguing for modern reforms is one thing, but there’s a reason we have the FDA. Statistically, most individuals do not have the medical expertise or the desire or ability to wade through enough clinical data to make these sorts of decisions with any hope of good outcomes, particularly in the face of an entire Internet of people trying to push questionable substances on them.
Cut and paste from New Yorker:
The human body produces thousands of peptides. Many are portions of proteins which send messages or regulate systems in the body, often in ways that scientists don’t fully understand. Researchers have known about some peptides for decades, and dozens have been turned into safe and effective drugs. The hormone insulin is a peptide that moves sugar from the bloodstream into cells; GLP-1, or glucagon-like peptide-1, spurs the pancreas to release insulin and slows the passage of food through the gut. (Peptides are usually defined as having about fifty amino acids or fewer; more than that and they’re proteins.)
> For a chemist, “peptide” has a pretty clear definition: any relatively short chain of amino acids, and when they get longer we go ahead and call them “proteins”, although the dividing line is a matter of personal opinion.
So, it is not just chemist but molecular biologist too. And the above is also not entirely correct. Yes, the author refers to size as threshold, before something is called a "protein". But the term protein has additional meanings that a peptide does not automatically have. For instance, a protein typically has a specific 3D conformation. It may be "sticky" after degradation or unfolding, but for the most part a protein is something with a 3D structure. A peptide does not necessarily imply the same. A protein may also have several polypeptide chains - insulin is a simple example for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Structure (A and B chain)
> So the number of different possible peptides is just ridiculously huge.
That's no surprise either - that's due to the code used. You add to the code, so of course length plays a role, as does the variety. There is a DNA->aminoacid mapping. The first has four possibilities per slot; the latter 20 (or more if you include e. g. selenocystein or pyrrolysine; and you have various post-translational modifications too, so you have more variety per slot).
> For comparison, it has been about ten trillion seconds since Homo sapiens emerged as a separate species.
The whole species concept is IMO outdated. It was created before people knew that DNA codes for the complexity in pretty much any species (excluding RNA viruses but they have reverse transcriptase, at the least some viruses, so ultimately RNA->DNA).
> The other one (by Sarah Hood) relates all this to RFJ Jr.’s advocacy. The flip side of “the government shouldn’t be able to force me to vaccinate my kids” is “I should have the right to take whatever medicines I want to without the government getting in my way”.
I don't see why that would be questionable. Would people do as Trump tells them to do? I would not. If you see Trump as a lobbyist, how many private interests may his government have? If they have a commercial interest then their statements may be biased.
> You don’t have an LC/MS or an NMR machine in your garage, so you can’t be sure what it is you’re really injecting
Right, so the whole system depends on trust. This is already a problem because you have to trust not only the government but ALL who were involved in scientific publishing. There were lies told in science too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publish...
With India getting generic GLP-1s, the tech to "print" peptides will probably see costs fall off a cliff, so we're probably only looking at the tip of the iceberg with the amount of damages the reddit biohacker bros will accomplish. Men especially are feeling a lot more lonely and image-conscious and there are peptides people claim make them taller[1] or muscular[2].
Yeah I'm always amazed at what they can get people to pay for individual vials. I buy kits of 24mg reta for ~280. And that's not the cheapest, for certain.
I think it's disingenuous to frame this exclusively in terms of the people who are turning down medically approved options for unknown supplements.
Dealing with doctors is kind of a pain in the ass. I was very sick a month ago and my doctor is pretty "anti antibiotics", he wanted me to go over for an in person check-in. This was after 10 days of having symptoms that I did everything reasonable to take care of. I got on a call with another doctor (at a perfectly reputable hospital) who immediately prescribed antibiotics. It took 5 days of antibiotics just to feel somewhat better - all while using saline rinses, showering, sleeping, eating properly, etc. I still have a lingering cough. I am very reluctant to take antibiotics unless it really feels necessary, this was easily the worst sinus infection of my adult life.
My friend wanted to try out a weight loss medication. Their doctor refused because they felt that my friend hadn't tried hard enough without it. So they got some from another friend who hadn't ended their prescription because they also were worried of being cut off. They've lost weight, which has motivated them to exercise more, eat better, and are generally happier and healthier.
From the article,
> Unfortunately, point two is that we barely have any of these effects worked out - at least not to the degree that you would want before you start injecting them into your leg.
This is what was said to a friend whose doctor took them off of one of those GLP medications, basically. They didn't have enough evidence to know the risks of continued use, even at lower doses.
The reality is simply that there's a big gap right now between what people want and what people have access to. The supplement industry exists to fill that gap.
Medical professionals can complain about users taking these peptides, but plenty of people are not "anti medicine" while still feeling underserved. If doctors aren't in a position to have these conversations, people will go to Youtube or wherever else to look for answers.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about a number of medications requiring a prescription. I frankly do not see why my doctor is involved in me taking a drug unless it would be negligent to allow me to or if it would have community health impacts (ie: antibiotic resistant strains etc). I'm an adult, if I've been properly informed of risks, etc, then I'm inclined to say that it should be up to me to pay full price for some medication or not.
I know plenty of people getting their GLP1 from compound pharmacies. None of them went their first, their doctors wouldn't give them the medication (sometimes they were just a pound under the BMI limit, often because they had been slowly losing weight) so they went elsewhere. These aren't anti-vaxxers who won't take their medication, they're people who want help and there's a gap that companies are taking advantage of. The medical establishment needs to find a way to address that. Right now the answer appears to be compound pharmacies and nurse practitioners.
> In my own view (and it ain’t just me) you also have regulatory agencies to force people to show that their drugs actually have some benefit before they can sell them, too. But that’s going further and further out of fashion. Can’t get ahold of the New Hotness to inject into your upper thigh if there are a bunch of stick-in-the-mud folks asking for human data, infringing on your freedom and all.
Many of us will be dead before there's a medically approved treatment for something. Hell, I got eye surgery before it was FDA approved - I'd probably be blind (or at least far worse off) if I'd waited the years it took.
How many people taking supplements are "naturopaths" who reject modern medicine as opposed to just people who want to be healthier? I really wonder that.
A lot of people are left alone with their health-issues, if you live in Canada and can only see a doctor if you are about to die, people try to change their health situation outside the "regulatory" system. These aren't health worriers, they are desperate to get their lifes back in order. Are there risks? For sure, but similarly untreated pain can damage more, especially mentally.
I think we are sort of in the worst of both worlds right now re: medicines/supplements/gray market.
FDA approval is expensive slow process. Doctors train for a long time and then work 40+ years entire careers, some without a ton of continuing education.
But then we have an entire gray market because enough legal and practical loopholes to drive a freight train through, such that people are self medicating with dubious substances of dubious origin of dubious purity sourced via dubious means.
Even if peptides work, you have no idea what side effects they have, or if the ones you are taking are even real, not contaminated/tainted in some manner, etc. Given a lot of the hype comes from social media for otherwise healthy people to take them for lifestyle / augmentation reasons.. to me the risks still outweigh the rewards.
Real solutions like regulatory reforms to find ways to bring down testing costs seem more important than reforms to make it easier to slap anything on the shelf at GNC as a completely untested “supplement”.
A truly post-modern form of anti-authority: I refuse to inject things the government recommends but willingly inject things strangers on the internet write about and which originate from random Chinese laboratories.
There's a mind-boggling market of un[der]studied and un[der]regulated substances for people who desire peak health and performance, many of whom refuse to engage in regular physical activity or a regular diet.
They don't seem to be any happier for it. If anything, they live at a higher and more diffused state of anxiety. I think it is rather sad.
Is there any evidence supporting the claim there is a significant overlap between the group of people who "refuse injections the government recommends" and the group of people who take "peptides"? The article is carefully crafted to evoke this impression without clearly stating it, listing only anecdotal evidence.
I imagine the entire Joe Rogan sphere with being anti vax (or vax skeptical)... While promoting a billion supplements.
RFK Jr using the blue dye stuff for one thing
How?
It has a certain logic to it, and I think US tipping culture basically follows the same rules.
Even if you almost always end up paying the bill + 20% tip, Americans like the idea that they could not pay the tip if the service was bad.
The appearance of free action is appealing and preferable to being forced to pay the extra amount, even if you almost always pay the amount willingly anyway.
In my experience, everyone who defends tipping culture is defending not paying the tip. I don't buy this idea that someone likes tipping culture and still pays it. After all, you're free to tip anyone you want regardless of culture.
The problem is it is so ingrained in US culture that switching to tip-free has generally failed where tried, even in pro-labor lefty hoods in blue cities.
Numerous restaurants in NYC tried and flipped back over the last 10 years. Restauranteurs reported illogical / innumerate behavior where sales went down when they switched to untipped higher prices.
https://www.eater.com/21398973/restaurant-no-tipping-movemen...
The only restaurants that it stuck were Japanese restaurants that cater primarily to Japanese ex-pats, because culturally its familiar to them.
I have recently been through the rabbit hole of peptides and most of the people engaged or involved in peptides seem to be healthy individuals. There are some exceptions like lookmaxxers and anti vaxers. The vast majority of people are normal and majority are outside of USA where anti vax sentiment are not in vogue. Some explore peptides for their dogs and cats too.
To assert that people are sad and anxious while not putting the effort to understand the people involved is such an intellectually lazy position to hold.
The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence.
HN, in particular, loves anything that allows them to discredit science (like the constant banging on about the replication crisis) and replace it with their own pet theory.
Is HN particularly drawn to this over other platforms? I gotta say I don’t quite recognize this. In general, I think there’s a good dose of respect for science around these parts, but maybe I’m blind to it.
I don’t think HN discredits science a lot, especially when compared to other platforms.
Extra points for people partying hard on shady synthetic drugs, but being actively anti-vax because government. Case in point, Miguel Bosé, a very well known spanish artist that spent the first 50 years of his life abusing everything except heroin (his own words), but now he is a vaccine negationist, for him and for his two children.
The article frames these supplements as being purely appealing to "anti science" people but I think that's really unfair. You can believe in medication, believe in science, trust government systems, etc, and still feel like you're not being served by the medically approved options.
It can also depend on people's politics vs who is on power. In general British anti-vaxers are left wing (very lefty affluent hippie types - you can see this from the areas with low MMR rates), and even more so during covid when a right wing government was in power. There is evidence for this in a survey KCL did of anti-vaccine beliefs during covid. I personally know of British students who declared they would not have covid vaccines because they "did not trust the Tories"
I'm here for two probably contradictory comments.
The first is collagen: I'd love to see Lowe's take on recent peer review which says boosting oral collagen does appear to show signs of improved joint pain and skin resilience. Obviously modulated through how protein deprived you are, but for older people, eating enough protein can be an issue: it's not rapidly absorbed so you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers. Collagen powders and vitamin C (oj) at breakfast might kick start this.
The second contradictory point is that this entire thread makes me want to shout GELL MAN AMNESIA because it's an exercise in otherwise intelligent people who can distinguish between anecdata, their personal experience and some cold hard facts in their core field, but not when it's self injecting unknown chemicals from China bought off-script.
I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors.
That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.
For the first one, I assume you mean a systematic review, not a peer review? I guess you're talking about this one:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10180699/
It has a Mechanism section which explains that when collagen is digested, one of the products of that is Gly-Pro-Hyp, which is what has the effects. I don't think that conflicts anything in this post?
I assume they're referring to the brief bit in the post that indicates that oral ingestion leads to a breakdown that makes oral supplements of amino acids pointless. They say it very briefly and they don't really outright assert it, it's just a sort of implied aside.
Sweeping statements in biochemistry must be made with caution. It is well known that there are some small peptides that are absorbed following oral administration.
...BPC-157 itself is said to be among this class. As are certain milk tripeptides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactotripeptides
Interestingly enough, those two, as well as Gly-Pro-Hyp, are proline/hydroxyproline-rich, which might suggest that proline-rich small peptides are resistant to degradation in the gut.
Anyway, in general oral proteins and peptides are broken down prior to systemic absorption, but not always...
I'm in agreement. It's the article that made the sweeping statement.
> you need 3 squares a day to get to the higher numbers.
> Collagen powders
In that case if you're eating collagen powder you could be eating just regular protein powder then?
Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowing why they work. I think people are just going to circumvent the fundamentalist and chase after whatever works.
I owe my health to early adoption of experimental peptides, I have life long ME/CFS and there is no known treatment for this nor is there any on the horizon. At least they finally have a diagnostic test and know it's not psychosomatic but I could have told them that from day 1. Most doctors are not researchers and have little understanding on statistics instead preferring to rely on discrete classifications and simple decision tress. As someone with hEDS from TNXB I am a walking bag of symptoms and yet not a single doctor could figure it out. I had to research it myself which involved post-doc level textbooks and research journals. I came across the work done by Prof. Khavinson (USSR) and it did appear to me that peptides were incredibly under-explored. Given the poor quality of life with ME/CFS I was willing to take serious risks so previous trials were helpful to give an idea on dosing and lethality, I went through most of the research peptides one by one. I actually waited on semaglutide a bit because I suspected there was a small minority who would have hyper sensitivity and I both expected that to appear in the data, which it did, and I expected to have hypersensitivity, which I did. Others who were less careful ended up with pretty bad gastroenteritis. Semaglutide has been the most effective and with it and a few others I am largely able to lead a normal life. I was getting gray market from the US but now I get it direct from China.
> There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism.
This is a deeply unfair statement, and also a false dichotomy. Medical science is of course empiric. What you call "fundamentalism" is that compounds need to undergo a rigorous regiment of empiric testing before they are given to potentially millions of people. And no, it's not just because of Thalidomide. Many, many compounds fail clinical trials because of severe side effects, like liver toxicity, severe immune reactions or heart problems. Then there's of course increased risk of cancer, which can take many years to manifest itself empirically. You argue that you prefer living with these uncertainties rather than ME/CFS, and that's of course entirely understandable, but disparaging the field of medical science as focused on "fundamentalism" because we do not give large patient cohorts untested compounds is polemic. I understand where you are coming from, and I'm sorry that you suffer from this terrible condition, but likewise, you should try to understand the other side.
I think the grandparent meant "fundamentalism" as "mechanistic", and lots of things we can know (as you say using the scientific method) to be useful long before we have a good mechanistic explanation of how they work.
Some examples: aspirin (willow bark used for thousands of years, drug synthesized in 1897 and mechanism explained almost 100y later), or general anesthesia used again since mid 1800s and the mechanism is quite still debated.
This is not to downplay all the long term, or developmental, risks that using something novel can result in. But we can empirically know something about the effects without having good mechanistic models.
But it is usually not necessary for approval of a compound to be able to describe how it works on a molecular or cellular level. What you need to show are three things: efficacy, safety and quality, so basically: the compound has the intended clinical benefit, has an acceptable safety profile and can be produced with a consistent manufacturing quality. Most compounds fail because of lack of efficacy (roughly half), and roughly a third because of lack of acceptable safety.
Non blinded self experimentation is not a useful branch of empiricism.
I had an ME/CFS patient that had tried 100s of things and documented the effects thoroughly. She had a quite impressive list. Roughly 30% had had an effect to begin with, but the trend she observed was that it lasted for around a month at most. Placebo was her overall conclusion, but she occasionally got relief anyways so we both agreed that there was no harm in continuing. I'm sure several "peptides" is on her list by now.
There is nothing new under the sun, and fad cures for diffuse conditions have come and gone many times before. This is especially the case for conditions involving pain or tiredness, which are extremely sensitive to both placebo and nocebo.
What would be revolutionary would be 2-3 double blinded RCTs showing a lasting effect. Which would be great if someone did! But you have to actually bother to do it. And personally I would put money on the outcome being "no effect".
I'm pretty sure there is no diagnostic test for ME/CFS. What are you referring to?
Also I don't understand how semaglutide did help you while you're at the same time part of a minority risk group with a hypersensitivity to it. Isn't that a contradiction?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-025-07203-w
I think I would need to see testing on a control group of housebound patients with other conditions to believe this. It's easy for ME testing to pick up markers for being housebound and limited exercise for an extended period of time.
looks interesting, but has the classic "40 patients".
I agree with this, but we don't have a good understanding of the mechanisms of how most drugs work, and what else they do. That's why, generally speaking, we require actual observational safety data, and not just a thorough description of the mechanism(s) of a drug. And sometimes we find out years or even decades later we were badly wrong. "Safe" is a very qualified term when it comes to drugs. What actually distinguishes $randompeptide from $approveddrug is the safety data - there are papers all about the proposed mechanisms for most of them.
Im sorry for your quality of life problems but calling doctors bad at statistics and then giving anecdotal evidence as proof has to start ringing some logical bells right? You dont even have to take our word. Use an LLM as judge. Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.
I didn't read their whole comment, but I worked in the Internal Research department of a medical school. I did their statistical studies and built software for analysis pipelines.
Doctors, at least 15 years ago, were definitely bad at statistics.
They were not required to take a statistics course at all. Most programs would require Algebra and Calculus as part of their science reqs.
Some would maybe take one basic research course, and they would then become obsessed with p values of 0.05.
They did not have a basic understanding of how to interpret research unless they were an auto didactic and went out of their way to improve. It's something my director (a doctor and software engineer), and the Dean complained about relentlessly.
> Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.
Isn't one of the bigger problems with ChatGPT that it's much too supportive of whatever the human is talking about?
Thats the point. If even such a sycophantic ai disagrees with your points you have a problem
I guess it depends on how you frame it. "I've just posted this comment, what do you think" vs "Someone online has just posted this comment, what do you think".
But it does require to know the bias that LLMs have ahead of testing this.
> chase after whatever works
Crack is really moreish.
Clinical trials are not looking for fundamental mechanisms, they are there to ensure an effect is strong enough to say a product should be sold for that purpose. Otherwise you end up with snake oil salesmen. Because how can you be sure you are even injecting the thing the sellers claim it is?
I would encourage everyone interested in peptides to read about the state of medical science before the establishment of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Have you tried omega3? There were some improvements I was reading about.
can you talk about how semaglutide improves ME?
> you don't need to know how they work to know that they work
Welcome to the powerful world of the placebo
I used retatrutide for weight loss and went from 199.3 lbs to just under 175 lbs. I kept daily notes through the process. Here's a quick AI one-paragraph summary if you're curious: https://pastebin.com/XACNYKvs
Overall I'm quite pleased with the effects and many of the properties of this treatment that people dislike are actually properties I was looking for. Essentially, for pharmacological interventions I want impermanent effects with a clear dose-response relationship and ideally minimal or no adaptation.
So the fact that people gain weight when they go off it and then lose weight again when they go on it was good. That meant it's fairly easily undoable. The fact that the more you take the more you lose also was pretty good to know though for the majority of the time I took less than any tested dose (and the effects were quite strong on those).
I did experience quite a bit of adaptation so I needed to up the dose until I was in the range tested by the end. I've been off it for a month now and been pretty much flat, but we've been traveling since I stopped and so a lot has changed (no more lifting, lots more eating, lots more walking).
Rough cost for the retatrutide is $1.25/mg.
Was cost the reason you went for it over tirzepitide? I feel like retatrutide is still way too early to mess with, it's giving me real "vioxx" vibes of messing with too much at once.
No, I had access to free tirzepatide. I chose retatrutide because early results seemed promising and safe and since I was going to run a short-term self-trial I wanted the most effective peptide.
Hey, fair enough! To each their own.
> Rough cost for the retatrutide is $1.25/mg.
Even with free healthcare that seems like a foolish place to save money when very widely used alternatives exist in the regulated market.
I know a couple of people that should know better (phds in biosciences but now doing corporate management) taking expensive weird Chinese peptides that would probably be better off if they did some cardio a few days per week and ate better.
I'm not inclined to be a guinea pig for these. I suspect maybe later in my child's life they will have been proven long-term safe (or not). I'll be old or dead at that point. I'm really wary of putting anything not known to be standard food or medicine into my body.
I tried retatrutide for 10 weeks, here are my results: Before: 5'7, ~182lb
Bench 1rm: 315
Squat: 5x10 225
Deadlift: 5x5 315
After: same height lol, 154lb
Bench 1rm: 285
Squat: 5x10 205
Deadlift: 5x5 275
Suffered some anhedonia towards the end but that went away ~1wk after stopping. Overall pretty good, not any side effects. Definitely fixed my food craving problem. I didn't have a high intake of protein during the 10 weeks, so I suspect thats why I lost muscle mass :/
I used a combo of low-dose retatrutide, tesamorelin, and ipamorelin and lost about 15lb over 45 days, including 60% of my visceral fat, and put on 4lb of muscle, per before-and-after DEXA scans. I lifted regularly, ate well, and prioritized protein, and while I definitely under-ate protein, I was very pleased to find that I was able to increase muscle mass while cutting the fat. My visceral fat was the primary target here, since I'd been unable to get it to budge despite consistent training and diet. Very pleased.
It's interesting you mention this (anhedonia), since the guardian just published this article: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/apr/06/is-retatruti...
How did you actually feel? Disinterested in stuff, ennui, or other?
Even if you hadn't lost any muscle mass, zero chance you're going to see the same exercise performance on a calorie deficit.
You lost muscle because you lost around 1.54% of body weight per week, which is way too aggressive. The maximum recommended amount for losing weight while retaining muscle is around 1%. You will also most likely experience a weight rebound.
Hasn't this mostly been debunked? You lose muscle mass because you lost mass overall, and whether you lost it too quickly or not is not the major factor. AFAIK maintaining muscle mass while losing fat is borderline impossible for anyone who isn't extremely fat and/or very disproportionate composition to begin with.
Not as far as I know. The ratio of fat-to-muscle loss depends on several factors, most notably the rate of weight loss (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34371981/). In fact, retatrutide is popular notably because it is known to preserve lean body mass better than other weight loss drugs.
Those are sizable drops for 10 weeks unless you stopped lifting as well
Mentioned above, but "I worked out 6 days a week still, but swapped out 1 of my leg days for a run day (between 2-4 miles)"
Did you work out during those 10 weeks any? TBH if you went from regular lifting to not for 10 weeks I'd expect a similar decrease in your lifting numbers (though not a .4lb/day weight loss of course)
I worked out 6 days a week still, but swapped out 1 of my leg days for a run day (between 2-4 miles)
Dude, you must be jacked. Great lifts at those weights. Unreal bench haha. Good shit, dude.
solid bench brother
thank you:^)
The author is missing a massive segment of that gray market: people who buy FDA-approved weight loss drugs (e.g., semaglutide or tirzepatide) at 2–5% of the brand-name price. This route carries some risk, but there are ways to mitigate it, such as performing third-party testing. I assume most people who do this couldn't realistically afford the brand-name drug anyway, making this their only viable treatment.
Even if you test a batch once, do people who get testing done do testing on all batches?
The synthesis of peptides uses some NASTY chemicals. I would be worried about lax manufacturer policies leading to contamination, even if one batch passes. The costs of FDA certification are the effect of that protection.
But whatever, this is the same attitude that people have against owning insurance. It is hard to recognize the cost of risk.
I bought Semaglutide at 50c/mg and had it tested, it's the real deal. What's the normal price, $100/mg?
My gf is in medicine so she had a friend test it through their work.
Test what, exactly? Purity? LPS contamination? They cant test for every last picogram of material in it. Did they test for viral contamination?
Even drug addicts heat up the thing they inject so theyre actually safer than you can ever be. Dont inject things from China into your blood!
Won't be anywhere near that. I don't have prices handy, but Lilly sells tirzepatide (a bit better than sema, and usually a bit more expensive) at 500/mo (maybe a bit less now on the trump rx site, I don't recall). Depending on dose, that'll be about 10 bucks a mg give or take. At 50c/mg for sema you were paying a bit of a premium. These days even tirz is only about 30-35c/mg.
I used to buy from Peptide Sciences so I was certainly paying a premium for reputation at $20/mg. I think Semaglutide is now at a bit of a premium due to it falling out of favour and most people switching to Triz and Reta. I only take a low dose and am happy to stick with what's working.
There must be an irony that it was Trumps crackdown on peptides, I presume to prop up his prescription company, that forced me to switch to Chinese supply. By doing it all at once it created a critical mass for that market.
IIRC the biggest impetus for cracking down was Lilly throwing a fit about the gray market supplying reta well before it even becomes available via the normal channels (who knows when that will be). But as you say, it just pushes people to buy direct from Chinese vendors (and it is basically impossible to stop direct imports like that). Would be safer if more reputable US-based sellers could supply it semi-openly as before. Nexaph is still selling it, but I figure the clock is ticking on that.
> and it is basically impossible to stop direct imports like that
How so? Is there a particular characteristic of the US that makes it so, or of the channels through which this is done? I get that in general it's impossible as with recreational drugs, but when you look at cocaine then at least to traffick it to most wealthy countries it takes a large amount of resources and is at high risk of getting caught. Which is why they're increasingly starting to use narco submarines. This greatly increases the price of the product. Why can't the same happen to peptide imports?
> had it tested, it's the real deal
How did they test encapsulation? I thought the whole problem is your stomach acid breaking it down.
They’re presumably injecting it like normal.
Last I checked, Ozempic (Semaglutide) is around $1000/month in the US. A typical 1 month pen is 4-8mg, so around $250/mg to $500/mg. So yeah, I may have understated how much cheaper the gray market version is.
Semaglutide is effectively $99/month in the US. Not from shady sources.
Do you mean with health insurance? Novo Nordisk still lists it at $1000+ on their website: https://www.novopricing.com/ozempic.html
I meant from the various compounding pharmacies. But in the worst-case you go with GoodRx and get it for $350/mo (after $199/mo for the first two).
I imagine it's legally risky to buy a large quantity, test it, and then resell smaller quantities. That's a shame because the alternative is probably that some folks settle for products of dubious quality and end up getting hurt.
Yes, I believe most people buy directly from somewhat shady Chinese factories. I tried contacting a few and they all refuse to meet or send samples from within China, so I assume what they're doing is illegal in China. In the US, it's legal to sell them as a "research chemical" but the FDA is cracking down on companies that are clearly engaging in b2c.
There's this company that offers free testing: https://finnrick.com/
Another popular testing company is https://janoshik.com
Some other useful resources: https://graymarket.substack.com/ and https://glp1forum.com/
There are a few subreddits as well.
FWIW, I never ended up buying any myself.
Right, but I don't know the people at those companies. I have local chemists that I trust. I'm just lamenting the fact that developing that kind of trust network everywhere, so everybody can be similarly sure of what they're putting in their body, is likely to run afoul of local laws.
FWIW, finnrick's claim to fame is being free. Someone is paying for it. They have also failed blind tests in the past, Janoshik (IIRC) never has. There are several US-based labs but none of them have the same reputation as Janoshik.
Actually, you just described most of the tele-health and compounding pharmacies that carry GLP1s!
Where do you think Hims, Ro, Brello, or the rest get the APIs they sell to their customers? They get them from grey market suppliers in China. They don't go to Ely Lilly or NovoNordisk and say, "politely sir, may I skirt around your IP and sell your drugs for 10x what they cost instead of 10,000x what they cost?" Hopefully, they test them and filter them and use sterile/pharma processes for what they sell to their customers. Well, except for the Medspas, those are just wild west snake oil farms.
This actually isn't true. Hims compounded the GLP1s themselves. They broke/are breaking the law. Theres lawsuits.
Things have changed a little, but during the time that compounding was explicitly allowed, the licensed pharmacies were buying from FDA approved manufacturers, sometimes in China, and sometimes the same manufacturers who also do contract manufacturing for Lilly.
Today ... who knows? It might just be the same gray market stuff us plebes can get.
It probably is, but that does not stop people from effectively doing it. There are a number of groups that specialize in conducting group buys, doing a bunch of testing on randomized samples, and then shipping out the product to individuals.
Also, if you plan to be on it a good long time, you can buy a bunch of kits yourself (a kit is 10 vials), run a bunch of tests, and then just have a nice stockpile that will last you years. The testing will likely cost as much or more than the product itself, but given how inexpensive the product is, you still come out way ahead financially.
>I imagine it's legally risky to buy a large quantity, test it, and then resell smaller quantities
It is illegal, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. In fact, if you don't have any sort of test results for your peptides people will absolutely avoid buying your wares until you have them. Purity and mg/ml are the 2 basic test results that any shop worth their stuff will have.
To be fair, most everyone I know who is buying on the gray market considers vendor tests to be minimally required, but still insufficient -- there is no assurance they tested the product they shipped to you. Plan on testing it yourself. I'm sure some people do trust nexaph enough, though, to not worry so much. Whether that trust is well placed, that is a separate discussion.
With most of these you can really tell if they work or not and there is a pretty predicable dose dependent reaction profile. With slow meds like semaglutide you'd maybe not notice it in the first week but you will by week 3. I had mine tested but if that wasn't available I probably would have considered the anecdotal evidence to be sufficient. It appears that most of the scamming is just people taking the money and not shipping anything.
The most dangerous failures I've seen have been sending the wrong peptide. 15 mg of tirzepatide and 15 mg of semaglutide is a very different experience.
After nearly getting hosed in a group buy (I did get refunded, but that is far from a guarantee) because of a product mismatch, I decided to just pay for nexaph. Love him or hate him, his popularity relies on his reputation and he has been more careful than most suppliers to cultivate it with more extensive testing and quality control.
That makes sense, I don't like that the bottles are unlabelled so the first thing I have to do is label them. The box is labelled and this seems to be standard practice. Semaglutide is falling out of favour so I guess they're substituting. I have 4 years supply now so I guess I'll check back then and see where the market is at.
> I have 4 years supply now
<Insert that "one of us, one of us..." GIF here>
I know a bunch of people with multi-year stockpiles. I've got ~5 years of reta and ~6 years of tirz. This is too much, of course, but I determined a while back that under no circumstances do I ever intend to find myself unable to source it. My life is immeasurably better after losing 110 pounds.
Could you direct me to some resources you used to figure out dosing and sourcing? I’ve been interested in trying it out (need to lose a lot of weight) but have been paralyzed by too much contradictory information.
Lowe has a point, but the FDA has painted itself into a corner by (a) forcing up the costs and the various bureaucratic demands associated with clinical trials, (b) allowing drug advertising , but then forcing those comical "may cause death" disclaimers, both of which have become totally ubiquitous, and (c) inconsistently following its own rules, and in some cases flouting its own rules.
At this point, broscience is considered no less valid than actual clinical trials, and the FDA should blame itself for this. Not "human nature being what it is in this fallen world" in a sort of general or abstract sense.
Another point I could raise is that telemedicine has turned the entire prescription system into nothing more than a parasitic middleman/gatekeeper.
FDA reform is very badly necessary. That ought to come before harsher enforcement, and I think that much of the populace already intuitively understands this.
When medicine ignores nutrition entirely, and nutrient supplements are still complete unknowns, you have to wonder who the FDA is working for.
Medicine doesn't really ignore nutrition, but the problem is:
1. Most people don't believe it anyway. People want to hear they can eat hamburgers and milkshakes and be healthy. Telling them "we know that gives you heart disease and cancer" does nothing.
2. Nutrition is complicated and different for every person, because everyone has different things they can tolerate. The "perfect" diet is actually worthless because it has a 0% success rate. Really, we have to optimize for how miserable people are willing to be.
3. Most people are unhealthy enough that nutrition is the least of their concerns. That sounds crazy, I know, but if you're obese (which most people are!), then priority is being not obese. Not your nutrition. I know those sound related but they're way less related than you think.
> Most people don't believe it anyway
Maybe because so much of it is wrong, or (very charitably, as much is industry-biased) outdated?
Lifestyle modification is a definite challenge and I’m not dismissing it.
Still, hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer. Overeating, oxidative stress from low-quality ingredients, etc might.
> hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer
They absolutely do, particularly if you're getting most of your calories from them. If evidence-based medicine doesn't convince you, uh, hamburgers and supermarket milk tends to be processed.
They absolutely do not, unless you’re getting too many calories.
Individual foods are—with some exceptions—neither bad for you nor good for you. A healthy diet can occasionally include doughnuts, and milkshakes. Your overall diet is what matters.
Sure, they are not mercury-level toxic. However, these recommendations are for people who consume way too much of these dishes, and it's a safe assumption that this is the case for a significant part of the population.
Sure. We’re saying roughly the same thing. For most Americans, hamburgers cause heart disease because we don’t exercise enough or eat enough plants. If you’re backpacking twenty miles a day, sure, eat whatever, you won’t suffer inflammation or obesity from it. (Though you may run nutritional deficiencies. And you’re building bad habits for when your activity necessarily tapers off.)
> Still, hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer. Overeating, oxidative stress from low-quality ingredients, etc might.
What? “Oxidative stress”? Oh come on, at least go full “seed oil” if we’re going to talk nonsense.
We already left the land of reason far behind by the time OP implied hamburgers and milkshakes give people cancer.
Depends on the nutrients that comprise them to the extent they contain a lot of omega-6 or not. Not heart disease so much but the other killer - might as well mention in this context. 'A high omega-3, low omega-6 diet with FO for 1 year resulted in a significant reduction in Ki-67 index, a biomarker for prostate cancer'. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00608. Also Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2024) 27:700 – 708 'Our preclinical findings provide rationale for clinical trials evaluating ω-3 fatty acids as a potential therapy for prostate cancer'.
Seed oils are not as bad as painted but some caution is needed given for instance the industrial processes used to bring them to market sometimes. Plus the way the oils are cooked when they create free radicals. This is not nonsense.
You don’t have to wonder. It’s public record that 45% of the FDA’s budget incomes from user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.
In the drug division specifically, the number is about 75%.
Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit. Nutrition supplements ended up being a loophole that allows pharmacies and pharma companies to sell all kinds of random stuff that they can't or don't want to, show is safe, or doing anything at all.
Medicine doesn't ignore nutrition, you just don't like the answers.
And it shows on the research: e.g. does creatine help muscle building? No.[1] But cue some anecdote from someone where they also changed a dozen other things at the same time but are sure it was that.
[1] https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/03/sports-supplem...
Creatine is probably the most well-studied nutritional supplement we have, and one of the most efficacious. You are presenting a single study to counter that. Not even a meta-analysis, but a single study of just 54 participants who did not exercise at all previously (from the study; "Apparently healthy individuals, with a body mass index of ≤30 kg/m2 and not meeting current physical activity guidelines of at least 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise were included. Individuals who undertook [resistance training] within the previous 12 months were excluded"). The general consensus is that it is absolutely helpful in muscle-building. See, for example [0] and [1]. Beware the man of one study. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-...
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12665265/ - Meta analysis results; "after intervention, the Cr group exhibited significant strength gains"
[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/17/2748 - "A total of 69 studies with 1937 participants were included for analysis. Creatine plus resistance training produced small but statistically significant improvements... when compared to the placebo."
But there's a core problem with this, in many states doctors are legally forbidden to give nutrition advice. The academy of nutrition and dietetics has worked very hard to make it so that only dietitians can provide nutrition advice. Take Ohio for example, a medical doctor in Ohio is legally forbidden and actually in jeopardy of losing their license and going to jail if they were to provide nutrition advice without a dietetics license. Dietitians are not doctors, but the academy of nutrition and dietetics wants you to think they are.
> Dietitians are not doctors
And doctors are not dietitians.
Doctors in the US receive an average of under 20 hours of training in nutrition over four years of medical school. What little they do receive is often focused on nutrient deficiencies rather than on meal planning for health and chronic disease prevention. Less than 15% of residency programs include anything on nutrition.
To become a registered dietician requires at least a Master's degree in dietetics or nutrition or a related field, and at least 1000 hours of supervised internships.
PS: before any Europeans hold this up as an example of the poor US health care system, doctors in Europe average 24 hours of nutrition training.
Aren't doctors actually exempted specifically from such regulations in almost all states? AFAIK they can actually give nutritional advice legally in nearly every jurisdiction in the US.
Mmmm, regulatory capture and rent seeking. Will it ever end?
> prescription system into nothing more than a parasitic middleman/gatekeeper
Agree. Unless it's addictive or in short supply, you should be able to buy it OTC.
The FDA didn’t push up clinical trial costs, thalidomide did.
> Another point I could raise is that telemedicine has turned the entire prescription system into nothing more than a parasitic middleman/gatekeeper.
I’m curious what you mean by this. I’m not sure what you mean by “prescription system” specifically.
I'll give you a case in point. This article was discussed the other day:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/02/technology/ai-billion-dol...
People want GLP-1 drugs. They can't get them without a prescription. They pay $$$ to a "telemedicine" "doctor", recite a list of well-known symptoms, and buy the prescription.
The system is that you can't buy these drugs without the piece of paper, and the piece of paper is basically something that anybody can buy regardless of whether or not they actually need the drug. Wanting it is usually enough.
I think access is a good thing. The issue isn't with telemedicine but the fact that there's a prescription wall for helpful meds like GLP-1 in a country where we've failed people by creating one of the worst food environments.
Also, most doctor's visits aren't any different from getting it if you want it except it's gated on the mood/attitude of the doctor, maybe your ability to sell some sob story. And then you book a different doctor until you get it. Telemedicine just makes the process easier an arbitrary system.
GLP-1 prescriptions are easy to get in the US. It's filling the prescription that is the problem, because insurance rarely covers it and it is beyond the disposable income of most Americans.
The prescription hurdle is absolutely necessary -- these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance. It's the price that needs to be fixed.
> these are not drugs that anyone can safely take without guidance.
Unless that risk is egregious, informed adults should be able to accept it if they so choose.
I know a lot of people on GLP-1 meds and even took a dose myself out of curiosity.
You take a dose every two weeks. And if you accidentally double dose because you misread 1U to mean 1 dose, it just gives you some nausea.
Are we going to pretend it's hard to take this drug now too? Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on? Remember to eat. That's it. I guess a few people might need the doctor to go "you're eating, right?" but I don't believe in infantilizing everyone over that.
> You take a dose every two weeks
Weekly, if you are following guidelines correctly. The half-life of most GLP1 peptides is 5-6 days.
I otherwise agree with your point entirely. Though anecdotally, I may have given my brother-in-law a single small vial of tirzepatide at his request so that he could experience it, and the results were ... not good. Turns out he's an idiot, thought that 'more is better', 'drinking enough water is for weenies', and 'I am not an alcoholic even though I get plowed most evenings.' All against my very specific advice on how to give it a try. Whoops.
My fault, yes, I should have realized he was too stupid to do it without adult supervision. He made himself so sick he almost went to the ER. Nothing really dangerous, of course, tirzepatide is pretty safe stuff, but overdosing on it can make you feel very shitty for a few days until the blood concentration drops.
One dose is one thing -- but there are other risks that can lead to complication or death here if taken improperly for a long period of time. Musculoskeletal issues, cardiac issues, thyroid issues, etc.
Additionally, getting the correct dose is not straightforward for a layperson as it is for other OTC drugs with standard doses.
There are similar risks, and probably more likely, to all sorts of consumables that aren't regulated at all. It is reasonable to ask whether the prescription regime for GLP-1s makes sense. It isn't the only substance posing that conundrum! Ondansetron is OTC in a lot of countries, but not in the US, Canada, or UK. But ondansetron is arguably less dangerous and more helpful than pseudoephedrine.
Pseudoephedrine, of course, isn't BTC because it's dangerous to take or complicated to dose. It's there because of the war on drugs. But I do agree that not all drugs are regulated appropriately. Marijuana also comes to mind.
I do think GLP-1s are just about right. It is appropriate to take them under personalized professional guidance.
Right, and I actually see the logic of that (unlike virtually everyone else on HN, and let's not rekindle that debate; the search bar avails). The point is you don't need a prescription to get it. People might be better off if GLP1s were also BTC. Hard to say!
Certainly you can abuse a GLP1 and get yourself very sick, or not abuse it and still end up with pancreatitis. But smoking and alcohol presumably cause way more cases of pancreatitis, and you don't need a script for a handle of Popov.
There used to be prescriptions for alcohol products and cigarettes have been sold as medical products -- the reason we accept them in society today is not because we think they have relative less risk to other things, but that their acceptance as recreational vices outweighs the harm that we know they cause.
> smoking and alcohol presumably cause way more cases of pancreatitis
Indeed. In fact, I think just recently there were updated studies for at least one of the popular GLP1s that disclaimed entirely a link to pancreatitis.
To be clear I don't think it's actually reasonable to suggest GLP1s should be OTC in 2026. Were that to happen it would be part of a regime change in drug regulation that I'd categorically oppose. The timeline on GLP1s (unlike Zofran) doesn't support it. There are arguments for why your doctors would want to know that you're taking it, and on what schedule. But it should be extremely easy to get.
Agree, it does feel like a class of medication that deserves more control than OTC would provide. I do think it should be largely voluntary, however, with doctors expected to provide it unless there is a specific contraindication that would make it harmful.
> Or that the doctor has some magical insight into your getting-on beyond a couple questions they ask you in your visit? Remember to eat. That's it.
Apparently we have forgotten people who died from eating disorders (previously called anorexia nervosa)?
There is a VAST difference between someone who weighs 300lbs asking for GLP-1 to combat morbidity and someone who is barely 100lbs asking for a GLP-1 to take off weight for bikini season. That's what needing to ask a doctor for a prescription is for.
That sounds like people making an informed decision about their body to me. Doctors don't need to be inserted into every risky decision.
> The prescription hurdle is absolutely necessary
You're totally missing the point thought. The prescription hurdle effectively does not exist. It's just a paywall.
You pay your $100, get a 3 minute call with a NP/PA/whomever, and basically the robot writes you a prescription for whatever you want. The point is you pay and you get the prescription. Patient safety has nothing to do with anything.
It's cheaper for most people to get the prescription written at a PCP.
The advantage to a telehealth is not getting the prescription written -- it's that they'll fill it for cheap through a tiny compounding pharmacy that is making it, technically illegally, but are small enough to be off the FDAs enforcement radar for the moment.
I have used both my PCP and telehealth for prescription writing, never once have I used a compounding pharmacy.
It's slightly cheaper for me to use telehealth vs. billing through my insurance. The downside is it doesn't go towards my deductible of course.
The stuff you are describing are entire supply chains of a sort where you want a GLP-1 or perhaps a few other things like TRT. Those you are signing up for the drug itself, which happens to include the prescription part with it.
Telehealth can be used for any old medication you want. It removes the permission slip part of the process and replaces it with a payment gateway. If you have $75-150 you can just click some buttons and have a prescription for nearly anything you want at most a day later. This includes antibiotics, ADHD meds (getting harder on these), certain benzos, etc.
HIMS/HERS/etc. and their smaller ilk are super popular, but they are the tip of the iceberg.
Telehealth providers can certainly work with compounding pharmacies but not necessarily. If you are looking to get a prescription for Diazapam you are going to be getting that sent to your local Walgreens or whatnot.
> It's slightly cheaper for me to use telehealth vs. billing through my insurance.
How? Usually PCP visit are cheap and everyone gets one for free.
> HIMS/HERS/etc. and their smaller ilk are super popular, but they are the tip of the iceberg. > Telehealth providers can certainly work with compounding pharmacies but not necessarily.
Yeah I’m aware there are a whole host of services telehealths provide but the primary reason people use them for GLP1s is to avoid the name brand cost.
The "perscription system" used to be that you'd have to go see a doctor, the doctor knew who you were, and would make decisions on what prescriptions/medications you should be given.
Due to drug advertising rules, the prescription system has been turned on its head, and the patient now goes to their doctor asking for a specific prescription.
Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middleman (the doctor) in many cases and you just sign-up look at a person on a camera, and get your drugs sent to you.
> Telemedicine took advantage of this and has effectively removed the middleman (the doctor) in many cases and you just sign-up look at a person on a camera, and get your drugs sent to you.
This is only true for a handful of drugs that are basically OTC already (or that have OTC formulations). Additionally, telemedicine didn’t take advantage of drug advertising- that’s an odd assertion.
Go to doctor, get prescription for restricted medicine, pick up prescription.
If you can call up a teledoc and they give you a prescription based on your description why could you not just go buy the meds yourself without a prescription. You have essentially diagnosed yourself and just asked the doctor for permission to buy the drug you want.
That’s… not how actual telemedicine works. That’s how jackasses “disrupt” healthcare for very specific drugs. Mostly birth control, ED meds, and various hair regrowth meds.
It’s really clear that some of you are really mad about something you don’t understand.
I take certain medications--nothing interesting, nothing controlled, nothing abusable. I have to deal with a whole thing just to get refills, because my PCP forces me to come in every time--and even that is now just a telehealth call that is annoying.
In Mexico, for meds like mine, you can just buy them at the pharmacy. There's no reason for all this nonsense.
(Edit: same PCP refused to prescribe GLP-1s early, without any scientific or medical reason not to. Delayed my weightloss by months until I found a place that would.)
> I’m curious what you mean by this. I’m not sure what you mean by “prescription system” specifically.
They basically operate as a "pay for a prescription" service.
Figure out what drug you want, google the drug name and telehealth. You will be marketed in a wink wink sort of manner over how easy it is to get them, just hours away! Then if you are not a total idiot, you answer certain questions in the right manner on the intake form, the doctor (usually NP/PA or similar for most things) will quickly run through that and expect you to answer correctly - perhaps guide you a bit if you don't.
5 minutes later you have a prescription in the web portal and it's sent to your pharmacy of choice.
It really shows how the whole "permission slip" program is BS. I've used these services a couple times vs. my normal doctor just to save time and expense of an office visit. If I can click some buttons, have a call 30 minutes later, and be on my way to the pharmacy for $50 it's sometimes the path I take now vs. traditional route.
Someone used to the traditional doctor/patient relationship thing and prescriptions being "holy" would be shocked at how easy and gamed it all is.
Well that's a problem with the profit driven US health system (although admittedly other countries have similar problems to varying degrees) not prescriptions in general though? In particular the take home from this should be to make it more difficult to get the prescriptions not to do away with prescriptions.
To your first point, if you know where to look, you can get tens of vials of GLP-1s that have much higher dosing per vial for cheaper than you can get a third of the amount on the grey market. A lot of these sites even have purity testing to soothe consumers worries that they're getting garbage. For your third point, you have the FDA limiting HGH, yet you can buy the growth horomone releasing factor peptides (tesamorelin, sermorelin, ipamorelin) after doing a simple Google search.
As for broscience, moving into peptides was a logical next step after exhausting anabolic steroid "research". In fact, I'd say that biohackers are actually behind the bros when it comes to trying various peptides out and documenting experiences.
Many of us would appreciate if you could share one of those reputable vendors with such cheap prices
https://t.me/qsctgchannel https://t.me/c/2680146932/9
I really enjoyed having to wait 30 seconds for Cloudflare to let me into this website.
I think if you're a cloudflare customer they set a cookie in your browser that let's you bypass the waiting period. Just wait until next year when they show ads during the wait.
I take a small issue with the claim that we don't test peptides. Some of us test them extensively before injecting. Granted, probably the same people who also understand how little science there is backing up most of the popular peptides today. I enjoy being able to buy my own GLP1s, however, at least those which have made it through phase III trials succesfully. As tempting as the claims are about things like BPC-157 and such ... no thanks, that is past my comfort level a good bit.
So you agree that this whole topic is in a sliding scale of lunacy, youre just on the saner side a bit?
It seems we are treating Peptides like drugs here. It's my opinion that amino acids regardless of how they are chained do not belong under and stricter regulation than food given I eat peptides every day from my food. Then again I do not believe in the concept of prescription drugs. Everything with a NDC code should be at the grocery store and I should be able to stock up on it without permission especially given how fragile global shipping is these days. Drugs risks do not enter into the picture given the fact I can buy ammonia and bleach along with a myriad of other dangerous compounds. Worse, I could crush up apple seeds from the veggie isle. One can also make just about anything using fourth thieves vinegar. Maybe put expensive high demand things like cocaine behind locked glass along with the underwear and condoms.
As a side note more dangerous than any drug is stopping a prescription drug cold turkey. Watch what happens when global trade to/from China and India are cut off for a year. Attitudes will change.
> given I eat peptides every day from my food
This is briefly addressed in the article, but basically it's one thing to eat a peptide and quite another thing to inject it. Your digestive system is extremely adroit at taking peptides and proteins and breaking them down into individual amino acids, which are then absorbed via "transporters" in the gut. (e.g. SLC6A14 for glutamate and cysteine.)
If you eat insulin, absolutely nothing will happen. If you inject just a little bit too much, you're dead.
So, generally: Ingested proteins/peptides aren't drug-like, whereas they can be extremely potent drugs if administered via injection.
Granted, there are exceptions. If you accidentally get a drop of botox into your mouth, you'll be okay, but if you drink a vial, you'll be poisoned. And people have been trying to make orally-active peptides and proteins for decades, with some noteworthy successes, however few and far between in the general case.
I agree with some of this. There are most certainly orally active peptides such as BPC-157 and its replacement PDA penta deca arginate that can repair the gut and still circulate throughout the body especially in those with leaky gut. People with leaky gut should be able to buy a clean source of BPC-157 or PDA without a prescription and without visiting dark alleys. It is very safe and tolerable.
GLP's are all the rage these days. Doctors seem to be giving GLP peptides out like candy and those are injected. People are looking like zombies. That said if doctors are going to be so liberal with them I should be able to buy it in the grocery store and slap it down on the conveyor belt. Again I can buy things far more dangerous than any prescription drug. There are very dangerous supplements, some that are shilled heavily on youtube. For example, Glycine (for me specifically used without a specific process) is more dangerous than heroine and the vast majority of doctors would have no idea what I am talking about.
> It is very safe and tolerable.
Can you point to the clinical trials that demonstrate this?
> Doctors seem to be giving GLP peptides out like candy and those are injected.
There have been several _thousand_ clinical trials that have shown GLP-1s to be safe and effective.
Also LOL at the notion "peptides are safe because GLP-1 exists".
Pretty much all venoms are mixes of short (10-15 base) peptide chains.
It's the naturalistic fallacy in an utterly perverse form ( and also goes to show why a regulatory system is good: the average person has no idea that they're dealing with or even common sense about it).
"Liquids are safe because water exists"
Injected BPC-157 to a wound is a magic healing potion as far as I'm concerned. That it's not more broadly available is a crime, imo. If I had a billion dollars, I'd push so many things through the FDA.
If you had a billion dollars, you would need many billions more to push even a single thing through the FDA!
This is entirely theorical, but the $2.6 billion figure that's commonly quoted accounts for all the failures as well. If I took something that's proven in Europe but wouldn't get a patent, it presumably would manage to pass FDA regulations, it's just that without the patent protection, there's no financial incentive for an existing company to do that.
> > given I eat peptides every day from my food
It’s also just a silly rhetorical technique. The ability to construct a grammatical sentence of that form does not constitute a valid argument.
“Restricting nuclear material is silly given that nearly all the stuff I interact with every day contains atomic nuclei.”
The regulation of drugs or most any consumer product is not due to the inherent danger of an item itself, but the danger presented to a consumer inside the context of societal mechanisms that influence behavior. You're right that many regulations don't make sense outside of a societal context -- but that's because they also don't exist outside of a societal context.
The reason we don't need tight regulations on bleach is because we don't have a societal issue causing people to drink it and hurt themselves... at least, not anymore: most of the locking lids on household cleaning chemicals are there by law.
I'm all for laxer regulation of substance control e.g. buying cocaine at the grocery store, but I think its also a bit misleading to describe arbitrary sequences of amino acids as if they're meaningfully comparable to food.
That's like saying that since neither one nor zero requires regulation, neither does software. Maybe software does or doesn't, but in either case its best based on the nature of the aggregate, not the nature of its components.
> It seems we are treating Peptides like drugs here
That’s exactly what some biological drugs are too - peptides!
And peptides are just short chains of amino acids. Almost all the other biological drugs are just longer chains of amino acids - antibodies, enzymes, antigens, some hormones, and others.
Derek is right that the safety risks are exponentially higher when you inject peptides - you basically skip a bunch of protective mechanisms like enzymes that quickly break them down if taken orally or routes.
As a former R&D scientist there is no way I’d inject any peptide that hasn’t at least gone through a phase 1 safety study in humans. Otherwise you have no idea what it could be doing to your body.
A good example was a drug that was quickly pulled from market for causing fatal anaphylactic reactions. It wasn’t even caught in the clinical trials!
At the same time, I think people have the right to take whatever substance they want. But I worry a lot of people aren’t aware of the risks.
>As a former R&D scientist there is no way I’d inject any peptide that hasn’t at least gone through a phase 1 safety study in humans. Otherwise you have no idea what it could be doing to your body.
A lot of people do not understand the trial system or the value of Phase 0/1 tests when it comes to the substances that they put into their body. And thanks to the influencer/grifter/biohacker ecosystem that exists, more people would put their trust in accidental evidence, from people who's incentive it is to make money off of them, while complaining about the pharmaceutical industry operates off of a profit motive.
Yeah, but my mum is an eye surgeon and she wouldn't get LASIK. That's just how it is with people involved in the field.
> It's my opinion that amino acids regardless of how they are chained do not belong under and stricter regulation than food given I eat peptides every day from my food.
I mean, why regulate anything? Everything is just different arrangements of hydrogen and time. It's so weird that certain arrangements of hydrogen and time try to claim to have things like "morals", and try to force other arrangements of hydrogen and time to not do arbitrary contrived concepts like "murder".
All is one. Just hydrogen and time. Therefore everything should be legal.
> Drugs risks do not enter into the picture given the fact I can buy ammonia and bleach along with a myriad of other dangerous compounds.
This is a deeply weird take. You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement? We should let parents self-diagnose diabetes and administer insulin without a prescription or discussion? We should just hope that patients heard their doctor say hydralazine and not hydroxyzine?
> As a side note more dangerous than any drug is stopping a prescription drug cold turkey.
Abject nonsense. It was very easy to stop my prescribed amoxicillin. It’s clear you don’t have any actual idea what “prescription drugs” are, in aggregate, and that should maybe inform your decision to have Big Opinions about them.
You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement?
Yes.
Triple yes! Most of the people buying it have been buying it and using it for years.
Why do you think only the people taking it would be buying it?
> Why do you think only the people taking it would be buying it?
I don't. But the cost of access is significant. And with pharmacies in India, China and Mexico willing to ship basically anything into America, it's a purely-cosmetic tax now.
Why? Why, specifically, do you think an adult without HF should be able to buy a random drug, likely by accident, and start taking it?
I guess I don’t hate everyone else enough to agree with that.
> This is a deeply weird take. You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement? We should let parents self-diagnose diabetes and administer insulin without a prescription or discussion? We should just hope that patients heard their doctor say hydralazine and not hydroxyzine?
Weird examples. You can buy insulin without a prescription today in the USA.
In much of the world -- including almost all of Asia, Africa, and much of Eastern Europe -- you can buy almost any drug without a prescription. The only exceptions are potent CNS stimulants or narcotics, and in some rare cases antibiotics.
This is legitimately a better system. Takes out the middleman.
In the US you can get any drug if you pay $120 and recite the magic words to a telemedicine "doctor."
Funny you mention this... I bumped into a VP of Merck at a conference and that's the exact example he gave: in the US, you can't adjust your own coumadin dosage without a M.D. consult, but here, have 200 doses of insulin to take home with you.
In much of the world -- including almost all of Asia, Africa, and much of Eastern Europe
Doctors in the US get a nice $200 to $500 per doctors visit, required to extend the prescription drug. I only notice because I pay cash. This is why they will argue against anything I am saying until they are code-blue in the face. I will leave them with my code brown.
In the US you can get any drug if you pay $120 and recite the magic words to a telemedicine "doctor."
That's how a number of us in a particular circle stock up on anti-biotics. That said anti-biotics are a last resort for me whereas I find doctors are quick to prescribe them.
Your argument is even worse lol. Obviously he's proposing that you can take your doctors note to the pharmacy and get what the doctor prescribed in addition to being allowed to self purchase behind the counter drugs.
> My patient is refusing a drug studied in 170,000 people because of side effects that a 124,000-person analysis just confirmed do not exist — while injecting a compound studied in 14 humans, from unregulated sources, based on the recommendation of someone who profits from selling it. She’s probably not the only one. And those using it believe they are “doing their own research.”
Ok, and? At worst you waste a couple hundred dollars and deem the alternative therapy not worth it and go back to your doctor but I know dozens of people at my gym that used BPC 157 and TB 500 that fixed their chronic tendon/joint issues within weeks of starting the therapy that physios couldn't fix for years.
> I know dozens of people at my gym
I don't think I even know dozens of people, full stop, let alone well enough to talk to them about their peptide use.
I go to a gym that has IFBB pros and people competing on elite powerlifting level, steroid and peptide use is an every day chit chat topic.
That does not seem like an environment we should use to determine if the rest of the world should take a substance lol
He's the guy that's selling them peptides.
You know dozens of people from a single place that have chronic tendon/joint issues?
Yes? These types of injuries are common among bodybuilders and powerlifters.
Pfft -- they're common among anyone over 30 who exercises!
> they're common among anyone over 30 who exercises
They shouldn't be. If someone has chronic tendon or joint issues, that's something to discuss with a doctor and a trainer.
I don't doubt it. You make casual friends sometimes at certain gyms, especially if any sort of sports are involved like tennis or even group classes.
I am a super introvert and know at least half a dozen folks with such issues, more if you include my close friend group.
Any place that has a lot of physically active people stressing their limits a bit is going to have a lot of injured folks over a decent period of time. And of course it gets talked about quite a lot, since it limits performance and ability.
My trainer knows I have a chronic shoulder issue, and an adductor issue at the moment I'm working through that we need to avoid stressing too much. The few other folks who tend to work out around my schedule know of this, and I know of theirs.
Not very uncommon really.
Sure. He says that they commonly use steroids. It's no wonder they have degenerative joint disease.
Hang out at a BJJ or MMA gym for a bit, and you'll find plenty. Peptides are really popular in combat sports circles, with good reason.
You should hang out at a climbing gym sometime. There is nothing that unites climbers more than injury talk.
It's often part of the life if you're lifting competitively.
> At worst you waste a couple hundred dollars
At worst you inject unknown substances into your bloodstream that could do more or less anything.
My partner's grandfather died of cancer because when he was having pains they believed their homeopathic medicine would work. When he finally when in to see a real doctor it was too late. If he had gone in earlier, he would been able to have a chance. This is not a rare occurrence for these types.
Why would you stop going to a real doctor though? It's not one or the other.
I'm very on the fence over BPC-157/TB500, I really want to see some actual clinical trials ran on it. I have a feeling the effects are overstated, but I also have had a number of "insider" conversations where I know these and other compounds are very much being utilized in pro athlete injury recovery programs. Those athletes certainly are getting state of the art medical care via traditional sources, plus elite level physio therapy - so it's hard to say if the illicit injury recovery drugs are doing much or not.
I don’t think either of those are patentable so I doubt you’ll see studies or trials any time soon. A lot of strength athletes at all levels, not just elite, are absolutely convinced of their efficacy and their usage sometimes seems as common as ibuprofen.
> Ok, and?
According to our new AI overlords, a short synopsis of potential risks of BPC 157 based on mechanistic and animal work to date (don't know human risks because there haven't been sufficient clinical studies):
* Possible pathologic angiogenesis (abnormal blood‑vessel growth), which theoretically could support tumor growth or inflammatory and autoimmune processes. * Modulation of nitric‑oxide pathways that, at high levels, might contribute to anemia, altered drug metabolism (CYP enzyme activity), and possibly neurodegenerative processes in theory. * Concerns that its pro‑healing, pro‑growth signalling (e.g., FAK–paxillin) could encourage cancer spread if malignant cells are already present; this remains theoretical, with no proof in humans. * Possible liver and kidney toxicity suggested in some commentary and extrapolated from preclinical work, but not well characterized in people. * Immune reactions or allergic responses, including fevers, rash, hives, muscle aches, or systemic inflammatory responses
These do not appear to be results that would appear overnight. It would be "nice" if the folks injecting random shit into their bodies also disclaimed any subsequent medical intervention as a result of said shit, but that I suspect that's unlikely.
My total layman view is that powerful drugs often have powerful side effects.
That's because you grew up in a society still deeply coded to puritan moral viewpoints.
People for so upset that GLP-1 has no long term side effects.
There's still the crowd completely sure everyone will get HyperCancer in 10 years or something (they won't).
We have no specific reason to believe there are concerns with GLP-1s for cancer or anything else, beyond the mildest signal in rodent studies around thyroids.
We do not have robust clinical data for things like BPC-157 but we do have strong preclinical data and an understanding of the mechanisms in play.
I use BPC-157/TB-500/Ghk-CU/KPV - so I'm certainly OK taking the risks. But those mechanisms mentioned before? The same things we're counting on for healing and inflammation reduction are the same things that we know can cause an increase in tumor growth rate and chance of metastasizing. VEGF/VEGFR2 expression are even suppression targets for some cancer therapies.
Are there powerful and useful medications out there, available today, that we both don't have good scientific data on and are free enough of serious side effects? For sure! Is everything out there that, though? No. Some things that work will have too serious of a side effect profile to be feasible. Some things won't work at all, despite however much anecdata is out there.
As for the general idea... I agree there's no law that says a medicine with a strong positive effect must also have strong side effects. And we have plenty that don't - statins, particularly the latest generation, like pitavastatin, are effectively side effect free for the hugely overwhelming majority of people and have great lipid lowering effects. Even older ones showed extremely minimal incidents of things like muscle pain - a vanishingly small number of people relative to the total amount on the medications report muscle pain, and when investigated, quite a lot of even that ends up being unrelated to the statins. Yet the narrative persists that make it sound like anyone on statins is going to have their muscles ache 24/7
I'm glad we have GLP-1, and I don't think there are really major side effects. But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity.
It seems to be like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: it's a miracle in clinical trials but in the real world the patients just lower the doses or discontinue treatment after 1-2 years and go back to their old habits.
> But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity.
This is one of the wildest claims I have ever seen on this website.
Would you claim insulin is ineffective outside of clinical trials for treating type 1 diabetes because people have to keep injecting it?
I hope it sounds less wild if you think obesity as disease of addiction. Reducing GLP1 dose can increase the enjoyment in eating, so it makes sense why treating obesity with GLP1 is like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: Effective in theory but hard to adhere outside trials.
Type 1 diabetes (or majority of diseases) doesn't involve addiction.
> they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity
This is totally false. I know a number of people who took GLP-1 to treat their obesity and then stopped and have stayed not obese.
I can't reply elsewhere so I will reply to this again.
> In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to. Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
Anecdotes like this are interesting but in medicine they are not sufficient to make factual statements about drugs. In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment [1].
The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached.
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj-2025-085304
> In meta-analyses there is weight regain which is steeper as more weight is lost during treatment
What does "steeper" mean? The studies I've seen show a net weight loss, even after regain, for the median patient.
> The weight regain seems to be rather slow, it can take years until the baseline weight is reached
Maybe. Right now, however, the evidence shows solid effects outside clinical settings. Your original statement was wrong–your sources own refute the claim.
If you're arguing the effects in the real world haven't consistently been as ridiculous as they were in clinical trials, sure, you get a brownie point. But broadly speaking, these drugs are terrifically effective, both when taken for life and when taken intermittently.
If only there were a federal administration whose responsibility it was to collect data about food and drugs so we could rely on something more than anecdotes from random strangers on the Internet.
Do you have a link to those data showing GLP-1 agonists are ineffective?
I emphasize it's like the drug disulfiram: Very effective as long as patients take the full dose, but the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment.
This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
> the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment
Do you have a source for this "lack of real-world efficacy"?
> This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years
"With a with a median on-treatment weight change of −2.9%" [1]. Of those who discontinued and experienced "weight gain since discontinuation," they were "associated with an increased likelihood of GLP-1 RA reinitiation."
I'm genuinely struggling to see how this source shows real world inefficacy. In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to.
Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this?
> it's like the drug disulfiram
Have clinicians made this connection?
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
It is not ineffective outside of clinical trials. All the evidence says that people gain some weight back after they discontinue treatment - which is not a lack of efficacy. But they also usually gain back less then they lost.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12361690/
It's kind of two separate topics: 1. Whether patients can adhere to GLP1. 2. Whether discontinuation leads to weight regain.
Have you ever looked at leaflets attached to any medicine prescribed by doctors?
You mean the ones that are the result of experience through controlled clinical trials with statistical analyses and error bars, yep, sure. I guess I have a bit more faith in those leaflets and the testing regimes that generates them than the word of some gymbro or influencer who injected themselves and didn't immediately fall over dead.
> a patient who is discontinuing her statin therapy - very inadvisably, given the clinical presentation described - but is enthusiastic about “BPC-157”
This feels new. I thought the methylene-blue-for-cancer types continued their medicine while taking other things as extras.
Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine. At the end of the day, if you're an adult, it's your body. You should be given the chance to educate yourself. But if you want to inject yourself with a prion, like, go for it. Maybe you won't fuck up your own research.
(Marketing should be tightly regulated, possibly banned.)
Exactly my point of view. Medications are like drugs, if we failed to forbid it we might as well allow it but regulate it, aka make seller accountable for the purity.
> Personally, I've swung over to the laissez-faire side of medicine.
Chesterton’s Fence rears its ugly head again. This is the same thing as vaccine skepticism (those diseases can’t be that bad, I never hear about them killing anyone these days) applied to a different context
Arguing for modern reforms is one thing, but there’s a reason we have the FDA. Statistically, most individuals do not have the medical expertise or the desire or ability to wade through enough clinical data to make these sorts of decisions with any hope of good outcomes, particularly in the face of an entire Internet of people trying to push questionable substances on them.
I read the article but didn't get the tl;dr about peptides. What are they and what are they used for?
Cut and paste from New Yorker: The human body produces thousands of peptides. Many are portions of proteins which send messages or regulate systems in the body, often in ways that scientists don’t fully understand. Researchers have known about some peptides for decades, and dozens have been turned into safe and effective drugs. The hormone insulin is a peptide that moves sugar from the bloodstream into cells; GLP-1, or glucagon-like peptide-1, spurs the pancreas to release insulin and slows the passage of food through the gut. (Peptides are usually defined as having about fifty amino acids or fewer; more than that and they’re proteins.)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/why-are-people...
> For a chemist, “peptide” has a pretty clear definition: any relatively short chain of amino acids, and when they get longer we go ahead and call them “proteins”, although the dividing line is a matter of personal opinion.
So, it is not just chemist but molecular biologist too. And the above is also not entirely correct. Yes, the author refers to size as threshold, before something is called a "protein". But the term protein has additional meanings that a peptide does not automatically have. For instance, a protein typically has a specific 3D conformation. It may be "sticky" after degradation or unfolding, but for the most part a protein is something with a 3D structure. A peptide does not necessarily imply the same. A protein may also have several polypeptide chains - insulin is a simple example for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Structure (A and B chain)
> So the number of different possible peptides is just ridiculously huge.
That's no surprise either - that's due to the code used. You add to the code, so of course length plays a role, as does the variety. There is a DNA->aminoacid mapping. The first has four possibilities per slot; the latter 20 (or more if you include e. g. selenocystein or pyrrolysine; and you have various post-translational modifications too, so you have more variety per slot).
> For comparison, it has been about ten trillion seconds since Homo sapiens emerged as a separate species.
The whole species concept is IMO outdated. It was created before people knew that DNA codes for the complexity in pretty much any species (excluding RNA viruses but they have reverse transcriptase, at the least some viruses, so ultimately RNA->DNA).
> The other one (by Sarah Hood) relates all this to RFJ Jr.’s advocacy. The flip side of “the government shouldn’t be able to force me to vaccinate my kids” is “I should have the right to take whatever medicines I want to without the government getting in my way”.
I don't see why that would be questionable. Would people do as Trump tells them to do? I would not. If you see Trump as a lobbyist, how many private interests may his government have? If they have a commercial interest then their statements may be biased.
> You don’t have an LC/MS or an NMR machine in your garage, so you can’t be sure what it is you’re really injecting
Right, so the whole system depends on trust. This is already a problem because you have to trust not only the government but ALL who were involved in scientific publishing. There were lies told in science too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publish...
With India getting generic GLP-1s, the tech to "print" peptides will probably see costs fall off a cliff, so we're probably only looking at the tip of the iceberg with the amount of damages the reddit biohacker bros will accomplish. Men especially are feeling a lot more lonely and image-conscious and there are peptides people claim make them taller[1] or muscular[2].
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/endocrinology/comments/1jb2cce/grow...
2: https://r2medicalclinic.com/best-muscle-growth-peptides
These peptides are already relatively cheap, here's one US domestic source: https://imgur.com/a/OXOkSdR
$120 for 10mg of reta is highway robbery.
Yeah I'm always amazed at what they can get people to pay for individual vials. I buy kits of 24mg reta for ~280. And that's not the cheapest, for certain.
Pretty sure the last time I bought some it was more like $10 for 10mg.
I think it's disingenuous to frame this exclusively in terms of the people who are turning down medically approved options for unknown supplements.
Dealing with doctors is kind of a pain in the ass. I was very sick a month ago and my doctor is pretty "anti antibiotics", he wanted me to go over for an in person check-in. This was after 10 days of having symptoms that I did everything reasonable to take care of. I got on a call with another doctor (at a perfectly reputable hospital) who immediately prescribed antibiotics. It took 5 days of antibiotics just to feel somewhat better - all while using saline rinses, showering, sleeping, eating properly, etc. I still have a lingering cough. I am very reluctant to take antibiotics unless it really feels necessary, this was easily the worst sinus infection of my adult life.
My friend wanted to try out a weight loss medication. Their doctor refused because they felt that my friend hadn't tried hard enough without it. So they got some from another friend who hadn't ended their prescription because they also were worried of being cut off. They've lost weight, which has motivated them to exercise more, eat better, and are generally happier and healthier.
From the article,
> Unfortunately, point two is that we barely have any of these effects worked out - at least not to the degree that you would want before you start injecting them into your leg.
This is what was said to a friend whose doctor took them off of one of those GLP medications, basically. They didn't have enough evidence to know the risks of continued use, even at lower doses.
The reality is simply that there's a big gap right now between what people want and what people have access to. The supplement industry exists to fill that gap.
Medical professionals can complain about users taking these peptides, but plenty of people are not "anti medicine" while still feeling underserved. If doctors aren't in a position to have these conversations, people will go to Youtube or wherever else to look for answers.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about a number of medications requiring a prescription. I frankly do not see why my doctor is involved in me taking a drug unless it would be negligent to allow me to or if it would have community health impacts (ie: antibiotic resistant strains etc). I'm an adult, if I've been properly informed of risks, etc, then I'm inclined to say that it should be up to me to pay full price for some medication or not.
I know plenty of people getting their GLP1 from compound pharmacies. None of them went their first, their doctors wouldn't give them the medication (sometimes they were just a pound under the BMI limit, often because they had been slowly losing weight) so they went elsewhere. These aren't anti-vaxxers who won't take their medication, they're people who want help and there's a gap that companies are taking advantage of. The medical establishment needs to find a way to address that. Right now the answer appears to be compound pharmacies and nurse practitioners.
> In my own view (and it ain’t just me) you also have regulatory agencies to force people to show that their drugs actually have some benefit before they can sell them, too. But that’s going further and further out of fashion. Can’t get ahold of the New Hotness to inject into your upper thigh if there are a bunch of stick-in-the-mud folks asking for human data, infringing on your freedom and all.
Many of us will be dead before there's a medically approved treatment for something. Hell, I got eye surgery before it was FDA approved - I'd probably be blind (or at least far worse off) if I'd waited the years it took.
How many people taking supplements are "naturopaths" who reject modern medicine as opposed to just people who want to be healthier? I really wonder that.
A lot of people are left alone with their health-issues, if you live in Canada and can only see a doctor if you are about to die, people try to change their health situation outside the "regulatory" system. These aren't health worriers, they are desperate to get their lifes back in order. Are there risks? For sure, but similarly untreated pain can damage more, especially mentally.