RFK announces rescheduling of various peptides

I have seen headlines but haven't read anything yet. From that, it still sounds like maybe some, maybe all, but nothing is done yet.
 
mybodyisasewer said:
It's happening dot gif?

Can't post the link or really say much else without the ai blocking my post, but this is very exciting. I wonder if this will affect our Chinese friends negatively?
Click to expand...
Legalizing it is the first step for sure- cost however, a whole other battle.. I imagine gray will continue as is for some time.
 
Similar effect in MA. Even after marijuana was legalized for retail, the black market remained because the price and taxes were still too high. There are still people out there who will sell you pot in person in a parking lot, but not nearly as many as there used to. The market took several years to get everyone into legit dispensaries.
 
5byfive said:
I have seen headlines but haven't read anything yet. From that, it still sounds like maybe some, maybe all, but nothing is done yet.
Click to expand...
i read 14 of the 19 previously banned will go to and external panel for evaluation. 5 in July and 7 in Feb 2027. But 5+7 isn't 14, so 2 are missing lol
 
Last edited:
laansasa said:
i read 14 of the 19 previoisly banned will go to and external panel for evaluation. 5 in July and 7 in Feb 2027. But 5+7 isn't 14, so 2 are missing lol
Click to expand...
I saw the first five up for discussion are, dsip, bpc 157, epithalon, kpv and semax
 
CNCCurrency said:
Really???
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're serious but in case you are, I tried to respond. Unfortunately the ridiculous content filter won't let me post and I couldn't figure out what triggered it. His behavior regarding ACIP is enough by itself to gain the label I used though.
 
Last edited:
ltjltj said:
I can't tell if you're serious but in case you are, I tried to respond. Unfortunately the ridiculous content filter won't let me post and I couldn't figure out what triggered it. His behavior regarding ACIP is enough by itself to gain the label I used though.
Jfrick11 said:
100%
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is a ton of information you can read that will show you that big med companies do not have our best interests in mind. We definitely don’t need to get into that debate, but that much is true.

And if he is so horrible, then why is he doing so many things, like this, in the name of health? Someone objectively horrible wouldn’t do anything helpful.
 
Can't write most of my post as the filter considers it prohibited content for some reason I can't figure out 🙁

I'm not very sure this is in the name of health at all. Let's see who ends up on the panel approving this and if peptides such as Melanotan 2 get "approved". I don't want to go back to pre-FDA snake oil and poison peddler days.

If we had way less pharma and way more of him we wouldn't have GLP-1 drugs or vaccines, both ofwhich I very much want.
 
Last edited:
ltjltj said:
Can't write most of my post as the filter considers it prohibited content for some reason I can't figure out 🙁

I'm not very sure this is in the name of health at all. Let's see who ends up on the panel approving this and if peptides such as Melanotan 2 get "approved". I don't want to go back to pre-FDA snake oil and poison peddler days.

If we had way less pharma and way more of him we wouldn't have GLP-1 drugs or vaccines, both ofwhich I very much want.
Click to expand...
What? He is a proponent for peps! He uses them
 
ltjltj said:
Peps are just drugs - why should they all automatically be available to everyone via compounding regardless of data on their safety and efficacy?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Once rescheduled compounders will be able to make them again! You still need a script from a doctor.
 
CNCCurrency said:
What are you talking about? Once rescheduled compounders will be able to make them again! You still need a script from a doctor.
Click to expand...
Which is just like other drugs - so why don't peps need safety data at a minimum?

(efficacy? we can debate that but I'm very open to off-label use so much less concerned with demonstrated efficacy in this space than safety)

I don't know why peptide vs other forms of drugs should have a different panel approving them either.

Overall I'm very open to a process that evaluates drugs that have significant data, especially those already approved in other countries, without a sponsoring company pushing them through - this applies to a couple of the peps on the list, but not most. So, as I said above, let's see who ends up on this panel, and the safety justification for those that pass and get approved. It's still early.
 
ltjltj said:
Which is just like other drugs - so why don't peps need safety data at a minimum?

(efficacy? we can debate that but I'm very open to off-label use so much less concerned with demonstrated efficacy in this space than safety)

I don't know why peptide vs other forms of drugs should have a different panel approving them either.

Overall I'm very open to a process that evaluates drugs that have significant data, especially those already approved in other countries, without a sponsoring company pushing them through - this applies to a couple of the peps on the list, but not most. So, as I said above, let's see who ends up on this panel, and the safety justification for those that pass and get approved. It's still early.
Click to expand...
I'm still unsure what your beef is? Where do you get your glp 1 and other peptides from now?
 
There should be two categories, FDA approved and not FDA approved. Label it such and let people make up their own minds. Not FDA approved would include all the crazy energy shots, supplements, peptides, etc unless a company wanted to go the FDA route. Most people don't care. The government allows you to put extremely harmful things in your body (as long as you are over a certain age).
 
staffn1 said:
There should be two categories, FDA approved and not FDA approved. Label it such and let people make up their own minds. Not FDA approved would include all the crazy energy shots, supplements, peptides, etc unless a company wanted to go the FDA route. Most people don't care. The government allows you to put extremely harmful things in your body (as long as you are over a certain age).
Click to expand...
Pop Tv Catherine Ohara GIF by Schitt's Creek
 
CNCCurrency said:
I'm still unsure what your beef is? Where do you get your glp 1 and other peptides from now?
Click to expand...
Are GLP-1s unapproved FDA drugs severely lacking safety data? No. (Reta is unapproved as of today, but certainly there is plenty of safety data). Suggesting that doctors prescribe some of the peps on the list despite the lack of safety data is also opening a giant can of malpractice worms.

As I said, I don't know how this'll play out - I suggested reasonable outcomes (approval path for drugs without corporate pushing that do have safety data), but blanket YOLO from the FDA is anathema to their mission.

Do you believe any compound a company develops should be available via compounding prior to having safety data? If not, why are peptides a special class of drugs that warrant skipping that safety step?
 
ltjltj said:
Are GLP-1s unapproved FDA drugs severely lacking safety data? No. (Reta is unapproved as of today, but certainly there is plenty of safety data). Suggesting that doctors prescribe some of the peps on the list despite the lack of safety data is also opening a giant can of malpractice worms.

As I said, I don't know how this'll play out - I suggested reasonable outcomes (approval path for drugs without corporate pushing that do have safety data), but blanket YOLO from the FDA is anathema to their mission.

Do you believe any compound a company develops should be available via compounding prior to having safety data? If not, why are peptides a special class of drugs that warrant skipping that safety step?
Click to expand...
If the glp1 is not name brand then yes not they are not an fda approved drug. Ie compounded glp 1 are not fda approved.
 
CNCCurrency said:
If the glp1 is not name brand then yes not they are not an fda approved drug. Ie compounded glp 1 are not fda approved.
Click to expand...
We're talking past each other. I think my point is clear regarding evidence of safety. If your argument is that there's no evidence of safety for compounded GLP-1, only pharma GLP-1 I'm going to agree to disagree on that distinction.
 
ltjltj said:
We're talking past each other. I think my point is clear regarding evidence of safety. If your argument is that there's no evidence of safety for compounded GLP-1, only pharma GLP-1 I'm going to agree to disagree on that distinction.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for the peptides they want to reschedule. You never answered as to where you are getting yours from?
 
CNCCurrency said:
Same can be said for the peptides they want to reschedule. You never answered as to where you are getting yours from?
Click to expand...
In absolutely no way can it be said for most of the peps on their list - which of those have a commercial FDA-approved equivalent? Which have notable safety data to back them up?

Sigh...

I'm not answering your question because it's irrelevant and a distraction. FWIW, I'm not comfortable personally injecting any compound that doesn't have safety data to back it up, which so far has kept me to compounds that are FDA approved (I'd extend that to something like Reta given the published data, but I haven't felt the need). So, my personal standard applies - I wouldn't take the compounds that I don't think the FDA should approve. I'm not personally concerned with the sourcing path for said compounds (commercial vs compound), and in the case of grey market I think that appropriate testing can manage that risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending Topics

Latest Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
17,648
Posts
183,131
Members
59,343
Newest
Bbcc2984
Back
Top Bottom