WAPO: Trump admin paves way to allow sales of unapproved peptides

[GLiPtest]

https://archive.is/20261008004427/h...-way-temporary-sale-some-unapproved-peptides/

It should surprise no one that our betters find this degree of autonomy intolerable. When pharmacies are permitted to provide a less risky option than what the black market offers, that harm reduction gets painted as corrupt, dangerous, and reckless.

These are the very same voices and outlets that cheered on the "brave" de facto legalization of hard drugs — a move that proved disastrous — in cities such as Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco.

 

[spanky2026]

The article claims the FDA is deeply worried that a lot of these peptides never went through clinical trials. Fine — then put up the money for some. Big Pharma has no incentive to bankroll that work, since there's no profit in it and no patent to be had. KPV is a perfect case in point. So instead of pumping out more scare pieces bankrolled by Eli, redirect some of the cash that gets blown on genuinely idiotic things and actually pay for trials.

 

[yaggemr]

Ibuprofen, acetaminophen, alcohol, cigarettes, nicotine and marijuana are all things you can purchase legally, and each of them generally carries a bigger risk profile than any of these peptides headed for compounding — plus with a compounded pharmacy you'd get the safety benefit too. Trials on these peptides really ought to be run so we can learn their long-term effects, but it seems plenty of Lab Rats are out there ready to pitch in on that research. The problem is simply that no funding exists. Alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana — all can be sold to you, all could affect your life negatively, yet adults are allowed to be adults. So why is so much kept behind a prescription wall? Money, I know!

 

[spanky2026]

yaggemr said:

Ibuprofen, acetaminophen, alcohol, cigarettes, nicotine and marijuana are all things you can purchase legally, and each of them generally carries a bigger risk profile than any of these peptides headed for compounding — plus with a compounded pharmacy you'd get the safety benefit too. Trials on these peptides really ought to be run so we can learn their long-term effects, but it seems plenty of Lab Rats are out there ready to pitch in on that research. The problem is simply that no funding exists. Alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana — all can be sold to you, all could affect your life negatively, yet adults are allowed to be adults. So why is so much kept behind a prescription wall? Money, I know!

The reason is the same one behind the US treating your ears, eyes and teeth as separate from your body, which is why health insurance won't cover them: those writing the rules are the lobbyists.

 

[frizzle-fry]

They couldn't care less about anyone's health or safety. What actually bothers them is that they haven't yet found a way to cash in on people and make a fortune from it. It all sounds wonderful until they reveal that their "certain" compounding pharmacies are really just Elli Lilly, and they slap a $500+ per month price tag on them.

 

[rkl123]

yaggemr said:

Ibuprofen, acetaminophen, alcohol, cigarettes, nicotine and marijuana are all things you can purchase legally, and each of them generally carries a bigger risk profile than any of these peptides headed for compounding — plus with a compounded pharmacy you'd get the safety benefit too. Trials on these peptides really ought to be run so we can learn their long-term effects, but it seems plenty of Lab Rats are out there ready to pitch in on that research. The problem is simply that no funding exists. Alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana — all can be sold to you, all could affect your life negatively, yet adults are allowed to be adults. So why is so much kept behind a prescription wall? Money, I know!

I'll take the contrarian position for a moment — I'm not trying to start a big debate, nor am I claiming the FDA is correct or incorrect. The thing is, absent a trial, the risk profile is completely unknown to us. Even if a handful of people in our community had good outcomes, that proves nothing about whether the many peps that were never studied are genuinely safe. Nor does it reveal whether certain groups might be exceptions. Say, hypothetically, they're harmless unless you happen to match XYZ criteria (liver problems, pregnancy, a particular age, a specific genetic makeup, and so on), in which case they trigger some bizarre adverse effect or complication.

Anyone is free to research whatever they want. But the evidence you're treating as a given in that post simply isn't there.

 

[endlrls]

rkl123 said:

I'll take the contrarian position for a moment — I'm not trying to start a big debate, nor am I claiming the FDA is correct or incorrect. The thing is, absent a trial, the risk profile is completely unknown to us. Even if a handful of people in our community had good outcomes, that proves nothing about whether the many peps that were never studied are genuinely safe. Nor does it reveal whether certain groups might be exceptions. Say, hypothetically, they're harmless unless you happen to match XYZ criteria (liver problems, pregnancy, a particular age, a specific genetic makeup, and so on), in which case they trigger some bizarre adverse effect or complication.

Anyone is free to research whatever they want. But the evidence you're treating as a given in that post simply isn't there.

That was a daring thing to do, and I appreciate the way your mind works.

Big Pharma has its eye on profit. Shareholders expect returns, greed is what drives these companies, and they refuse to give up their "Cut"... Which means trials for Peptides are something we will never see.

 

[Jerrey]

endlrls said:

That was a daring thing to do, and I appreciate the way your mind works.

Big Pharma has its eye on profit. Shareholders expect returns, greed is what drives these companies, and they refuse to give up their "Cut"... Which means trials for Peptides are something we will never see.

Unless they get the FDA to agree to rewrite the rules, the way Lilly is attempting with Reta, securing intellectual property so they can rake in absurd profits over the long haul!

 

[Just A Cat]

Speaking only for myself here. W*P* could basically approach the obese people struggling on the street and tell them: hello, real hope for a better life does exist, except it sits behind an FDA approval process that is warped and priced beyond reach. And because it lacks FDA approval and never will get it, W*P* would prefer that you — the poor and the obese — simply pass away without treatment.

 

[kakiebean]

Just A Cat said:

Speaking only for myself here. W*P* could basically approach the obese people struggling on the street and tell them: hello, real hope for a better life does exist, except it sits behind an FDA approval process that is warped and priced beyond reach. And because it lacks FDA approval and never will get it, W*P* would prefer that you — the poor and the obese — simply pass away without treatment.

Think of it like the line about how finding a cure for cancer wouldn't be a sustainable business model, and how nobody makes sure everyone gets solid preventive care. The idea is that you're supposed to get ill, join the "sick care model," and then remain a big pharma customer for whatever is left of your unhappy life. Glp-1's sit in a strange in-between spot. Sure, the drug companies stand to make a fortune off them, but they also have to consider what these drugs do to their other business models. Wiping out obesity would bring down the rates of illnesses tied to it, which means less money coming in from their other drugs and procedures. Big Ag is nervous too, since fewer junk food purchases by consumers means smaller profits for them. Oh , the horror!

 

[rkl123]

endlrls said:

That was a daring thing to do, and I appreciate the way your mind works.

Big Pharma has its eye on profit. Shareholders expect returns, greed is what drives these companies, and they refuse to give up their "Cut"... Which means trials for Peptides are something we will never see.

I'm not claiming they are greedy, nor that they aren't. What I'm addressing is simply the question of what evidence exists and what doesn't. Whether to use these things is up to each person.

 

[endlrls]

rkl123 said:

I'm not claiming they are greedy, nor that they aren't. What I'm addressing is simply the question of what evidence exists and what doesn't. Whether to use these things is up to each person.

That's a reasonable position.

Speaking only for myself, the anecdotal results I've gotten from the ones I take are convincing enough that I have no plans to quit. "For Science"

 

[endlrls]

kakiebean said:

Think of it like the line about how finding a cure for cancer wouldn't be a sustainable business model, and how nobody makes sure everyone gets solid preventive care. The idea is that you're supposed to get ill, join the "sick care model," and then remain a big pharma customer for whatever is left of your unhappy life. Glp-1's sit in a strange in-between spot. Sure, the drug companies stand to make a fortune off them, but they also have to consider what these drugs do to their other business models. Wiping out obesity would bring down the rates of illnesses tied to it, which means less money coming in from their other drugs and procedures. Big Ag is nervous too, since fewer junk food purchases by consumers means smaller profits for them. Oh , the horror!

You've got that right.

Big Ag has been overdue for some scrutiny... It makes no sense that the farm act has to pass every 4 years no matter what. We're not dealing with the "fear of children starving" famine that existed back in the 70's. If anything, we've got crops being massively overproduced, and the amount of waste from it is unbelievable.... Plus it gets written off in a tax bracket.

What's really frightening is big food actually being bought up by big tobacco from back in the day.... That opens up a whole other can of worms...

 

[glp2]

Finally. I'm not into all the secrecy and under-the-table stuff.

 

[Jerrey]

kakiebean said:

Think of it like the line about how finding a cure for cancer wouldn't be a sustainable business model, and how nobody makes sure everyone gets solid preventive care. The idea is that you're supposed to get ill, join the "sick care model," and then remain a big pharma customer for whatever is left of your unhappy life. Glp-1's sit in a strange in-between spot. Sure, the drug companies stand to make a fortune off them, but they also have to consider what these drugs do to their other business models. Wiping out obesity would bring down the rates of illnesses tied to it, which means less money coming in from their other drugs and procedures. Big Ag is nervous too, since fewer junk food purchases by consumers means smaller profits for them. Oh , the horror!

That is spot on!!! There was an article posted here on the forum a month or two ago — everyone ought to read it — about major UK grocery chains beginning to notice the pinch from falling sales. The reason given was GLP-1 medications cutting into the appetite for junk food.

 

[staffn1]

My sense is that ordinary folks out there aren't fooled by the FDA's nonsense. What gets restricted comes down to their preferences, not to science or actual risk. Plenty of products are on the market in this country that carry enormous risk. And plenty of products are on the market in this country with zero evidence behind them, or without risk data or trials demonstrating they work.

It's a racket.

 

[Just A Cat]

rkl123 said:

I'm not claiming they are greedy, nor that they aren't. What I'm addressing is simply the question of what evidence exists and what doesn't. Whether to use these things is up to each person.

What's broken is the system itself. To be more precise, the root issue stems from an FDA approval process that doesn't work.

As currently set up, only the deep-pocketed giants can manage the cost of launching a new drug, and the whole structure pushes those same companies toward "maximize profit per user."

Picture a world where you could total any car on the market at 120 miles per hour and still have a 99.2% chance of simply getting out and walking away. Then picture that in this same world, the cheapest vehicle available to you is a model that hasn't changed at all since it was cleared for sale a few decades back... and it runs you $212,987.

So to sum up: what this system gives up is affordability and fast innovation, and what it buys in return is extreme safety, slow rollout and protection of corporate interests.

The funniest part of all... recalls of drugs happen all the time. Our super safe, super pricey medicines aren't actually all that safe.