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.

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”.

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.

The article itself raises the issue of "lack of clinical data", given that these substances are relativelly new. But the lack of data may originate from a certain stiffness, or lack of accessibility and high cost of clinical trials. An alternative source of information are these people who self-experiment, but unfortunatelly this information is mostly lost instead of being captured.

How could this proposal work in practice? clearly the data would be noisy, contain some false reporting, biased, subjective etc. But statistical processing of a large number of reports (coming from hudreds of thousands or millions of self-reporting subjects) may still extract relevant scientific information; that we're dropping on the floor right now.

An example: I'm experimenting with a radical diet. I keep observations for myself, but they're not shared with anybody and don't contribute to science.

What the altervative would be: I would enroll on a web page, where I would describe the experiment I plan to do before I start it. I would be get a code for a blood/urine work for the "before" state, with the agreement that the results, anonimized, are shared with the platform. Weekly I would report on the platform observations, such as: got sick in this particular way, wheight variations, sleep eval, or any other changes.

At the end, or periodically I would get new free blood/urine work with the results shared.

Research institutes and pharma would get access to the data, to aggregate and denoise as they can to extract the latent information.

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 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.

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.

I have it from good authority.

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.

And yet they use unhealthy amounts of avocado oil, consume unhealthy amounts of “good fats.” They discount caloric intake and solely focus on eating loads of what they consider to be good food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/endocrinology/comments/1jb2cce/grow...

2: https://r2medicalclinic.com/best-muscle-growth-peptides

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.)

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...

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.

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.