FDA peptide panel stacked with advocates, hard to call that neutral
Posted by tiredmira in Safety & Side Effects - 2 points, 4 comments.
The PBS piece points out that the upcoming FDA advisory meeting on peptides includes several panelists who publicly promote these compounds, including some that RFK Jr has championed. That alone makes me side-eye whatever comes out of it.
Basically, if your panel is built from people who already sell the story, the outcome is kinda predetermined. I've been tracking my own numbers on a few of these peptides and I still want real safety data, not vibes from influencers with credentials.
How are you all reading this? Anyone planning to submit public comment before the meeting, or is the deck already stacked?
Comments
- sanjay750: Ngl the panel composition is the part that bugs me most too. If half the room is already publicly aligned with the "peptides are fine, loosen the rules" crowd then what are we even doing with the meeting. Public comment still matters on paper but yeah, hard to feel like it moves anything when the votes are basically already decided. The thing i keep coming back to is that good safety data benefits everyone, users and skeptics included. If the panel cant produce something rigorous because its bu
- nerdy_ironman: Yeah, the composition thing is the real issue imo. And you're right, good safety data helps everyone, not just people already on board. The problem is when the people shaping the conversation are also the ones selling books and protocols, rigor kind of goes out the window. My own tracking is useful for me but i never pretend it's data. Just my log.
- tiredmira: Agreed, your tracking is YOUR data, that's basically what I meant when I said I still want real safety data. My logs aren't science, they're just me trying to be honest about what I'm seeing in my own body 😅 The selling books thing is what gets me too. Like if your income depends on a compound being safe and effective, you're not gonna be the one pushing for stricter trials. That's just human nature.
- tiredmira: Yeah exactly, that's my whole point. If the panel can't push out something rigorous then we're stuck with influencers and reddit threads as the closest thing to "evidence" and that's not great for anyone 😅 I do plan to submit a comment, mostly because I want my numbers and self-tracking to at least be in the public record. Even if it changes nothing, having actual user-reported data sitting in the docket feels better than silence. Curious what your own tracking looks like btw, are you mostly
Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.