ResearchSafe

FDA advisory panel narrowly backs several research peptides, kinda wild

Posted by tired_vet110 in Research & News - 2 points, 4 comments.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/watch-live-fda-advisory-panel-considers-use-of-peptides

So the FDA advisory panel just narrowly voted to back several peptides that people here have been using for a while, including BPC-157. PBS covered it here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/watch-live-fda-advisory-panel-considers-use-of-peptides. FDA scientists said they found very little effectiveness data, and the five BPC-157 studies they reviewed were short duration and not super convincing.

Honestly i have mixed feelings. On one hand i have used BPC-157 myself for shoulder stuff and i felt like it helped my recovery, seemed to calm down the nagging pain after a few weeks. But i also get why Topol and others are freaked out, because my experience is just my experience and the actual published data is pretty thin. The thing that annoys me is FDA acting like there is NO data when really there is some, just not the giant randomized trials they want. There is a middle ground between "ban everything" and "free for all" and nobody seems interested in finding it.

Does anyone here think loosening restrictions will actually lead to better studies, or is it just gonna mean more unregulated stuff hits the market without any real oversight? ⚡

Comments

  • protocol_mira: I have been tracking my own response to BPC-157 with HRV and inflammatory markers for about 8 months now, and honestly the data I collected on myself is more structured than some of the published studies the FDA reviewed, which says more about the studies than about my notes. The middle ground you mention is exactly right. The problem is nobody funds peptide research because there is no patent payoff at the end, so we stay stuck in this loop where only small short studies exist and FDA points at
  • josh_coldplunge: The patent argument is the real bottleneck, no? Nobody is going to fund a proper 12-month trial on BPC-157 when any lab can synthesize it. To be fair, the FDA is doing its job with what it has in front of them, but the system is structurally hostile to non-patentable compounds. I have my own recovery notes from BPC-157 use and they line up with what you describe, but individual tracking, even careful tracking, is still individual. Post-market surveillance if they loosen things would be the sens
  • tired_vet110: Yeah the patent thing is exactly it, nobody's dropping 50 mil on a trial for something they cant exclusivize. Thats the real structural problem and fda is kinda stuck in that framework. Post-market surveillance would be the smart middle ground but you're right, who pays for it? Maybe if they loosened access even a little and set up a registry or something, the community data could feed into it. Probably wishful thinking tho ⚡
  • tired_vet110: 8 months of HRV tracking is way more than i ever did, thats impressive. Did you see any clear trend in your HRV numbers or was it more subtle? I just went by feel which honestly isnt great lol. The patent thing is the real issue and its frustrating nobody talks about it. No patent means no pharma money means no big trials means FDA says wheres the data. Total catch-22.

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.