Forum users note that the compounding advisory committee voted for peptide restrictions even though nearly all speakers and attendees opposed them. Some question the lack of human safety and efficacy data for specific peptides and argue that commercial interests should not drive approvals. Others dismiss the debate as typical of illicit drug users or point out the FDA's limited global reach.
What this discussion establishesWhether peptides should require human data for approval or if commercial sales justify their use without it
Still opennull
Nothing here is advice.
If you saw the recording of the compounding advisory committee meeting where peptides long used by 503a and 503b pharmacies were up for an effective ban, almost everyone who spoke and those in the room opposed the limits being added. The committee faced a very unfriendly crowd yet still chose to impose restrictions on peptides anyway.
Where is the human data showing safety and effectiveness for kpv, motsc, tb500, and the rest? What reason exists for the fda to approve them in the first place?
It's nice that this agency lacks power over nearly everyone across the planet.
So medspas can earn big money?
This discussion looks set to produce plenty of calm and intelligent back and forth.
So because medspas sell snake oil, that means snake oil should be approved for human use?
If you have tried it, this topic is still open. Sign in to reply — it takes a minute.