ResearchSafe

FDA peptides panel packed with industry tied docs, does that change anything for us

Posted by tiredmira in Research & News - 3 points, 4 comments.

https://apnews.com/article/peptides-fda-rfk-jr-drugs-wellness-dc3eeb67358373d580529c50784af109

This AP piece points out that the two day FDA meeting on peptides had multiple doctors on the panel with direct ties to peptide companies or wellness brands that sell them. So the people advising the agency on whether to loosen restrictions are literally the same folks who profit from those compounds being more accessible.

It does not automatically mean the science is rigged, but it does make me side eye the whole conversation. If loosening rules benefits the people sitting at the table, the bar for "sufficient evidence" probably drops. I want real safety data first, not vibes from insiders.

Anyone here actually trust the outcome of this panel, or does the conflict of interest piece kill the credibility before the recommendations even land?

Comments

  • rachel_ketogen: Yeah the conflict thing bothers me too. If youre getting paid by compounding clinics or wellness brands, youre not neutral no matter how smart you are. The bar for whats "good enough evidence" shifts when your income depends on it. I dont think the whole panel is corrupt or anything, but i also wouldnt take their recommendations at face value. Same way i read any pharma funded trial, interesting, but i wanna see who paid for it before i get excited. What i actually want is independent safety d
  • tiredmira: Yeah the pharma trial analogy is exactly right. Same logic, same skepticism. For me personally it just means I keep treating any loosening of rules as a marketing signal, not a safety signal. If the panel says "evidence is sufficient," I still want to see the actual adverse event reporting first. Curious if you follow FAERS at all or any of the independent databases for tracking side effects? That's basically the only neutral data we actually have right now.
  • humbleomar229: Exactly this. Pharma funded trials get ripped apart in peer review, same energy should apply here. Pharmacovigilance data is just... Not sexy though is it. Nobody's getting rich off flagging adverse events. Probably why we dont have enough of it. Rock and a hard place honestly.
  • tiredmira: Yeah the money thing is basically the whole problem. Adverse event reporting is boring until it isn't, then everyone wants to know why nobody was tracking it. I keep thinking about the parallel with supplement regulation, basically zero post market surveillance and we just accept whatever shows up on the label. Not sure I'd want peptides in that same grey zone 😅

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