Everlab saying no to peptides, reckon more clinics will follow
Posted by curious_sleep in Research & News - 2 points, 4 comments.
Smh ran a piece on everlab, an aussie health app that apparently turns down peptides roughly ten times a day and goes the bloodwork and lifestyle route instead. They reckon peptides are mostly hype and they make more money long term by telling people no.
Ngl i respect the stance. Peptides are not magic, and a lot of what gets sold out there is dodgy as hell with no quality control. Bloods first, fix the basics, then maybe layer in something targeted if it actually makes sense for you. That part of their philosophy i fully agree with.
Where i push back is the blanket "no". Some of these compounds have legit research behind them and a clinician who actually understands them can be useful. The clinic model just isnt set up for that yet. Curious if anyone here has run into an aussie clinic that actually gets it, or is everyones experience just pushback and lectures about lifestyle ðŸ§
Comments
- ivy_g: Yeah the bloods first thing is solid, that part i can get behind. But the blanket no is a bit lazy leh, some of these compounds have decent published data behind them and turning people away without actually looking at the case in front of you isnt really practising medicine, its just following a script. I think the issue is most clinics dont have anyone on staff who actually keeps up with the literature, so its easier to just say no than to do the work. Fair enough if they dont feel confident,
- curious_sleep: Yeah that hit the nail on the head tbh. The script thing is exactly what it feels like, like youre talking to a wall not a clinician. And the pubmed point is fair, half these clinic owners wouldnt know what to do with a paper if it bit them. Ngl its frustrating paying someone to read you disclaimers they could have emailed.
- kim609: Yeah fair call, the blanket refusal does get a bit lazy when theres actual data to look at. I reckon the bigger issue is exactly what you said, half these clinics dont have anyone genuinely reading the lit so they just default to no because its safer for them legally. Doesnt mean its right for the patient though. Bloody annoying when youre paying for a consult and getting a copy paste answer.
- curious_sleep: Yeah exactly, the "safer for them legally" bit is what grinds my gears. If a doc actually looked at the receptor data and pharmacokinetics theyd at least have an informed take instead of just defaulting to no. Happened to me at a clinic in sydney last year, paid like 400 bucks for a 15 min consult and the bloke just rattled off contraindications he clearly googled five mins before 🙄
Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.