Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peptides: where to begin?

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 431 posts

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#171

Post by ben_w »

ramraj07 wrote: post #168
cjbgkagh wrote: post #65

Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowi…

Im sorry for your quality of life problems but calling doctors bad at statistics and then giving anecdotal evidence as proof has to start ringing some logical bells right? You dont even have to take our word. Use an LLM as judge. Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.

> Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.

Isn't one of the bigger problems with ChatGPT that it's much too supportive of whatever the human is talking about?

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#172

Post by TeMPOraL »

cwmoore wrote: post #8
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #2

Lowe has a point, but the FDA has painted itself into a corner by (a) forcing up the costs and the various bureaucratic demands associated with clinical trials, (b) allowing drug advertising , but then forcing those comical "may cause death" disclaimers, both of which have become totally ubiquitous, and (c) inconsistently following its own rules, and in some cases flouting its own rules. At this point, broscience is…

When medicine ignores nutrition entirely, and nutrient supplements are still complete unknowns, you have to wonder who the FDA is working for.

Nutrition is run on fads - see whole fitness and healthy food bullshit. Nutrition supplements ended up being a loophole that allows pharmacies and pharma companies to sell all kinds of random stuff that they can't or don't want to, show is safe, or doing anything at all.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#173

Post by 5o1ecist »

ramraj07 wrote: post #168
cjbgkagh wrote: post #65

Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowi…

Im sorry for your quality of life problems but calling doctors bad at statistics and then giving anecdotal evidence as proof has to start ringing some logical bells right? You dont even have to take our word. Use an LLM as judge. Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.

[dead]

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#174

Post by TeMPOraL »

jmye wrote: post #119
hammock wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people don't believe it anyway Maybe because so much of it is wrong, or (very charitably, as much is industry-biased) outdated? Lifestyle modification is a definite challenge and I’m not dismissing it. Still, hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer. Overeating, oxidative stress from low-quality ingredients, etc might.

> Still, hamburgers and milkshakes don’t give you heart disease and cancer. Overeating, oxidative stress from low-quality ingredients, etc might. What? “Oxidative stress”? Oh come on, at least go full “seed oil” if we’re going to talk nonsense.

We already left the land of reason far behind by the time OP implied hamburgers and milkshakes give people cancer.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#175

Post by chhxdjsj »

Zetaphor wrote: post #127
GenerWork wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To your first point, if you know where to look, you can get tens of vials of GLP-1s that have much higher dosing per vial for cheaper than you can get a third of the amount on the grey market. A lot of these sites even have purity testing to soothe consumers worries that they're getting garbage. For your third point, you have the FDA limiting HGH, yet you can buy the growth horomone releasing factor peptides (tesamor…

Many of us would appreciate if you could share one of those reputable vendors with such cheap prices

https://t.me/qsctgchannel https://t.me/c/2680146932/9

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#176

Post by 5o1ecist »

beowulfey wrote: post #166
cjbgkagh wrote: post #65

Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work (for various people for various conditions). There is a tension between empiricism and fundamentalism with much of medical science focusing on fundamentalism. Now with the ability to collect and search large amounts of empirical data and communicate it peer-to-peer people are picking up on a lot of things that work without knowi…

Clinical trials are not looking for fundamental mechanisms, they are there to ensure an effect is strong enough to say a product should be sold for that purpose. Otherwise you end up with snake oil salesmen. Because how can you be sure you are even injecting the thing the sellers claim it is? I would encourage everyone interested in peptides to read about the state of medical science before the establishment of the P…

[dead]

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#177

Post by beowulfey »

olalonde wrote: post #36

The author is missing a massive segment of that gray market: people who buy FDA-approved weight loss drugs (e.g., semaglutide or tirzepatide) at 2–5% of the brand-name price. This route carries some risk, but there are ways to mitigate it, such as performing third-party testing. I assume most people who do this couldn't realistically afford the brand-name drug anyway, making this their only viable treatment.

Even if you test a batch once, do people who get testing done do testing on all batches?

The synthesis of peptides uses some NASTY chemicals. I would be worried about lax manufacturer policies leading to contamination, even if one batch passes. The costs of FDA certification are the effect of that protection.

But whatever, this is the same attitude that people have against owning insurance. It is hard to recognize the cost of risk.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#178

Post by empiricus »

deng wrote: post #154
bertylicious wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure there is no diagnostic test for ME/CFS. What are you referring to? Also I don't understand how semaglutide did help you while you're at the same time part of a minority risk group with a hypersensitivity to it. Isn't that a contradiction?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-025-07203-w

looks interesting, but has the classic "40 patients".

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#179

Post by a2tech »

rootusrootus wrote: post #107
cjbgkagh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense, I don't like that the bottles are unlabelled so the first thing I have to do is label them. The box is labelled and this seems to be standard practice. Semaglutide is falling out of favour so I guess they're substituting. I have 4 years supply now so I guess I'll check back then and see where the market is at.

> I have 4 years supply now I know a bunch of people with multi-year stockpiles. I've got ~5 years of reta and ~6 years of tirz. This is too much, of course, but I determined a while back that under no circumstances do I ever intend to find myself unable to source it. My life is immeasurably better after losing 110 pounds.

Could you direct me to some resources you used to figure out dosing and sourcing? I’ve been interested in trying it out (need to lose a lot of weight) but have been paralyzed by too much contradictory information.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#180

Post by alex_duf »

ben_w wrote: post #171
ramraj07 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im sorry for your quality of life problems but calling doctors bad at statistics and then giving anecdotal evidence as proof has to start ringing some logical bells right? You dont even have to take our word. Use an LLM as judge. Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says.

> Paste your comment into chatgpt and see what it says. Isn't one of the bigger problems with ChatGPT that it's much too supportive of whatever the human is talking about?

I guess it depends on how you frame it. "I've just posted this comment, what do you think" vs "Someone online has just posted this comment, what do you think".

But it does require to know the bias that LLMs have ahead of testing this.

Post reply on HN