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

281–290 of 431 posts

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#281

Post by Bender »

jmye wrote: post #123
Bender wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think anyone ought to be able to buy, for instance, warfarin and freely take it without a doctor’s involvement? Yes.

Why? Why, specifically, do you think an adult without HF should be able to buy a random drug, likely by accident, and start taking it? I guess I don’t hate everyone else enough to agree with that.

Why?

No reason required. People can already buy incredibly dangerous things with a doctors permission, as if a doctor actually knows what other compounds a person is consuming to begin with. Doctors are not omniscient and patients lie. Most of them barely even know the compounds that are FDA approved to begin with. Be honest, most of them barely remember 10% of what they were taught in medical school and the schools even state that half of what they will be taught will not be relevant or will be entirely wrong by the time they graduate.

Again, I can buy apples and apricots without permission. There is nothing capable of more risk or harm that has ever been approved by the FDA than apples and apricots.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#282

Post by Bender »

flexagoon wrote: post #225
XorNot wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also LOL at the notion "peptides are safe because GLP-1 exists". Pretty much all venoms are mixes of short (10-15 base) peptide chains. It's the naturalistic fallacy in an utterly perverse form ( and also goes to show why a regulatory system is good: the average person has no idea that they're dealing with or even common sense about it).

"Liquids are safe because water exists"

FDA is a money sink. People basically bribe to get their own self tests approved much like the airlines have their own FAA inspectors that approve their own self tests under duress and bribes. It's all a scam and everyone here knows this even if they won't admit it.

Nullify the FDA, FAA and at least half of the other orgs. Give at least half of those budgets to the people. Make aircraft smart enough to evade all obstacles. Make it technically damn near impossible to collide with anything. Make aircraft coordinate themselves. All doable. Force retire all FDA and FAA and give them a balloon, a golden wrist-watch and send them away.

Give people an app to paste in all the things they take or plan to take in terms of foods, supplements, drugs, their allergies. Let the best AI figure out what will happen.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#283

Post by kenjackson »

BoggleOhYeah wrote: post #217
picafrost wrote: post #187

[flagged]

The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence. HN, in particular, loves anything that allows them to discredit science (like the constant banging on about the replication crisis) and replace it with their own pet theory.

I think it’s also that contrarianism generates an argument they can follow - it’s often much more simplistic along some axis. For example, flat earthers superficially have a really simple model. Throw a ball up, of course it comes down. You look straight ahead and it looks flat. Ask them how GPS works and they can’t follow the math anyways.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#284

Post by coryrc »

bertylicious wrote: post #131
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…

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?

Doesn't it just mean GP needs to take less?

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#285

Post by thinkingtoilet »

kelipso wrote: post #269
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The world is full of people that confuse contrarianism for intelligence. I've been shouting this from the roof tops for years now and it's one of the biggest problems we face today. I live in a rural area and 100% of the Joe Rogan-ified men I know are mindless reactionaries. They aren't educated, they don't read books, they don't travel, heck, they barely leave the county. They think they're so smart because they sa…

As opposed to this, you have the mindless non-contrarians who unquestioningly believe any assertion by academia or authority, which is a problem too.

I feel like you're completely proving my point here.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#286

Post by mapontosevenths »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #245
picafrost wrote: post #187

[flagged]

"Antivaxxer*" here. I'm not injecting peptides for a similar reason - I'm not convinced the cost/benefit works out. That said, the issue for many is autonomy - if you want to put novel stuff in your body, go ahead. As long as you don't try to compel me to do it. * Not if we're actually in literate company, but that seemed to be the common consensus after I skipped the jab, having recovered from covid right before the…

> That said, the issue for many is autonomy

Your right to swing a fist ends where the other fella's nose begins. That doesn't mean you aren't free, it just means you recognize that the right not to suffer grievous bodily harm trumps the right to swing your fist willy-nilly.

As a fist-swinger you may not always agree, and you may even get hurt one day because you couldn't swing your fist whenever you wanted, but that's just the cost of living in a world filled with other human beings.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#287

Post by nick3000 »

elil17 wrote: post #268
mapotofu wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors. That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.

Is there any reason to think that freshly squeezed juice is chemically different from, for example, frozen juice concentrate?

yes it’s been frozen and concentrated..

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#288

Post by nmitchko »

diath wrote: post #15

> My patient is refusing a drug studied in 170,000 people because of side effects that a 124,000-person analysis just confirmed do not exist — while injecting a compound studied in 14 humans, from unregulated sources, based on the recommendation of someone who profits from selling it. She’s probably not the only one. And those using it believe they are “doing their own research.” Ok, and? At worst you waste a couple…

I used those two in combination to fix pain after 3x surgeries to repair a torn pec + infection. They work and helped me heal from being at a 3/10 constant pain down to baseline.

Not something I would do at any point for fun. But anecdotally, it's materially better than other alternatives offered/available.

Re: Peptides: where to begin?

#290

Post by mapotofu »

elil17 wrote: post #268
mapotofu wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to point out your own contradictory comments about absorption and specifically mentioning a typically highly processed food (orange juice), one which has been stripped of its natural fibers and flavors. That age group (and all others) should be eating real/whole fruit or having the juice fresh (I.e. just juiced). They would be better served getting this advice than creating more anxiety about protein intake.

Is there any reason to think that freshly squeezed juice is chemically different from, for example, frozen juice concentrate?

There is reason to think the differences are biotic vs. abiotic, between the two. Our digestive system is dependent on healthy microbiota. Pasteurization would be the difference here.
Post reply on HN