Legalization of unlicenced peptides?

JohnBoy2000

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
2,650


Strong advocacy coming in, apparent RFK is on board with the movement as well.

I've used mt2 in the past and it is life changing if you enjoy the sun but don't tan well.

The speaker here sings the praises of GHK-Cu, which I haven't tried but it sounds good, and then others for recovery.

I wouldn't even mind a little of the GLP1 peptides to lean out on some slight lipid dense areas, get that completely shredded look.

Recovery peptides like TB500 and BPC also sound good.

Seems to be a big movement, this peptide thing that's going on.

I would be nice if they were more readily available, given the apparent benefit they can provide?
 
Here's a good overview of peptide quality:



It'll be interesting to see how much comes out about the negative effects of GLP-1 use. It's a "protected" multibillion dollar market so expect plenty of positive propaganda and minimal realistic research on the negatives - a bit like statins and metformin which many people still consider beneficial.
 
Last edited:
I think it's hard to give clear cut suggestions on the safety profile of the common peptides due to lack of reliable data from users and also on quality of the substance. I think a good move would be large scale trials for people in the public to participate in and have long term tracking. There's a strong desire for the effects of these drugs so might as well cater to the audience and also get meaningful data.
 
I think this is sketchy AF. Of course if you do your research and know the safety profile of what you are ordering. RFK seems like the type to shill a whole 'fake health' full on snakeoil type of thing too though.

Be careful and understand what you put in your body is ultimately your responsibility (as always) and personally I think you should be able to put whatever you want in your body --- it is marketing it as "Health boosting" in any way that worries me
 
The only person with any credibility in those videos posted is Hamilton Morris.

Stephen Bartlett is a shameless grifting hack who regularly platforms the usual parade of other grifters, idiots and morons using fake science to sell shit, the fact that someone said something about peptides on his podcast means absolute fuck all.

RFK Jr.'s endorsement means fuck all, less than, in fact, this is a guy who doesn't believe in germ theory and who only has his position because he's another idiot grifter Trump loyalist.

Sure, some of these peptides are pretty interesting. Who knows, maybe some of them will be legalized. Impossible to tell anything about anything beyond that based on anything that the aforementioned chumps have to say about it.
 
Vastness said:
RFK Jr.'s endorsement means fuck all, less than, in fact, this is a guy who doesn't believe in germ theory
Click to expand...

That is unfortunately not a valid attribute to use for the purpose of invalidating someone. Clearly it's a popular theory and the consensus is overwhelming (thanks to indoctrination) but that doesn't make something absolutely true.

FYI I'm British so my post has no political motivations. I'm not a liberal, democrat, republican nor conservative (for any Brits reading, i'm not green or reform either).

Ironically, the guy who is responsible for Modern Medicine™ used homeopathic medicine (think herbalism etc with relevant concentrations, not the silly zero-concentration stuff). He had to make homeopathic medicine look bad so he could introduce his modern medicine.

Even though John D. Rockefeller Sr., America’s richest man and first billionaire, provided substantial financial support to conventional medical schools and institutions, his personal medical care was supervised by doctors specializing in homeopathic medicine, a completely different type and style of treatment.
Click to expand...

Abstract from the paper:
This article examines the ideological and institutional forces that led to the marginalization of homeopathy in American medicine, despite its popularity among prominent figures, including John D. Rockefeller.
...
Drawing on five previously unpublished reports written for Rockefeller by his philanthropic and business advisor, Frederick T. Gates, the article reveals how these internal communications criticized homeopathy while shaping Rockefeller philanthropic foundations' policy.
Click to expand...
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.87291
 
Last edited:
Allylbenzene said:
That is unfortunately not a valid attribute to use for the purpose of invalidating someone. Clearly it's a popular theory and the consensus is overwhelming (thanks to indoctrination) but that doesn't make something absolutely true.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is a valid attribute to use for the purposes of invalidating someone, just like believing in the Flat Earth is grounds for invalidating someone's credibility to comment on physics, or believing in Young Earth Creationism is grounds for invalidating someone's credibility to comment on, well, absolutely anything really. Given your expressed position this comment is obviously a waste of time, but we have to have some bedrock of accepted scientific fact to be able to build on and discuss absolutely anything else in any meaningful way. If you're trying to tell me you think it's worth paying attention to someone who believes that germs... what... don't exist? Exist but don't really cause diseases? Then I'm sorry but I think that's just crazy talk. Call me indoctrinated by Modern Medicine if you like. It figures that you've tried unconvincingly to define yourself as apolitical for some reason though, definitely fits the profile of someone who would try to argue something like that.
 
Vastness said:
It absolutely is a valid attribute to use for the purposes of invalidating someone, just like believing in the Flat Earth is grounds for invalidating someone's credibility to comment on physics
Click to expand...
If you believe in the false dichotomy of flat V globe then that says a lot, and explains your coherent yet misguided rationale regarding germ theory.

Vastness said:
It figures that you've tried unconvincingly to define yourself as apolitical for some reason
Click to expand...
Does it? The words were as written: I don't care for your American political theatre. It's a distant caricature from my POV, including the RFK saga.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness I think attacking @Allylbenzene on a belief of another issue entirely is an ad hominem? (Am I wrong, I could be?) Does it matter/hold some weight anyways....that is another question that I am not asking.

On the other hand I tend to believe the earth is spherical-ish.
 
notsmokeymcpot42088 said:
In all fairness I think attacking @Allylbenzene on a belief of another issue entirely is an ad hominem? (Am I wrong, I could be?) Does it matter/hold some weight anyways....that is another question that I am not asking.
Click to expand...
To answer your question that you're not asking with an answer that I'm not giving, it does matter but it doesn't hold any weight because it wasn't an ad-hominem, an ad-hominem is when someone attacks the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself. I addressed the "argument", if you can call it that, directly, and having presented my counterargument (If you can call my own statements that - really just pointing out the bleeding obvious, IMHO), I then, separately, made an observation.

This observation was itself not an attack since I didn't state any implications of my observation or make any value judgements about any implications that could be reasonably inferred, I simply noted a general trend without commenting on it further; that people who claim to be apolitical or try to present themselves as such, quite often find reasons to promote nonsensical ideas that are otherwise mostly only being talked about because they have been promoted for overtly political reasons by transparently political people.
 
fair enough -- thanks for extrapolating I guess. I meant from a deductive logic point of view which 'Yes it does matters but no it doesnt hold any weight' is a good enough answer for me .. not that the rest wasnt worth the read
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top