Профиль

Use the personalization features to tell it not to flatter you, etc. DM me and I can send you mine. It changes dramatically.

Compounding pharmacies are regulated. They’re licensed and inspected by state boards of pharmacy, with FDA oversight that varies by the type (503A vs. 503B). And for office-use compounding, the active ingredients must come from the FDA’s approved bulk substances lists or be an approved drug.

Improved infographic.

Okay. Better one addressing your concerns.

The icon could be clearer with 1 amino acid as a single dot. But placing peptides “between” amino acids and proteins implies a biosynthetic sequence. Peptides may be synthesized directly, cleaved from larger proteins, or manufactured chemically. The diagram is compositional, not a pathway.

Others with some benefit include prostate and pancreatic (also in high risk individuals).

As stated, needs to be studied for each cancer. Today we know clearly that colorectal cancer is the standout example of the benefits of screening. Also cervical, breast, and lung (in high risk individuals) mortality all have been shown to benefit from screening. And a smattering of others.

Hey Scott, why didn’t you simply repost or quote my original with your lead sentence, instead of using it almost verbatim? It just seems the right thing to do, no? bsky.app/profile/pble...

An explanatory infographic on amino acids, proteins, and peptides and the 7 compounds before the committee yesterday and today. Consideration is whether these should be on the "allowed" list for manufacture by compounding pharmacies for individual prescriptions.

For those less familiar with the basics, an explanatory infographic on amino acids, proteins, and peptides and the 7 compounds before the committee yesterday and today.

Regarding whether this will at least improve safety and controls in manufacturing (as in the chatGPT comment, above), this from the March NY times article above:

These 7 peptides - 4 from yesterday’s hearing and 3 from today’s were removed from the list in 2023 as noted in this NY Times article. www.nytimes.com/2026/03/31/h...

For the curious, the makeup of the panel in 2024.

And 3 other peptides. There are 3 more up for discussion today. The committee deliberations are ongoing until 4-5 today and can be viewed live at www.youtube.com/live/xXM5ecH...

No. See my comments.

A more precise description is: The FDA advisory panel voted to recommend adding BPC-157 to the FDA’s 503A Bulks List, which would allow compounding pharmacies to prepare the peptide from bulk active ingredient for individually prescribed patients, provided the FDA accepts the recommendation.

As such, the original post should have said “recommended approval” instead of approved.

Another important note - this is an Advisory Panel, which typically has substantial, if not overwhelming influence in FDA approval decisions. However, the FDA isn’t required to follow their recommendations, and on occasion haven’t.

Note that in the past, the members of the advisory panels were mostly, if not all, distinguished physicians, pharmacists, and scientists who were experts in the field. If you are curious as to whether there is ANY rationale for approving these peptides, this answer from chatGPT is helpful.

These peptides are “research-grade” and supporting data were primarily animal and in vitro results. Typical large scale blinded clinical trials for safety and efficacy have not been done. This is the Wild West.