
Anyone else notice the FDA's proposed use for some peptides has almost nothing to do with why we actually take them?
I was looking through the briefing docs for the July 23-24 PCAC meeting and something kept jumping out at me. It's not just that FDA is leaning toward keeping all seven off the 503A list, it's that the use case they're actually reviewing is often totally disconnected from why any of us are running these things.
Epitalon is the one that got me. FDA reviewed it for insomnia. That's it. Not telomeres, not longevity, not any of the anti-aging stuff that's basically the entire reason people know this peptide exists.
Same deal with BPC-157. The reviewed indication is ulcerative colitis specifically. Meanwhile pretty much nobody in this sub is running BPC for UC, it's tendons, joints, general gut and recovery stuff.
Semax was reviewed for cerebral ischemia, which is a stroke related use. Not exactly the same as running it for focus.
TB-500, KPV, MOTS-c, and DSIP line up a lot closer to their actual community use honestly, wound healing, inflammation, metabolic stuff, sleep.
I get why this happens, someone nominates a peptide for a specific indication and that's what gets evaluated, it's not really FDA's job to review "what biohackers are actually doing with it." But it does mean the review process and the actual demand driving this whole market are kind of talking past each other.
I wonder what you guys think. For whatever you're personally taking, does FDA's reviewed use match your actual reason at all, or is it not even close?
More stories at r/PeptideTides