Peter Attia· MD
I think that the ruling has basically put them on a like a super highrisk list essentially whereby they're not outright banned but you will invite heavy scrutiny and perhaps legal action should you decide to make them
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I think that the ruling has basically put them on a like a super highrisk list essentially whereby they're not outright banned but you will invite heavy scrutiny and perhaps legal action should you decide to make them
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so the rationale for putting these 30 peptides on this Category 2 list that provided by the FDI is is it's a safety question right so the question was um we don't have you know sufficient data on the safety of these things so we're going to we're going to sort of schedule them in a way
I've noticed that there are still sites selling these peptides and they seem to be suggesting that they're selling them for research purposes which is clearly [ __ ]
I think that the ruling has basically put them on a like a super highrisk list essentially whereby they're not outright