Why RFK Jr.’s pro-peptide push is so dangerous
The Washington Post reports:
BLUF: The health secretary takes a 19th-century approach to U.S. drug safety standards.
By Donald G. McNeil Jr.
In Neil Simon’s 1972 play, “The Sunshine Boys,” an aging former vaudevillian explains how to get laughs: Use words with a K. “Alka-Seltzer is funny,” he tells his nephew. “Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny … lettuce is not funny.”
This kind of thing applies to medicine, too.
What is it about “I’m taking a new peptide!” that sounds harmless, even healthful? Peptides are suddenly everywhere. If someone said, “I’m injecting a chemical!,” you’d think them nuts. “Chemical” isn’t healthy; it says “chemistry class,” “chemotherapy,” “chemical castration.” But “peptides” is perky. “Peppy!” it enthuses. “Pep talk!” “Pep rally!”
What’s a peptide? Just a short protein. Proteins, you may remember from biology class, are long strings of amino acids attracted by mRNA after it pops off DNA’s twisted ladder. A short string — just two to 50 or 100 amino acids — is a peptide. Anything longer is a protein.
Why does this matter? Because peptides, like proteins, are not inert. They have effects, which may be good or bad. You are made largely of protein, of course. So is cobra venom. Ozempic is a peptide. So is insulin. Insulin saves lives, but as every diabetic knows, an overdose can cause seizures, brain damage and death if it isn’t quickly reversed with a sugar injection.
Popular peptides are said to repair tissue, improve skin elasticity, stimulate hair growth and slow aging. Sounds great, right? But consider possible side effects. If you have a few precancerous cells lurking indolently in your prostate or breast, injecting a peptide that stimulates human growth hormone might supercharge them into a tumor.
This is why Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pro-peptide push is so dangerous. Kennedy openly detests the Big Pharma companies that make vaccines and patented drugs. He long stoked lawsuits against them. But with his “look at me I’m such a bad boy” braggadocio, he champions rebellious, libertarian industries that sell unproven, lightly regulated nostrums.
Historically, the bankrollers of the anti-vaccine movement have included some of the makers of vitamins and dietary supplements. They’re not tested as rigorously as vaccines and prescription meds because they cannot legally claim to cure disease. But they rely on pitch words like “immune-boosting,” “kidney-cleansing,” “respiratory support” and “sex-enhancing” to imply they can cure cancer, kidney failure, lung disease, erectile dysfunction and so on.
Now Kennedy has aligned himself with another dicey industry — peptides.
Although there have been many scandals in which supplements turned out to contain fake ingredients or impurities, at least most of these were pills and powders. With luck, they might be broken down by the digestive system or vomited out.
But most peptides are injected straight into the bloodstream. Some sellers are compounding pharmacies that, at least in theory, will ask whether you actually need the shot or have a condition it could worsen.
Many sales are on sites with disclaimers like this: “All products … are intended solely for laboratory research purposes and are not for human or animal consumption. These materials are for in vitro research only.” But they come as nasal sprays, capsules and injection vials — clearly not meant for petri dish research.
Google “peptides” and a common search question pops up: “Which peptides does Joe Rogan take?” This is where many Americans are now getting their medical advice — from a former comic whose medical credentials are well south of Dr. Oz’s, and who co-founded a dietary supplements company.
Rogan likes to tout the “Wolverine stack,” a combination of two peptides, BPC-157 and TB-500, that supposedly rebuild torn muscle the way Wolverine regenerates a lost arm. In February, Kennedy appeared on Rogan’s show and declared, “I’m a big fan of peptides. I’ve used them myself — and used them with really good effect — on a couple of injuries.” He was anxious, he said, to make them more easily available.
A long explanation of the legal and regulatory issues and the history of compounding pharmacies can be found in this excellent report by the Guardian, but it comes down to this: Kennedy is not requiring large, multiyear placebo-controlled double-blind trials for each peptide to prove whether they work and are safe (or not) — even though this is exactly what he used to demand for children’s vaccines. Instead, he added multiple people with ties to the peptide industry to a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that in July recommended undoing a Biden-era decision to put several unproven peptides in a category that permitted research but not sales. That’s just inviting trouble. Injecting foreign proteins inevitably triggers immune reactions, which can be highly unpredictable.
Kennedy is pushing us backward into the 19th century, when anyone who knew that a cocktail of morphine and alcohol would quiet a cranky baby could set up a company to make something like “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup” and get rich selling it — relying on word of mouth and suppressing awkward reports of babies who never woke up. It’s exactly what we don’t need.
AI Generated summary of 145 readers’ comments to this article:
The conversation explores a range of opinions and concerns regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s stance on health policies, particularly his promotion of peptides and skepticism towards vaccines.
Participants express skepticism about Kennedy's qualifications and intentions, with some labeling him as dangerous or a "snake oil salesman."
There is criticism of the current administration's decisions, including the appointment of unqualified individuals to key health positions.
Some comments highlight the lack of comprehensive research on peptides and the potential risks associated with their use, while others argue that peptides have been found safe and effective in certain contexts.
The discussion also touches on broader issues of public health policy, regulation, and the influence of political figures on medical advice.
BLUF: The health secretary takes a 19th-century approach to U.S. drug safety standards.
By Donald G. McNeil Jr.
In Neil Simon’s 1972 play, “The Sunshine Boys,” an aging former vaudevillian explains how to get laughs: Use words with a K. “Alka-Seltzer is funny,” he tells his nephew. “Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny … lettuce is not funny.”
This kind of thing applies to medicine, too.
What is it about “I’m taking a new peptide!” that sounds harmless, even healthful? Peptides are suddenly everywhere. If someone said, “I’m injecting a chemical!,” you’d think them nuts. “Chemical” isn’t healthy; it says “chemistry class,” “chemotherapy,” “chemical castration.” But “peptides” is perky. “Peppy!” it enthuses. “Pep talk!” “Pep rally!”
What’s a peptide? Just a short protein. Proteins, you may remember from biology class, are long strings of amino acids attracted by mRNA after it pops off DNA’s twisted ladder. A short string — just two to 50 or 100 amino acids — is a peptide. Anything longer is a protein.
Why does this matter? Because peptides, like proteins, are not inert. They have effects, which may be good or bad. You are made largely of protein, of course. So is cobra venom. Ozempic is a peptide. So is insulin. Insulin saves lives, but as every diabetic knows, an overdose can cause seizures, brain damage and death if it isn’t quickly reversed with a sugar injection.
Popular peptides are said to repair tissue, improve skin elasticity, stimulate hair growth and slow aging. Sounds great, right? But consider possible side effects. If you have a few precancerous cells lurking indolently in your prostate or breast, injecting a peptide that stimulates human growth hormone might supercharge them into a tumor.
This is why Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pro-peptide push is so dangerous. Kennedy openly detests the Big Pharma companies that make vaccines and patented drugs. He long stoked lawsuits against them. But with his “look at me I’m such a bad boy” braggadocio, he champions rebellious, libertarian industries that sell unproven, lightly regulated nostrums.
Historically, the bankrollers of the anti-vaccine movement have included some of the makers of vitamins and dietary supplements. They’re not tested as rigorously as vaccines and prescription meds because they cannot legally claim to cure disease. But they rely on pitch words like “immune-boosting,” “kidney-cleansing,” “respiratory support” and “sex-enhancing” to imply they can cure cancer, kidney failure, lung disease, erectile dysfunction and so on.
Now Kennedy has aligned himself with another dicey industry — peptides.
Although there have been many scandals in which supplements turned out to contain fake ingredients or impurities, at least most of these were pills and powders. With luck, they might be broken down by the digestive system or vomited out.
But most peptides are injected straight into the bloodstream. Some sellers are compounding pharmacies that, at least in theory, will ask whether you actually need the shot or have a condition it could worsen.
Many sales are on sites with disclaimers like this: “All products … are intended solely for laboratory research purposes and are not for human or animal consumption. These materials are for in vitro research only.” But they come as nasal sprays, capsules and injection vials — clearly not meant for petri dish research.
Google “peptides” and a common search question pops up: “Which peptides does Joe Rogan take?” This is where many Americans are now getting their medical advice — from a former comic whose medical credentials are well south of Dr. Oz’s, and who co-founded a dietary supplements company.
Rogan likes to tout the “Wolverine stack,” a combination of two peptides, BPC-157 and TB-500, that supposedly rebuild torn muscle the way Wolverine regenerates a lost arm. In February, Kennedy appeared on Rogan’s show and declared, “I’m a big fan of peptides. I’ve used them myself — and used them with really good effect — on a couple of injuries.” He was anxious, he said, to make them more easily available.
A long explanation of the legal and regulatory issues and the history of compounding pharmacies can be found in this excellent report by the Guardian, but it comes down to this: Kennedy is not requiring large, multiyear placebo-controlled double-blind trials for each peptide to prove whether they work and are safe (or not) — even though this is exactly what he used to demand for children’s vaccines. Instead, he added multiple people with ties to the peptide industry to a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee that in July recommended undoing a Biden-era decision to put several unproven peptides in a category that permitted research but not sales. That’s just inviting trouble. Injecting foreign proteins inevitably triggers immune reactions, which can be highly unpredictable.
Kennedy is pushing us backward into the 19th century, when anyone who knew that a cocktail of morphine and alcohol would quiet a cranky baby could set up a company to make something like “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup” and get rich selling it — relying on word of mouth and suppressing awkward reports of babies who never woke up. It’s exactly what we don’t need.
AI Generated summary of 145 readers’ comments to this article:
The conversation explores a range of opinions and concerns regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s stance on health policies, particularly his promotion of peptides and skepticism towards vaccines.
Participants express skepticism about Kennedy's qualifications and intentions, with some labeling him as dangerous or a "snake oil salesman."
There is criticism of the current administration's decisions, including the appointment of unqualified individuals to key health positions.
Some comments highlight the lack of comprehensive research on peptides and the potential risks associated with their use, while others argue that peptides have been found safe and effective in certain contexts.
The discussion also touches on broader issues of public health policy, regulation, and the influence of political figures on medical advice.
