TBPN Live - The Great Peptide Debate with Martin Shkreli & Max Marchione

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

This is our full interview with Martin Shkreli and Max Marchione, recorded live on TBPN.We discuss the sharp divide between biotech orthodoxy and the rising peptide movement, unpack the fight over whether compounds like BPC-157 are dangerous gray-market hype or promising under-researched tools with real-world patient impact, and debate whether the FDA should hold the line on traditional evidence standards or adapt to a world where off-label experimentation, compounding, and anecdotal outcomes are already forcing the issue.TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to podcast platforms immediately after. Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Sign up for TBPN’s daily newsletter at TBPN.comTBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://Ramp.comAppLovin - https://axon.aiCisco - https://www.cisco.comCognition - https://cognition.aiConsole - https://console.comCrowdStrike - https://crowdstrike.comElevenLabs - https://elevenlabs.ioFigma - https://figma.comFin - https://fin.aiGemini - https://gemini.google.comGraphite - https://graphite.comGusto - https://gusto.com/tbpnKalshi - https://kalshi.comLabelbox - https://labelbox.comLambda - https://lambda.aiLinear - https://linear.appMongoDB - https://mongodb.comNYSE - https://nyse.comOkta - https://www.okta.comPhantom - https://phantom.com/cashPlaid - https://plaid.comPublic - https://public.comRailway - https://railway.comRamp - https://ramp.comRestream - https://restream.ioSentry - https://sentry.ioShopify - https://shopify.comTurbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comVanta - https://vanta.comVibe - https://vibe.coFollow TBPN:https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

The peptide debate. Welcome to the stream, guys. How are you guys? Hey, how's gone? Thank you so much for taking the time. Why don't you both start with an introduction on yourself and maybe your core thesis around peptides? Martin, why do you go first? Oh, Max.

Okay, sure. Let's start with Martin. Yeah. So I'm the farmer, bro. I represent the interests and the, um, I don't know, I guess viewpoint of the pharmaceutical industry, including but not limited to Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, et cetera. I'm sure those guys love that.

You're the face of pharma, whether they like it or not. There you go. Sort of a self-trained biopharmaceutical expert. I think I can speak at a pretty high level about every inch of the pharmaceutical industry. I've discovered brand new drugs. I've acquired drugs. I've commercialized drugs. So just about anything you can do in the drug industry, I've done it.

And so I'm very concerned about the peptide craze. I think it comes mostly out of psychological issues, which we'll discuss. The need for identity, control, distrust of institutions, all kinds of things like that are leading to what we're seeing today. Great. And Max? Hi, I'm Max. former peptide skeptic turned peptide believer, I run a healthcare company called Superpower. And our thesis is that the health system today does a good job when you're sick.

It doesn't do a fantastic job at preventing things and actually allowing people to be their best selves. I say a former peptide skeptic because they seem scary. And I say a converted believer because I spoke to dozens of doctors and heard hundreds of clinical vignettes from people who had their lives change. Now, I don't believe all peptides are safe. I do believe we need more research. But I think there are a subset of things

that have improved people's lives. I also think as a modality, peptides are one that are more interesting than before, now that injecting is normal, now the wellness and optimization is normal, not just treating disease, and now that we have AI for things like computational discovery. So we're early, we need more research,

But I think peptides are exciting. Martin, I'll let you just respond. Yeah, seems like you're ready to go. But it would be useful to at least define the conversation a little bit more, because when we say peptides, we could mean ozempic prescribed by a doctor for someone who has diabetes and is very overweight. It could also mean the Wolverine stack taken by a 15-year-old in a gym in Miami, right? And like, there's a wide gap.

So let's maybe narrow it down a little bit to probably off-label use. I don't know exactly where the, where things start to get fuzzy for you guys, but defining a little bit more of where the actual point of debate, because I imagine there's agreement with the extremes. Yeah, I mean, isn't there a problem when we have to redefine semantics that have been defined forever? Okay. Isn't this like somebody saying, you know, I'm using, you know,

you know, GPT instead of using AI or something like that. Like there's a specific meaning. Like peptide has this very specific meaning, and they're not new. They're 80 years old. People have been using peptides forever. And in fact, in pharma, you try to avoid peptides because of their inherent weaknesses. You go for small molecules or really large molecules like antibodies. Peptides are sort of the worst of both worlds.

So the idea that we've taken this kind of like last place drug class and then turn that into like the standard bearer for do it yourself medicine is kind of humorous to anybody who actually understands pharma except that the last uh the last uh drug class has the potentially most impactful drug of all time or set of drugs of old time the glp1 receptor agonists so i'm not saying we only have peptides in the toolkit i'm saying the genies out of the bottle and we cannot ignore peptides as a tool in the toolkit small molecules just like i guess framing framing it for people who don't kind of understand the difference between these things. Small molecules are made synthetically.

Peptides tend to be derived from what already is happening in the body. DNA is the building block of the body and encodes for RNA, which produces proteins and peptides. So these peptides naturally occur. Now, it can sometimes be hard to patent to naturally occurring. You can, but it's a little bit harder. Small molecules, in the other hand, are things that humans design to block biology, to block, typically block something that is happening in the body. And again, I'm not saying small molecules, bad, but they're kind of the two different modalities we're talking about here. And we've seen

one category of peptides. GLP-1's already changed the world. And my intention is that there are other categories of peptides that are under-researched, but have really interesting kind of clinical vignettes that might change the world going forward. Martin? But the, but the, but I think, like, why we're having this conversation is because people are just, you know, injecting a number of them into themselves now and you're saying they might change the world but people are going through the process of self experimentation and there's a bunch of companies private companies that are happily facilitating this and and profiting off of it when it seems to be a large number of risks that are still unknown at least that's my my point of view yeah exactly so i think that's right

So maybe let's start with stuff that's not fully FDA approved. I think the canonical example would be like the Chinese peptides, the retas, the stuff you buy online and inject. And it's based on some interesting scientific literature, but it hasn't actually been through the full FDA process yet. Where do both of you stand on that? Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? You know, this is the property of Eli Lilly. They discovered it. They spent billions of dollars on it.

You want to steal it. You want to work with the Chinese company stealing it? I mean, that's not good for America. That's not good for the drug industry. And guess where do these drugs come from? They come from American R&D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this weird twilight, like, you know, DIY drug system, which is not very large, at least compared to pharma, you know,

I don't know if you make a big impact, but if it went very large scale, you would. I mean, you would stop having drugs, the same way pirating music would, you know, have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent. And then taking a red of true tide, which is just sort of a GLP plus, if you will, instead of just waiting it for it to be FDA approved or like using OZMPIC, I think this is like the worst risk-reward decision you could possibly make. It's like some of the decisions I used to make in the past. You know, what is your upside to taking illegally manufactured registered red or through tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, versus just

taking those epic? The people that take peptides and have these peptide stacks are mostly people in SF, maybe New York, they're very wealthy people, they don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Nobody else in Middle America is excited to do this. It's not normal max to inject yourself with things. You know, this isn't like a thing everyone should be doing. And so to me, the Red of Trutite case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that, you know, there are people dying of certain terrible diseases and they need compassionate use. They need to get on extension programs. But nobody needs Red of TrueType now, right now before FDA approval. So I think the things we agree on are that the existing

FDA-approved GLP-1 receptor agonists are an interesting category of drug, and they're a peptide, and they're impactful. I think we also agree that companies should not do things illegally and infringed on the patent for RETA, right? I do think the patent system incentivizes innovation. I think the crux of where we disagree is not, and just quickly on the, this is an SF thing. That is not true. I know dozens of people who own these research use companies, and if you speak to them, the majority of their audience is middle America, not, not SF Tech Bros, despite the tech as being noisy on Twitter. I think the crux of where we probably disagree is the 14 or so peptides that RFK has said they

might move from category one, two, meaning they cannot be compounded, back to category one, meaning they can be compounded. And I guess my like general statement here is that people are taking these compounds, right? They're already using them at scale, right? And the way to minimize risk, the way to minimize risk is to move them from category to category to category one, right, to legalize them. the risky thing is the dodgy supply chain we have today. The risky thing. Isn't the, isn't the, isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial, you know, human trials when we don't know?

I don't think so. So I think that is true for peptides that we do not have longitudinal, clinical experience and patient experience with. But let's take something like BPC-157, which is one of the most controversial ones. So let's go right to the meat of things. Let's take something like BBC 157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this, they do, and have prescribed this for 10. You can't prescribe this drug.

They give it to their patients, right? You can prescribe it to be semantics, give it to their patients. Not a drug. Thousands do that. Again, my statement is not the semantics of prescribing. My statement is thousands do this. My other statement is that millions of patients have, taken this. At least hundreds of thousands, I believe millions, have taken this.

That clinical experience, again, is not an RCT, but we cannot ignore it. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. It sounds like there's some sort of fundamental disagreement here about, like, the way BPC 157 is being distributed right now, because I know people that have told me that they've taken it. I thought that they were getting it prescribed or recommended to them. Like, Martin, what is your... We can agree that it's being given to them. I think they're getting it. But what's actually

happening here? How is this happening? Out in the back alley. Isn't that what's happening? They meet in the back alley. It doesn't seem like that. It seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to. There are the best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, one of the most esteemed doctors in the U.S. said to me, Max, you take so many supplements. Have you explored peptides? Because I think there are a really interesting modality

with a few decades of clinical use. Sure. Right. And when he said that to me, I was like, no way. this is bullshit. I'm not injecting myself with something. That was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors who's trusted your gut, whose opinions I respect. And I asked them about peptides. Normally when you ask these doctors about anything, you're asking about red meat, you're asking about spinach, they're all divided. They're all like, one view, enough of you, punches with peptides. Just about all of them except one said these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe then dodger.

molecules, peptides that exist in our body, are going to be the future of medicine. And those doctors have the incentive to not be wrong. If they're wrong, they could go to jail. If they're wrong, they can have their license stripped. If they're wrong, patients don't come back to them. So they have the maximum incentive. And for 10 to 20 years, they still give this to their patients. And their patients say my life changed.

Now, you might say it's placebo. My statement is the patient says their life changes and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to sort of set aside the intellectual property argument. I like that argument, but let's focus on the, the, what doctors are doing, how BPCY157 is being delivered, that type of thing. So, so I'm a drug hunter, right? People like me, Vivek Ramoswami, we look all around the world for medicine to buy and medicine to put into companies that great firms like A16Z and founders fund and other more health care maybe focused firms will fund, take it to the IPO, which I've done before, and get paid huge amounts

of money. That's what I do. That's what I'm good at. That's why I'm the farmer bro. BPC 157 is the biggest scam I've ever seen. It does absolutely nothing. There's no redeemable value to this. Do you know the story about it? Do you guys know, Dordi, no? Please tell us.

This guy in Croatia made it, Sitchitch, my hinterland brother. And the only publications about this drug are by him. Nobody else has published about this drug. It's not a drug, in fact. Nobody's even confirmed that it's a peptide from the gastric juice, he claimed, nobody can find a sequence that matches that. And the gastric juice of human beings has been thoroughly profiled. It's 15mer peptide, so it's 15 amino acids.

Half-life is minutes. There's no plausible physiological basis for it to work. And it's been in clinical trials. PLEVA was a local drug company in the Balkans. Very well respected my ad. Pleva actually licensed BPC and tried to do clinical trials for it. And guess what? They failed.

So this like weird like I want to be a placebo effect? Do you think it's placebo effect? Because yeah, I talk to people that say it's good for recovery and I can imagine if you're sticking yourself with something, you might feel like, I'm less sore today. Because it's just while you are recovering, you think that the drug is helping you. Of course it isn't. It's the recovery process you're going through. And there's an app for this.

If you want to make real money, go make BPC in CGMP conditions and go do a clinical trial. And you can be a trillion dollar company like Eli Lilly. Instead, you can putz around, you know, buying fake Chinese stuff and then injecting yourself and dreaming that you're doing, well, I'm a drug here that if I take might also aid my recovery. No, no, no, get that out of this. Should I try this?

Should I tell you that it worked for me? It's an N of one. Oh my God, I did so great with this N of one. You know, it healed my recovery. Like this is nonsense. This is not science. Science is controlled experiments that are well done, very carefully documented and so forth.

Why are we going backwards? Why do we go forwards in civilization and society? What is this urge by the valley? And I blame the valley to go backwards in time and space. I hear of you, and I think other people will have it. And we don't know whether these are placebo or not yet. We can't make a definitive statement. And we don't have the RCTs.

Wait, but I thought you said there was studies done on BBC 157. No, there are no human studies done. There was one done by pleva and it failed. There are dozens of studies of drugs that become commercialized that previously fail. Anyway, my view is we don't know whether it's placebo or not yet. That is true and some people say it's placebo, some will say it's not. My statement is really simple, which is you can have Martin's view, or you can have the view of thousands of doctors who have used this for 10 to 20 years

and have their license in the line, the view of millions of patients who talk about their lives changing, You can have that view. My dad's visiting from Australia, and he's been taking painkillers for the past four months and can't walk upstairs because he's back as bad. He took BBC 157 for three days, and he said to me, Max, this is the first time in four months I haven't taken a painkiller. Again, I'm not saying this isn't placebo. I'm saying we don't know. What I'm saying is, I am God, I'm really happy my dad's not in a painkiller. Yeah. Right. My co-founder, he lost three organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him in biologics. He took BPC 157. He's off biologics and he doesn't have an autoimmune

disease anymore. Again, we will put our money right after this and fund the studies. Put your money where your mouth is. Exactly. But we can't ignore the real world evidence. Again, you are ignoring it if you're not putting your money where your mouth is. If you believe that's true. No, we are. No, no, no. We are. Do a clinical trial. We are. Tell me about it. We're in the process of chatting with the people required to set up a clinical trial for this. Because we will put our money where our mouth is. Because I've seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients, and even the FDA, right who has said they're going to start legalizing even the FDA okay but max you can have your view and i don't that's okay people will have that view i will have an option of you and i'll put my money where

my mouth is max you've never done a clinical trial before right you've never invested in drug companies before but you want to do your first clinical trial on on this drug which you didn't invent you know you see you've heard anecdotal evidence about why because i have seen thousands of doctors millions of patients over one to two decades right go say to my friend um go back on biologics go back to hospital lose another organ go say go say to my dad go back on painkillers every single day i don't want my dad on painkillers every single day now you might say that's placebo i say i don't know but i say with the evidence that we currently have i believe there is more you should see you should see what this

galaxy gas does for me it's amazing okay martin's really good no but what's your question is your question martin more that like okay you know Farma guy in their right mind would do this. Well, hold on, hold on. So no pharma guy would do it. Max clearly believes in this. And what is the intersection of these two things? Is it possible to do the type of study that you're talking about with Silicon Valley backing?

Is a $30 million series A enough to get started? Or do you need to go to Wall Street, IPO, do the biotech thing? Yeah, you can explain. Plenty of private companies do this. There's hundreds, if not. Actually, I would say there's thousands of private biotechs. Okay. Generally, they would pass on something like this.

Well, yeah, yeah. So why? So, so there's this body of, body of anecdotal evidence. Mm-hmm. Yeah, unpublished evidence. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so certainly a drug hunter would have looked at this already, right? Martin, is your statement the only admissible evidence is an RCT.

Yes. And what about all of all of the examples of, when something works, before anything works with Narcet, there's a time when it works pre-RCT. Yes, in animals. No, in humans, there are times. No, in animals. Before there's an RCT or not.

It does happen sometimes, yes. Yes. They're intelligently, because they're intelligently designed drugs that were designed to do a specific thing, and they do the specific thing, and then they work. Mm-hmm. Yep. This is not that.

And you think your statement, your singular statement of placebo outweighs, Again, we don't know, but I'm saying on the facts we have today, there is more to support the fact that this is more likely than not placebo than the alternative. I would bet anything. I would bet anything. No trial of BPC would work. Okay. I guess we'll see.

What else? So, Max, are you, is superpower facilitating people getting BPC 157 today? No, we won't sell anything that is not legal to compound. but I believe the FDA will make it legal to compound soon. And then you'll be... And I believe the FDA should make it legal to compound because the genies out of the bottle. People have seen their lives change and they're getting it anyway.

What else are you excited about? Because when people say peptides with an ass, so B.B. 157. The most now for one is fascinating. It proved in 35 countries. I take and I never get sick. I used to get sick four or five times a year. I had the most elaborate immune stacks.

None of those elaborate immune stacks, the hundred things placeboed me. Thymosin alpha one, everyone around me had COVID a few months back, and I didn't get it. A bunch of people around me had influenza. I didn't get it. Every time I get a sore throat,

I take BBC157, about thymusinapal one, and the sore throat disappears. Now, this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries, right? Has some human data. Now, a farmer in the US hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something

that exists, for several years. So I think thy most now for one is a really interesting one as well. Okay, Martin, your reaction. Yeah. Well, drug companies can and do patent things that that have existed before. I agree with that. I did not say that. I said thy most now for one, in the form that is approved in other countries, they can not patent. Yeah, you don't even have to patent a drug, right? You can get seven years orphan exclusivity, five years of NCE exclusivity. There's a lot of ways to make money in pharma. And pharma, if you have to notice. I agree with that. I agree that they could find some red disease indication and use thymocinaphyloin against them and get a patent.

My statement is that they could not get a composition of matter patent for thymocin alpha one in the way that doctors and patients are using it today. Sure. I mean, you can change molecules too. I mean, there's a lot of ways. I know. Why would they do medicine? And so we're saying the machinery of the FDA requires, something works. We see it in 35 countries. The only way to get it patent is we've got to change the molecule and spend $300 million to $3 billion. What is that? What is that for a system? them. That's what regulatory capture by pharma to me. I wouldn't say that necessarily. I think that there are benefits to making drugs stronger. Like I said earlier, peptides are the weakest form of drug. They're not the... Except the best, but maybe the best drug of all times of peptide.

Yeah, but it's very, it's one of very few. I would say five percent of drugs by revenue. Today, today, right? Five years ago, we didn't even have GLP1. Ten years ago, we didn't. Yeah, Peptides were and probably always will be a backwater just because they're very weak. They have no pharmacological properties that are beneficial like a good half-life. And in fact, the naked peptide g-lps don't work either. They have to be heavily modified by pharmaceutical chemistry to get there. There's an FDSA AIA approved peptide with a very short half-life, Semorellon. But most now for one has a very short half-life.

You don't need a long half-life to have an effect. We know this. We know this. The FDA knows. 35% other countries know this. There are some drugs that can work with short half-life, but almost every drug guy will tell you that you want a long half-life so you don't have to keep taking the drug. There are some drugs. And that is fine.

And we have methods now with science to extend the half-life of these compounds. And that's part of where the research is going. This is called pharmaceuticals. That's correct. That's what the industry is. We have an FDA for it. We have all these rules for it. And I don't think we should change that.

I mean, these are the things that have made American pharmaceuticals, one of the greatest industries ever. To start to move away from evidence-based medicine is potentially very risky and scary thing. I think the riskier thing is they're being a gray market. Because the genus out of the bottle, and people are getting these regardless. I think it's far safer to get them through GMP-certified compounding pharmacies in the way that the FDA has oversight over. rather than the state we're in today, which is the gray market. And this isn't the debate between no peptide and legal.

It's a debate between gray market or white market. And I contend white market is net less harm, net higher benefit for the U.S. people. I think we should treat them like we treat controlled substances, right? I mean, there's a very specific set of laws that states what you're allowed to traffic on interstate commerce or not. And you need a BLA or an NDA or a 505B2 to traffic. a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And that changing that, I don't think is useful or helpful. No matter how many people on Reddit think that they want to play Dr. House today,

that's not something that they should be engaged in. So this is why I think they need to be legalized. Because I don't think what we have today is safe. I don't think people go in a gray market pharmacies and injecting anything into their body is safe. What I do think is far safer, a net lower harm and high benefit of the American people is these things being regulated in category one and produced in GMP certified facilities and prescribed by doctors. That is safer. So the net harm reducing case is making these category one illegal to be prescribed by doctors. Not all of them, but the ones where we have a sufficient safety signal and a sufficient

effectiveness signal. Well, yeah, there is an arbitrator for that already. It's called the FDA. I mean, why, you want a second, I guess, special, like special ed version of the FDA for drugs that didn't quite make it so clearly efficacious? What I'm saying is many of these things the FDA might not ever want to research, because the patent is hard, because they target wellness and prevention and human optimization rather than disease, and the FDA loves their cancer therapeutics. And my statement is if we have sufficient safety and efficacy signals, we reduce net harm by making them legal today.

We reduce net harm. and try saying to the person who used to be in biologics with autoimmune disease, you have to wait 20 years for something that might never be researched by big farmer, right? Try saying to my daddy was on painkillers for the past four months every single day, that you know what, this compound you took for three days that has been used for two decades. Go back to your painkillers. Try saying that to them. And maybe, maybe one day farmer, maybe in 10, 15 years of research this,

we don't even know. Say that to them. Martin, it sounds like there's a, There's a sort of a mischaracterization of your argument that I'll let you push back on, that you're arguing that the FDA has no problems, that the FDA is perfectly efficient. And that seems crazy. I feel like everyone's upset with every aspect of the government all the time. Are you saying that the FDA is anywhere near approving, anywhere near to the speed required to approve new drugs, new research,

as quickly as they could. I'd say they're pretty good. Really? You know, I hate almost every part of the U.S. government. But that's what I do like. And I advise the U.S. government. And I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our collective benefit.

Companies love making money. You think you prefer the gray market. No, I prefer no market. But we don't have a choice of no market. No, yes, we do. of the bottle. What does that mean? What does that mean? What does that mean? What that means? We can arrest the genie. We can give the genie. Cocaine in the 80s. Yeah. Doctors have prescribed these compounds and they're doing everything they possibly can to get their hands in them. And that can be very

risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals and millions of patients with thousands of doctors in 10 to 20 years. So Max is arguing that like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to show. Because if these are, if it's gray market, that means illegal. Like Martin is arguing that we can arrest the genie. But can we have a law? Can we actually arrest the genie? Because it seems like there's a lot of genies.

And you had a product behind you that I think might be not legal either. And that was probably available in a corner store. And I know that there are dozens of illegal flavored e-cigarettes and vaporizers that come over and they make their way into bodegas all over. the United States and like this just happens. And those are provably harmful. And they still, the provably harmful things do it.

I'm saying these things, doctors have their license on the line. I don't think doctors want to recommend peptides. I don't think doctors like recommending non-FDA-approved drugs. I've never met one that did. Well, I know thousands of doctors do. And I'm saying,

thousands of doctors, I spent my whole license in medicine. And what I'm saying is, I agree, so many doctors. And what I'm saying is, I agree, they shouldn't recommend things gray market. What I'm saying is let's legalize because it is net safer for the American people. Yes.

And Martin, you're saying that you can win, you're saying, you're saying that if we hang out in the gray market, you think it's actually possible to shut down gray market activity. Is that true? I think you can shut it down. And then I also think that we have a perfectly great system, which is the normal regulatory body we've had for 60 years. Yes. And creating, like I said, a new special ed version of it for drugs that. couldn't quite get on the school bus, you know, is not something that we should do because we have a rigorous way to determine if drugs work or not.

Let's get rid of all gray market. And my friend can go back on biologics. My dad, go back on painkillers. You should. All of the, a farmer can continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from these biologics. Let's do that. Sure. And you know what?

You get what I'm saying? Closing arguments. One more thing. So Martin, your stance is generally that. These drugs just haven't proven to be that good. They've been around for long enough that a bunch of smart pharma bros and sisters would have, like, you know, taken them through trials already if they really should. We take a lot of bad stuff through trials. You know, BPC isn't even, doesn't even come close to the muster of a farmer bro.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. And so it's weak. You're saying there's a placebo that you think is probably real. but then what is the risk, right? Because if somebody's saying like, okay, it's a weak drug, I maybe get a placebo effect, maybe it just helps,

but why should somebody avoid it entirely, regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version of the FDA? I just think we shouldn't normalize making drugs in your bathtub. I think that, you know, there's no evidence that any of these things are well made. I think we should leave Madison to the experts. that's something as a v is very reluctant to do many people want to feel in a world where maybe

they feel like they're losing control they want to control this thing or the world where we're losing confidence in government we want to take this into our own hands and it's just not the way to do things medicine has progressed dramatically thanks to the capitalist system and the biopharmaceutical system in league with the FDA which doesn't always get it right but is is quite good and you know thanks to that we have drugs for cystic fibrosis we have a cure for fiscic migrosis. We have drugs for SMA. We have these terrible diseases. And one last thing is that a lot of these people in SV, you're perfectly healthy. You know, you're talking about two sick people there a second ago. But most of the people I know on these peptides, they're taking a modafinil. They're taking drugs for diseases they don't have. And this is not, you know, a great use of people's time or great for their health. And in some, to some extent, the government does exist to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity. And then Max, you're planning to take BBC 157 through clinical trials. Are you planning to take any of these other peptides through?

Yeah. What is the, where does that ultimately, where does that ultimately go? Yeah. So we're working with a handful of different biotech companies that are taking these through clinical trials. We're in the early days of setting that up. And my statement is not anti-FDA or anti-the-machine or anti-the-machine rehab. I think it solves a lot of purposes.

I just think it doesn't solve all purposes. And my statement is not that the current system is always perfectly right. I think when new data comes along, when new science comes along, when there's a dangerous gray market, we need to accept that the times have changed and adapt the regulation. It has solves a lot of purposes. There are many parts of it that are accept. but it is not complete.

And I'm saying that we should do what the FDA has said they're doing, which is legalize several of the category two peptides that have the strongest safety and efficacy signals because that reduces net harm for patients and increases net benefit, even if Farmer doesn't necessarily like it because they're not making money from their $100,000 biologic drug anymore. Sure.

Martin, any closing statements? It's been great to be- Yeah, I just want to say, Farmer did try to develop it. BPC it failed. Yeah, yeah. Okay, we went through that. It's a good point.

Well, thank you so much for joining today. Thank you to you both. Everyone had a great time. Good job keeping it civil, boys. Yeah, very civil. Very civil. Very professional. I love to do this again.

Again, the next time a new peptide goes viral. We'd love to have you both on this show. Independently or together. Have a great rest of your day. Have a great week. And we will talk to you soon. Goodbye. Cheers.

Cheers. headlines and the timeline's best posts. Sign up for free at tbpn.com.