The Great Peptide Debate with Martin Shkreli & Max Marchione

The peptide debate. Welcome to the stream, guys.

How are you guys doing? Hey, how's it going, guys?

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 don't you go first? Max, please. Oh, Max.

Okay, sure.

Let's start with Martin.

Yeah, so I'm the pharma bro. I represent the interests and the, 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.

And 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. I've 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 what we're seeing today.

Great. And Max?

Hi, I'm Max, former peptide skeptic turned peptide believer. I run a health care 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 changed. 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 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.

Yes, you're ready.

Yeah, but it would be useful to at least define the, 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 here. 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 that 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? You know, isn't this like somebody saying, you know, I'm using, you know, GPT instead of using AI or something like that? Like, sure, 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, the last drug class has the potentially most impactful drug of all time or set of drugs of all time, the GLP-1 receptor agonists. So I'm not saying we only have peptides in the toolkit. I'm saying the genie's 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 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 a naturally occurring thing. You can, but it's a little bit harder. Small molecules, on 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 are 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, has already changed the world. And my contention 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?

Father's lunch.

But I think like why we're having this conversation is because people are just 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 profiting off of it when it seems to be a large number of risks that are still unknown. At least that's 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 a Chinese company stealing it? I mean, that's not good for America. That's not good for the drug industry. And guess where these Where do these drugs come from? They come from American R&D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this like 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'd 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 retatrutide, which is just sort of a GLP+, if you will, instead of just waiting for it to be FDA approved or like using Ozempic. 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, to taking illegally manufactured retatrutide from some other place and you can't verify it, etc., versus just taking Ozempic? 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 Retrutype 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 retatrutide 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 infringe 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. If you speak— 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 SF tech bros, despite the tech bros 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 2, meaning they cannot be compounded, back to Category 1, 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 2 to Category 1. Right. To legalize them. Because the risky thing is the dodgy supply chain we have today. The risky thing—

well, isn't that— isn't the risk— isn't, isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial human trials when we don't know?

I don't think so. So I think, 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, let's go right to the meat of things. Let's take something like BPC-157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this. They do and have prescribed this for 10 years.

You can't prescribe this drug.

They give it to their patients, right? You can prescribe, you can do semantics, give it to their patients.

It's 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.

Yeah.

That clinical experience again is not an RCT, but we cannot ignore it.

Yes, you can. Yes, you can.

Okay. 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, I think they're getting it.

They're getting it.

But what's actually, what's actually happening here? How is this happening?

Out in the back alley?

Is that what's happening?

Meet in the back alley?

It doesn't seem like that. It seems like, it seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to—

The best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, uh, one of the most esteemed doctors in the US said to me, Max, you take so many supplements, have you explored peptides? Because I think they're a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use.

Sure.

Right. And I, when he said that to me, I was like, no way, this is, 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 whose opinions—

trusted your gut—

whose opinions I respect. And I asked them about peptides. And normally when you ask these doctors about anything, you ask them about red meat, you ask them about spinach, they're all divided. They're all like one view, another view, punches. With peptides, just about all of them except one said these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe the endogenous 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, 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 BPC-157 is being delivered, that type of thing.

So I'm a drug hunter, right? People like me, Vivek Ramaswamy, 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 healthcare 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 is no redeemable value to this. Do you know the story about it? Do you guys know?

No. Please tell us.

This guy in Croatia made it. Sijic, my, my hinterland brother. And You know, the only publications about this drug are by him. Nobody else has published about this drug. It's not a drug. In fact, nobody has even confirmed that it's a peptide from the gastric juice, as he claimed. Nobody can find a sequence that matches that. And the gastric juice of human beings has been thoroughly profiled. It's a 15-mer 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. Pleeva was a local drug company in the Balkans, very well respected, might I add. Pleeva 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 about 2 thing is—

Do you think it's placebo effect? Because yeah, I talked to people that say it's good for recovery and I can imagine If you're sticking yourself with something, you might feel like, ah, 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 buying fake Chinese stuff and then injecting yourself and dreaming that you're doing well. Right here that if I take might also aid my recovery.

No, no, no, no. Get that out of the system.

Should I try this? Should I tell you that it worked for me?

What do you mean?

It's an N of 1? Oh my God, I did so great with this N of 1. 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 back and forth in time and space.

I hear your view, and I think other people 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 RCT.

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.

Okay. One study. There are dozens of studies of drugs that become commercialized that previously failed. Anyway, my, my view is we don't know whether it's placebo or not yet. That, that is true. And some people will 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 on 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 4 months and can't walk upstairs because his back is bad. He took BPC-157 for 3 days and he said to me, Max, this is the first time in 4 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 on a painkiller. Yeah, right. My co-founder, he lost 3 organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him on biologics. He took BPC-157. He's off biologics and he doesn't have an autoimmune disease anymore.

Again, we need to study. We will put our money where our mouth is 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 opposite view 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've seen— you've heard anecdotal evidence about why.

Because I have seen thousands of doctors Millions of patients over 1 to 2 decades. Right. Go say to my friend, 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.

It's really good.

But what's your question?

Is your question, Martin, more that like No pharma 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?

I mean, plenty of private, plenty of private companies do this.

Okay.

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.

Yeah. Unpublished.

Yeah.

Yeah. So, so certainly a drug, certainly a drug hunter would have looked at this already, right?

Martin, as you're saying, the only admissible evidence is an RCT.

Yes.

And what about all of the examples of when something works before anything works with an RCT? There's a time when it works pre-RCT.

Yes, in animals.

No, in humans. There are times in animals when before there's an RCT.

Yes, it does happen sometimes. Yes.

Yes.

Look, 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 the— again, we don't know, but I'm saying on the facts we have today, there is more to support the fact 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, 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 can sell it. And I believe the FDA should make it legal to compound because the genie's out of the bottle. People have seen their lives change and they're getting it anyway.

What else? What else are— what else are you excited about? Because when people say— when people say peptides with an S, so BPC-157.

Thymosin Alpha-1 is fascinating. Approved in 35 countries. I take it and I never get sick. I used to get sick 4 or 5 times a year. I had the most elaborate immune stacks. None of those elaborate immune stacks, 100 things, placeboed me. Thymosin Alpha-1, 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 thymosin Alpha-1 and the sore throat disappears. Now, this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries, right? Has, has some, some human, human data. Now, pharma in the US hasn't, hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something that existed for several years. So I think thymosin alpha-1 is a really interesting one as well.

Okay, Martin, your reaction?

Yeah, well, drug companies can and do patent things that have existed before. I agree with that.

I did not say that. I said thymosin alpha-1 in the form that is approved in other countries, they cannot patent.

Yeah. You don't even have to patent a drug, right? You can get 7 years orphan exclusivity, 5 years of NCE exclusivity. There's a lot of ways to make money in pharma and pharma.

If you haven't noticed, I agree with that. I agree that they could find some rare disease indication and use thymosin alpha-1 against them, get a patent. My statement is that they could not get a composition of matter patent for thymosin alpha-1 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 in 35 countries the only way to get a patent is to change the molecule. And spend $300 million to $3 billion. What is that like? What is that for a system? I mean, 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, drugs— peptides are the weakest form of drug.

They're not the best, but maybe the best drug of all time is a peptide.

Yeah, but it's very— it's one of very few. I would say 5% of drugs by revenue today.

Today, right. 5 years ago, we didn't even have GLP-1. 10 years ago, we didn't have GLP-1.

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 GLPs don't work either. They have to be heavily modified by pharmaceutical chemistry.

We know this is not true. There's an FDA-approved peptide with a very short half-life, Semirelin. Thymosin alpha-1 has a very short half-life. Yeah, no, no, no. Drugs that have an effect. We know this. We know this. The FDA knows. 35 countries know this.

There are some drugs that, that can work with short half-life, but almost every drug guy will tell you that you want to have a long half-life so you don't have to keep taking the drug. There are some drugs, correct?

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.

Yes, that's correct. Correct.

Yeah, 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 a, you know, potentially very risky and scary thing.

I think the riskier thing is there being a gray market because the genie's 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 a 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 US people.

I think we should treat them like we treat controlled substances, right? I mean, why— that there is 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 505(b)(2) to traffic a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And then that, 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, you know, 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 going to gray market pharmacies and injecting anything into their body is safe. What I do think is far safer and net lower harm and higher benefit for the American people is these things being regulated in Category 1 and produced in GMP-certified facilities and prescribed by doctors. That is safer. So the net harm-reducing case is making these Category 1 and legal 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 would 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 on biologics with an autoimmune disease, you have to wait 20 years for something that might never be researched by, by, by big pharma.

Right.

Try saying to my dad who was on painkillers for the past 4 months, every single day, that, you know what, this compound you took for 3 days that has been used for 2 decades, go back to your painkillers. Try saying that to them. And maybe, maybe one day pharma, maybe in 10, 15 years of research, we don't even know. Say that to them.

Martin, it sounds like 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. Is it— 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 US government.

Okay.

But that's one I do like. And I advise the US government and I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our collective benefit. Companies love making money. It's capitalism.

You prefer the gray market? You know, the gray market.

I prefer no market.

You don't have the choice of no market. No, we do. The genie is out of the bottle.

What does that mean?

It's out of the bottle.

What does that mean?

What that means—

we can arrest the genie.

We can give the genie cocaine. Cocaine in the '80s.

Yeah.

Doctors have prescribed these compounds and they're doing everything they possibly can to get their hands on them. And that can be very risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals in millions of patients.

So, so Max is arguing that, like, A war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to— No, no, no, no, no, 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, Martin? 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 their way into bodegas all over the United States. And like, this just happens.

Proven harmful. And they still have proven harmful things to it. I'm saying these things, doctors have their license on the line. I don't think they do recommend—

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 who do. And I'm saying thousands of thousands of doctors.

I spent my thousands.

It's such a big number.

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 that is net safer for the American people.

Yes. And you're saying that you're saying that you can win. You're saying you're saying that, 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 put those in the gray market. Let's get rid of all gray market and my friend can go back on biologics. My dad can go back on painkillers.

You should.

All of the pharma can continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from these biologics. Let's do that. Sure. And you know what? We're not going to shut down. You get what I'm saying?

Closing arguments. One more thing. So, 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—

We take a lot of bad stuff through trials.

Yeah.

You know, BPC isn't even doesn't even come close to the muster of a Pharma Bro.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. And so, so it's, it's, it's weak. You're saying there's a placebo that you think is probably real, but then what is that? What is the risk? Right. Because if somebody is saying like, okay, it's a weak drug, I maybe get a placebo effect, maybe, maybe, maybe it just helps. But why should somebody avoid these? Avoid it entirely regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version of—

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 medicine to the experts. I think that's something SV 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 quite good. And, you know, thanks to that, we have drugs for cystic fibrosis. We have a cure for cystic fibrosis. 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, the great use of people's time or great for their health. And in some, 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. So 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 machinery we have. 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 served a lot of purposes. There are many parts of it that are exceptional, 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 2 peptides that have the strongest safety and efficacy signals, because that reduces net harm for patients and increases net benefit, even if pharma 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.

Yeah, I just want to say pharma did try to develop BPC and 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 professional.

Again, again, the next time a new peptide goes viral, we'd love to have you both on the show independently or together. Uh, have a great rest of your day, have a great week, and we will talk to you soon.

Goodbye.

Cheers. TBN's daily newsletter has op-eds that are written by Jordi and I in addition to top tech headlines and the timeline's best posts. Sign up for free at tbpn.com.