Make policy based on science, not on RFK’s lifestyle choices

Last month’s vote by a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel to ease peptide accessibility restrictions has sparked debate over the safety of this unproven class of therapeutics.

To be clear, the issue isn’t whether peptides could be useful tools to promote human health. The concern is that the integrity of the FDA advisory panel’s recommendation was undermined — it appeared to be both economically and politically driven. Public confidence in the FDA is achieved only when thorough and impartial scientific processes are followed.

Individuals with conflicts of interest were chosen to serve on the FDA panel. Was this done to help advance the personal convictions of the leading health official in the country — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? If so, the panel’s vote flouted science in favor of profits and politics.

Peptides are short chains of amino acids that act as biological receptors throughout the body. Some have revolutionized medicine. Insulin and GLP-1 therapies, for example, exemplify how peptide-based drugs have their medical benefits when developed for and supported by public health and scientific research.  

Today, researchers are exploring peptide advancements in tissue repair, among other applications. “Peptide-Based Therapies Show Promise in Chronic and Acute Wound Care,” notes a headline of a recent health article.

Promise, however, should not be mistaken for safety or efficacy. Injectable peptides marketed by wellness clinics and online vendors to build muscle, among many other claims, haven’t been subjected to rigorous........

© The Hill