The Great Peptide Debate with Martin Shkreli & Max Marchione

Summary

---

TBPN: "The Great Peptide Debate"

Guests: Martin Shkreli ("Pharma Bro") & Max Marchione (Superpower)
Hosts: John Coogan & Jordi Hays
Date: March 23, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of TBPN centers on one of Silicon Valley’s buzziest health trends: peptides—bioactive molecules increasingly used for wellness, optimization, and chronic disease management. Host John Coogan, with co-host Jordi Hays, orchestrates a spirited, civil debate between two prominent voices: Martin Shkreli, infamous biotech entrepreneur and pharmaceutical industry insider, and Max Marchione, founder of the peptide-forward health startup Superpower. The central theme explores the legitimacy, safety, and regulation of peptides—with a particular focus on gray-market access versus formal clinical oversight, the role of the FDA, and the clash between pharmaceutical orthodoxy and biohacker enthusiasm.

---

Introduction & Core Theses

[00:00–02:28]

• Martin Shkreli ("Pharma Bro") introduces himself as a drug industry insider, expressing skepticism and concern about the “peptide craze,” framing it as driven by “psychological issues” (00:43), distrust of institutions, and a lack of scientific rigor.

  • Notable Quote:
    “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.” — Martin Shkreli [01:16]

• Max Marchione positions himself as a former skeptic-turned-believer. He highlights the failures of the current health system in prevention and optimization, the value of “hundreds of clinical vignettes,” but acknowledges more research is needed.

  • Notable Quote:
    “Now that injecting is normal, now that wellness and optimization are normal—not just treating disease—and now that we have AI…I think peptides are exciting.” — Max Marchione [01:58]

---

Framing the Debate: What Are Peptides?

[02:28–04:00]

• John tries to clarify the conversation: “Peptides” encompasses a spectrum—from regulated therapies like Ozempic to unregulated ‘stacks’ used by fitness enthusiasts.

• Martin argues that peptides, as a drug class, are “the worst of both worlds” (small molecules vs. antibodies), traditionally avoided in pharma due to weaknesses (03:13). He calls their popularization “humorous to anybody who actually understands pharma.”

  • Notable Quote:
    “Peptides are sort of the worst of both worlds. So the idea that we’ve taken this kind of last place drug class and then turned that into the standard bearer for do-it-yourself medicine is kind of humorous to anybody who actually understands pharma.” — Martin Shkreli [03:25]

• Max pushes back, highlighting GLP1 receptor agonists (like Ozempic) as transformative peptide drugs. He argues naturally occurring peptides can be impactful but are hard to patent, contrasting them with human-designed small molecules (04:00–05:08).

---

Safety, Legality, and the Role of the Gray Market

[05:45–08:04]

• Discussion zeroes in on non-FDA-approved peptides sourced online (e.g., “Chinese peptides” or “Reddit peptides”).

• Martin: Frames this as piracy and intellectual property theft, posing a risk to innovation and patient safety. He compares the scenario to pirating music—a practice with devastating ecosystem effects. He condemns off-label or pre-approval use, arguing for IP and patient safety.

  • Notable Quote:
    “Why do you have a right to pirate somebody’s intellectual property?...You want to steal it, you want to work with the Chinese company stealing it, I mean, that’s not good for America...If you keep stealing them and pirating them...you'd stop having drugs. The same way pirating music would have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem.”—Martin Shkreli [06:07]

• Max: Agrees with avoiding outright patent violations and “dodgy supply chains,” but notes that much of the user base for peptides is not just coastal tech elites but across the US. He proposes that “legalizing” certain compounds could minimize harm compared to gray markets, especially via compounding pharmacies (08:04–09:10).

---

The BPC-157 Controversy: Anecdote vs. Evidence

[09:19–16:17]

• Core Disagreement: Should clinics and physicians offer peptides like BPC-157, which have large anecdotal followings but little RCT (randomized controlled trial) evidence?

  • Max: Argues for real-world evidence: “Thousands of doctors prescribe this…millions have taken this… their lives change.” He positions anecdote and clinical vignettes as signals that should not be ignored, especially for compounds like BPC-157 (09:19–11:58).
    • Memorable Moment: Max shares emotional personal stories about improvements in his father's and co-founder’s health, attributing it to BPC-157 (15:05–15:58).
  • Martin: Calls BPC-157 “the biggest scam I’ve ever seen,” noting the drug was developed and tested in Croatia, never got positive results in clinical trials, and all published research comes from one laboratory (12:43–13:45). He asserts any benefit is pure placebo and challenges Max to fund RCTs to prove efficacy ("Put your money where your mouth is" [16:03]).
    • Notable Quote:
      “BPC-157 is the biggest scam I’ve ever seen. It does absolutely nothing…There’s no plausible physiological basis for it to work. … 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.” — Martin Shkreli [12:43–13:45]

• Max: Says Superpower is in the process of setting up a clinical trial (“We will put our money where our mouth is” [16:16–16:37]).

• Martin: Skeptical about results—“I would bet anything, no trial of BPC would work” (19:04).

---

Broader Debate on Regulation: FDA, Patents, and Market Safety

[17:22–24:33]

• Hosts ask about the feasibility of Silicon Valley–backed clinical trials.

  • Martin: Many private biotechs exist, but most wouldn't pursue BPC-157 due to lack of substantive evidence. [17:51–18:12]

• Max: Argues that not all progress comes from RCTs—sometimes clinical observation (“signals”) should merit regulatory flexibility. He wants several Category 2 peptides given compounding rights when there are strong signals of safety and efficacy, reducing net harm compared to unregulated markets (19:20–24:33).

  • Notable Quote:
    “This isn’t a debate between no peptide and legal—it’s a debate between gray market or white market. … White market is net less harm, net higher benefit for the US people.” — Max Marchione [23:05–23:15]

• Martin: Insists regulatory rigor protects the public, “the government exists to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity” (29:54–31:05). He frames SV enthusiasm as “wanting to play Dr. House today.”

  • Notable Quote:
    “We shouldn’t normalize making drugs in your bathtub. … 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.” — Martin Shkreli [29:54–31:05]

• Debate on Thymosin Alpha 1:

  • Max: Calls attention to peptides like Thymosin Alpha 1 (approved in 35 countries) but rarely pursued in US pharma due to patent difficulties and economics (19:43–21:05).
  • Martin: Reiterates pharma can monetize even hard-to-patent compounds, via orphan exclusivity or molecular modification (20:27–21:01).

---

Is the FDA Efficient? Should We Change Regulation?

[25:38–28:33]

• John: Pushes Martin on whether the FDA is perfect, reflecting broader public skepticism of regulatory bottlenecks.
• Martin: Defends the FDA as “pretty good…one [part of government] I do like” ([26:13]), insists their framework works for the public good.
• Max: Asserts the genie can’t be put back in the bottle (27:02). Believes regulation should adapt to widespread gray-market use for harm reduction, rather than total prohibition.

---

Final Arguments & Risks

[28:45–32:30]

• Hosts: Ask: what are the actual risks, if peptides are so weak or ineffective?
  • Martin: Argues against normalizing DIY drug manufacturing, warns against misplaced individualism and the risk of self-experimentation. Emphasizes the achievements of regulated pharma; notes most users are healthy people seeking optimization rather than those with real illness (29:54–31:05).
• Max: Clarifies he’s not anti–FDA, but believes the system isn’t complete—calls for regulatory adaptation in light of new data, science, and dangerous gray markets (31:17–32:26).

---

Closing Statements

[32:26–32:44]

• Martin: “Pharma did try to develop BPC and failed” (32:30).
• Max: Superpower and partners are taking a handful of peptides through clinical trials and support FDA efforts to legalize those with strongest safety/efficacy signals (31:17, 32:26).

---

Notable/Memorable Moments

• Martin’s withering skepticism about peptides as a drug class:
  “To start to move away from evidence-based medicine is a potentially very risky and scary thing.” [22:43]
• Max’s anecdotal defense and personal stories about the positive effects attributed to peptides like BPC-157:
  “My dad took BPC 157 for three days and he said to me, Max, this is the first time in four months I haven’t taken a painkiller.” [15:23]
• Sharp exchange on efficacy:
  • Martin: “I would bet anything, no trial of BPC would work.” [19:04]
  • Max: “Okay, I guess we’ll see.” [19:08]
• Consensus: Both agree that patent pirating is bad, but part on the future regulatory path and interpretation of “evidence.”

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–02:28: Guest intros and core theses
• 03:13–04:00: Defining peptides and pharma skepticism
• 05:45–08:04: Gray market sales, patent piracy, supply chain risk
• 09:19–16:17: BPC-157 debate (efficacy, anecdote v. evidence, upcoming trials)
• 19:43–21:05: Thymosin Alpha 1 and non-FDA US markets
• 22:43–24:33: FDA role; the “white market” harm reduction case
• 25:38–28:33: Can gray markets be shut down? Is the FDA efficient?
• 29:54–31:05: Final warnings, personal liberty vs. regulatory protection
• 31:17–32:26: Superpower’s trial plans and regulatory philosophy
• 32:26–32:44: Final wrap-up and closing statements

---

Takeaway

The episode provides a nuanced, high-level exploration of the elephant in the innovation-health room: Can a system built for safety and rigor keep pace with the demands and risks of a world increasingly eager to self-experiment, especially with compounds like peptides that straddle the line between miracle and placebo? Shkreli remains the relentless traditionalist, while Marchione is pragmatic about the inevitabilities of consumer demand and real-world use—both agree, however, that medical innovation should be more than just hype, regardless of the source.

---

Transcript

[A]

The peptide debate. Welcome to the stream guys.

[B]

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

[A]

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, please? Oh, Max.

[B]

Okay, sure.

[A]

Let's start with Martin.

[B]

Yeah, so I'm the farmer bro. I represent the interests and the pharmaceutical industry, I guess viewpoint of the pharmaceutical industry, including but not limited to Pfizer, merck, Eli Lilly, etc. I'm sure those guys love that you're

[C]

the face of pharma whether they like it or not.

[B]

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. 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 doing, what we're seeing today.

[A]

Great. And Max.

[D]

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.

[A]

Martin, I'll let you just respond.

[D]

Yes,

[A]

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 here. So let's maybe narrow it down a little bit to probably off label use. I don't know exactly 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.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, isn't, 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 there's a specific meaning. Like peptide has this very specific meaning. And they're not new, they're, 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.

[D]

Except that the last drug class has the potentially most impactful drug of all time or set of drugs of all time, the GLP1 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 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, 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, the things that humans design to block biology to typically block something that is happening in the body. I'm not saying small molecules are bad, but they're the two different modalities we're talking about here. And we've seen one category of peptides, GLP1 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.

[B]

Martin Lies.

[C]

But, 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 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.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think that's right.

[A]

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?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? You know, this, this is, 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 these, where do these drugs come from? They come from American R and D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this like weird twilight, like 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 have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent. And then taking a Reddit shrew 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 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. What is your upside to taking illegally manufactured registry tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, 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 retatrue type case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that 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 of humans.

[D]

I think we agree on this. So I think the things we agree on are that the existing FDA approved GLP1 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, not, not. 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 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 two to category one, right. To legalize them. Because the risky thing is the dodgy supply chain we have today. The risky thing?

[C]

Well, isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial, you know, human trials when we don't.

[D]

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 BPC157, 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 BBC 157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this. They do and have prescribed this for 10 years.

[B]

You can't prescribe this drug.

[D]

They give it to their patients. Right? You can prescribe, you can do some advantage, give it to their patients.

[B]

It's not a drug.

[D]

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.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

That clinical experience, again, is not an rct. But we cannot ignore it.

[B]

Yes, you can. Yes, you can.

[A]

Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. It sounds like there's some sort of fundamental disagreement here about, like, the way BPC157 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.

[C]

We can agree that it's being given to them.

[A]

I think. I think they're getting it. But what's actually. What's actually happening?

[C]

It's being. How is this happening out in the back alley? Is that what's happening in the back alley?

[A]

It doesn't seem like that. It seems like. It seems like there are doctors that

[D]

do have the best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, 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.

[A]

Sure.

[D]

Right. And when he said that to me, I was like, no way. This is. This is. I'm not injecting myself with something that was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors whose should have 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 for you. 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 that 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.

[A]

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 what doctors are doing, how BPC157 is being delivered, that type of thing.

[B]

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 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. BPC157 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?

[A]

Do you guys know, Please tell us

[B]

this guy in Croatia made it. Si.

[D]

My.

[B]

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 15amino 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 do you

[A]

think it's placebo effective?

[B]

Thing is, do you think it's placebo effect?

[A]

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

[B]

just while you, while you are recovering, you think that the drug is helping you? Of course it is. And it's the recovery process you're going through. And there's a, 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 have a right here that if I take might also aid my recovery.

[A]

No, no, no, no.

[B]

Get that out of this. Should I try this? Should I tell you that it works? An N of one. Oh my God, I did so great with this n of 1. You know, it, it healed my recovery. Like this is nonsense. This is not science. Science is controlled experiments that are well done, very, very carefully documented and so forth. Why are we going backwards? Why do we go forwards in civilization and society? What is this urgent by the valley? And I blame the valley to go

[D]

back 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 rct.

[C]

But I thought you. I thought you said there was studies done on BBC 157.

[D]

No, there aren't human. There are no human studies done.

[B]

There was one done by Pleaver and it failed.

[D]

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 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 four months and can't walk upstairs because his back is 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. Right. My co founder, he lost three organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him in biologics, he took BPC157, he's off biologics and he doesn't have an autoimmune disease anymore.

[B]

Again, we need.

[D]

We will put our money and fund the studies.

[B]

Put your money where your mouth is. Exactly.

[D]

We can't ignore the real world evidence again.

[B]

Well, you are ignoring it if you're not putting your money where your mouth is. If you believe that's true. No, no, no. We are do a clinical trial.

[D]

We are.

[B]

Tell me about it.

[D]

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 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, and I'll put my money where my mouth is.

[B]

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 this drug, which you did in an event, you know, you see, you've heard anecdotal evidence about. Why?

[D]

Because I have seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients over one to two decades go say to my friend, go back on biologics, go back to hospital, lose another organ, 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 to.

[B]

You should see what this Galaxy Gas does for me. It's amazing.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

It's really good.

[C]

What's your question? Is your question, Martin, more that like. Okay, you.

[B]

No pharma guy in their right mind would do this.

[A]

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?

[B]

Well, you can. I mean, plenty of private. Plenty of private companies do this. There's hundreds, if not. Actually, I would say there's thousands of private biotechs. Generally, they would pass on something like this.

[C]

Well, yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So why so, so there's this body of. Body of anecdotal evidence.

[B]

Yeah. Unpublished. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[C]

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

[D]

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

[B]

Yes.

[D]

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. Do you guys.

[B]

In animals.

[D]

No, in humans. There are times in animals when before there's an rct, it does happen sometimes. Yes, yes.

[B]

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. This is not that.

[D]

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 other.

[B]

I would bet anything. I would bet anything. No trial of BPC would work.

[D]

Okay, I guess we'll see.

[C]

What else? So Max is superpower facilitating people getting BPC 157 today?

[D]

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 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.

[C]

What else are. What else are you excited about? Because when people say. When people. People say peptides with an S. So people are both one.

[D]

But Thymos now for one is fascinating. Approved 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. 100 things. Placebo, me, thymos now for 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 BBC 157 thymos now for one and the sore throat disappears. Now this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries. Right. Has. Has some. Some human. Human. Now pharma in the US hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something that has existed for several years. So I think Thymosina Alpha 1 is a really interesting one as well.

[A]

Okay, Martin, your reaction?

[B]

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

[D]

I did not say that. I said Thymosin Alpha 1 in the form that is approved in other countries. They cannot patent.

[B]

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 haven't noticed.

[D]

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.

[B]

Sure, I Mean, you can change molecules too. I mean, there's a lot of ways.

[D]

I know. Why would they do medicine? So we're saying the machinery of the FDA requires something works. We see it in 35 countries. The only way to get it patented is we have 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.

[B]

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.

[D]

They're not the best, but maybe the best drug of all times. A peptide.

[B]

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

[D]

Today. Right. Five years ago even have GLP1. Ten years ago we didn't.

[B]

Peptides were, were and probably always will be a backwater just because they're, they're very weak. They have no pharmacological properties that are beneficial. Like, like a good half life. And in fact, the naked peptide GLP is don't work either. They have to be heavily modified by pharmaceutical chemistry.

[D]

We know this is not. There's an FDA approved peptide with a very short half life. Semirelin, Thymosin Alpha 1 has a very short half life.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Half life to have an effect. We know this. We know this. The FDA knows 35%. Other countries know this.

[B]

There are some drugs 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.

[D]

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.

[B]

This is called pharmaceuticals.

[C]

Correct?

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

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.

[D]

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. And 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.

[B]

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 505 to traffic a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And 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.

[D]

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, a net lower harm and high benefit 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.

[B]

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.

[D]

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 Pharma, right? Try saying to my dad, who's 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 pharma, maybe in 10, 15 years of research, this we don't even know. So say that to them.

[A]

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. 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?

[B]

I'd say they're pretty good. Really. You know, I hate almost every part of the US government, but that's that, that's, 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.

[D]

You prefer the gray market? You think the gray market.

[B]

I prefer no markets.

[D]

Of no market. No genie is out of the bottle.

[B]

What does that mean?

[D]

Is out of the bottle?

[B]

What does that mean? What that means we can arrest the genie. We can give the genie

[C]

cocaine.

[D]

In the 80s 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 10 to 20 years.

[A]

Yeah. So Max is arguing that like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to. Because 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 make their way into bodegas all over the United States and like this just happens provably

[D]

harmful and they still provably harmful things to it. I'm saying these things. Doctors have their license on the line. I don't think they still recommend.

[B]

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.

[D]

I know thousands of doctors who do. And I'm saying thousands of doctors. I don't know thousands of doctors.

[B]

I spent my whole life, thousands is

[C]

such a big number.

[A]

So many doctors.

[D]

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.

[A]

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?

[B]

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.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

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.

[D]

Let's put those into 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.

[B]

You should.

[D]

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 gonna shut them. You get what I'm saying?

[A]

Closing.

[C]

One more thing. So. So, Mark 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.

[B]

If they take a lot of bad stuff through trials. You know, BPC isn't even. Doesn't even come close to the muster of a pharma bro.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

Okay.

[C]

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 these. Avoid it entirely, regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version?

[B]

I just think we shouldn't normalize making drugs in your bathtub. I think that, you know, there's. 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 as 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 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, a 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.

[C]

And then, Max, you're planning to take BBC157 through clinical trials. Are you planning to take any of these other peptides through?

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Where does that ultimately go?

[D]

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. 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 solves 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.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Martin, any closing statements? It's been great.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

I just want to say pharma did try to develop BPC and failed.

[A]

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.

[C]

Good job keeping it civil, boys.

[A]

Yeah, very civil.

[C]

Very civil, very professional.

[A]

I'll do this again next time a new peptide goes viral. We'd love to have you both on the show independently or together. Have a great rest of your day. Have a great week and we will talk to you soon. Goodbye.

[C]

Cheers.

[A]

TBPN's daily newsletter has op eds that are written by Jordy and I in addition to top tech headlines and the timeline's best posts. Sign up for [e-mail].