Kazura_
Trying my best
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2025
- Posts
- 166
- Reputation
- 261
I was at work the other day talking to another wagie about supplements and peptides. I showed him a few product listings and he immediately pointed at the “not for human consumption” label and said something like:
“Why would you touch that? There’s no long-term human data. You could be poisoning yourself.”
Which is… fair.
Bro not tripping.
More I thought about it, the more I realised that argument kind of collapses once you understand how the system actually works. Because for most of these compounds, that long-term approval is not “coming later.” It’s probably never coming at all.
Not because they don’t work but because of the current state of the industry.
That’s when the pattern becomes obvious:
money + patents + regulation.
Example of Product Listing, since I can't attach an image
Getting a drug fully approved through the entire clinical and regulatory pipeline now costs on average, well over $1 billion and up to around $2.6 billion when you include risk of failure and capitalized costs, and takes a decade or more. That’s based on surveys of R&D spending across pharmaceutical companies and economic modelling of development costs.
Your skin does absorb chemicals to some extent, it’s the main route of exposure for cosmetic actives, and this absorption varies by formulation and barrier integrity. But there’s almost no large-scale, long-term study on decades of daily low-dose exposure to complex mixtures of cosmetic ingredients, precisely because there is little profit motive to fund that kind of research outside of specific regulatory requirements.
Patents and data exclusivity matter here too, pharmaceutical companies often secure years of monopoly rights on both the molecule and the clinical data required for approval, which helps them recoup those massive upfront costs.
“Why would you touch that? There’s no long-term human data. You could be poisoning yourself.”
Which is… fair.
Bro not tripping.
More I thought about it, the more I realised that argument kind of collapses once you understand how the system actually works. Because for most of these compounds, that long-term approval is not “coming later.” It’s probably never coming at all.
Not because they don’t work but because of the current state of the industry.
That’s when the pattern becomes obvious:
money + patents + regulation.
Example of Product Listing, since I can't attach an image
Getting a drug fully approved through the entire clinical and regulatory pipeline now costs on average, well over $1 billion and up to around $2.6 billion when you include risk of failure and capitalized costs, and takes a decade or more. That’s based on surveys of R&D spending across pharmaceutical companies and economic modelling of development costs.
If you can’t patent the hell out of it and charge monopolistic prices for years, no one is going to fund the trials and regulation required to make it “official.” That explains why you see peptides like GHK-Cu (skin regeneration/collagen) and BPC-157 (repair/tissue healing) showing repeated positive signals in independent and early research, but never turn into FDA-approved products with long-term data. They’re biologically interesting. They just aren’t protected IP you can make monopolies on.
At the same time, cosmetics and wellness products do not go through the same approval pipeline as drugs. That means companies can push products with 20–40 ingredients mostly for formulation stability, shelf life, or marketing differentiation — not because each one is biologically necessary. The safety of these cosmetic ingredients is mostly assessed by industry and regulators based on dossiers companies submit, not through independent long-term trials.
At the same time, cosmetics and wellness products do not go through the same approval pipeline as drugs. That means companies can push products with 20–40 ingredients mostly for formulation stability, shelf life, or marketing differentiation — not because each one is biologically necessary. The safety of these cosmetic ingredients is mostly assessed by industry and regulators based on dossiers companies submit, not through independent long-term trials.
Your skin does absorb chemicals to some extent, it’s the main route of exposure for cosmetic actives, and this absorption varies by formulation and barrier integrity. But there’s almost no large-scale, long-term study on decades of daily low-dose exposure to complex mixtures of cosmetic ingredients, precisely because there is little profit motive to fund that kind of research outside of specific regulatory requirements.
Patents and data exclusivity matter here too, pharmaceutical companies often secure years of monopoly rights on both the molecule and the clinical data required for approval, which helps them recoup those massive upfront costs.
If a compound is cheap, biologically powerful, and hard to patent, it is structurally unlikely to ever become mainstream medicine.
Not because it doesn’t work.
Because it can’t survive the economic and regulatory system required for approval.
That same system rewards complex, marketable products over simple biology, and rarely funds the kind of long-term research that would actually answer the safety questions people care about. (This is why the products you see in the shops usually advertise multiple actives, for example, the ordinary products will be Niacinimide + Zinc, Retinal + Squalene when we know just using Tret would mog both )
So the real divide is not “official vs dangerous.”
It’s system-compatible vs system-excluded.
If you care about performance, you don’t get the luxury of waiting for perfect data inside a structure that economically prevents that data from ever existing.
Stop Coping and waiting for a safer or better version of something you needed yesterday
Water post for the majority of people but was rotting in my room and I like the format the BotB posts have so I decided to practice it a bit then clean it with AI also because this also applies to surgery etc , I have been avoiding HgH and lip surgery because of the risks, hoping something better will come out or convincing myself the time isn't right but then I wake up realise I don't have a single non ugly picture of myself for a reason..take the risk , anything is better than this..
Not because it doesn’t work.
Because it can’t survive the economic and regulatory system required for approval.
That same system rewards complex, marketable products over simple biology, and rarely funds the kind of long-term research that would actually answer the safety questions people care about. (This is why the products you see in the shops usually advertise multiple actives, for example, the ordinary products will be Niacinimide + Zinc, Retinal + Squalene when we know just using Tret would mog both )
So the real divide is not “official vs dangerous.”
It’s system-compatible vs system-excluded.
If you care about performance, you don’t get the luxury of waiting for perfect data inside a structure that economically prevents that data from ever existing.
Stop Coping and waiting for a safer or better version of something you needed yesterday
Water post for the majority of people but was rotting in my room and I like the format the BotB posts have so I decided to practice it a bit then clean it with AI also because this also applies to surgery etc , I have been avoiding HgH and lip surgery because of the risks, hoping something better will come out or convincing myself the time isn't right but then I wake up realise I don't have a single non ugly picture of myself for a reason..
take the risk , anything is better than this..
