I often hear people say that peptides or similar compounds shouldn't be used because we lack large human trials or long-term studies. That argument is usually rooted in some sort of biased sense of risk tolerance. Most people do things every day that are proven to be harmful :drinking alcohol, eating junk food, sleeping poorly, yet those risks seem acceptable simply because they are familiar. When something less common enters the picture like a peptide that the body already produces on its own, it suddenly seems far more dangerous than it might actually be.
The way I see it, the responsibility doesn't all fall on people using these compounds to prove they're safe. In the limited research that's out there, many of these substances seem to be well tolerated, and their mechanisms of action are often targeted and specific. Once that groundwork is shown, the burden shifts to the critics who insist these compounds are inherently unsafe without offering evidence. Before anyone panics about the lack of long-term studies, it's worth comparing that concern to all the everyday habits that are already known to be harmful.
The way I see it, the responsibility doesn't all fall on people using these compounds to prove they're safe. In the limited research that's out there, many of these substances seem to be well tolerated, and their mechanisms of action are often targeted and specific. Once that groundwork is shown, the burden shifts to the critics who insist these compounds are inherently unsafe without offering evidence. Before anyone panics about the lack of long-term studies, it's worth comparing that concern to all the everyday habits that are already known to be harmful.
