Asymchem Limited

Bell, connection is everything.

Welcome to the Peptide Podcast.

If you've been hearing more and more about peptide stacks, you've probably come across two names, Glo and Clo.

And one of the questions I get all the time is, which one is better? But I actually don't think that better is necessarily the right question.

I think it's better to think about what are you trying to accomplish and which stack makes more sense for your particular goal.

And the reason is pretty simple, right? So Glow and Glow contain the same three peptides, BPC-157, TP-500, and GHKCU or copper peptide.

But Clo adds one additional peptide, the KPV.

And that one addition does change the emphasis of the stack.

A lot of money has gone in to develop interventions for Alzheimer's disease.

tens of billions of dollars with really nothing that works we discovered one such peptide that we call schmooze 20 of europeans have a mutation in schmooze that makes it less active and they have a 50 increase in the risk of alzheimer's

disease do you think there is ever a world where we replace some of these major lifestyle interventions with a peptide

so i'm a big believer

Hassi, I am so excited to have you here today for a whole host of reasons.

There is so much confusion, so much misinformation.

And I think despite everyone having an opinion on it, there's probably not that many people who are qualified to do so.

And so I think that a really good place to start would be why you are so qualified to do so you know i know you spent your career studying um these mitochondrial derived peptides specifically and then maybe give us like a really high level definition of what they are and i think we hear differing opinions here too a nice easy one to start

Jeremy, we could do an entire Medicine of the Truth on this topic, but I'll try today to provide a first level of understanding and provide some details about these substances.

Listeners should know that we are recording this program on Thursday, August the 20th, and circumstances could change between now and when it will post five days from now.

However, at this point, an advisory committee, with many of the members appointed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has weighed in and narrowly recommended allowing compounding pharmacies.

These are pharmacies that make and sell specialized medications, ones that doctors prescribe, allowing them to provide six experimental peptides to patients.

And then this will kind of come into how we synthesize this in the peptide.

Basically, 2002, there were two scientists, Yang and Goldspink, that reported the synthetic E-peptide made mouse myoblasts proliferate and delayed maturation apparently through a receptor other than IGF-1, which is typically what we would call the regular IGF-1 receptor.

And then in 2009, another scientist found that proliferative effects not only blocked by an IGF-1 receptor antibody, and then they mapped isoform expression in humans after damaging exercise.

Then in 2010, there was another group of scientists that found that nobody had ever isolated the 24 amino acid peptide from any biological fluid, and then everything comes from the synthetic version to cells or animals.

And then in 2012, there were other scientists that found the E-peptide's activity was dependent on the IGF-1 receptor after all, acting as an amplifier of IGF-1 signaling rather than an independent signal.

And so when we look at this, I think this is going to be the key phrase or key theme throughout the class today is that MGF, even though it's this variant of IGF-1, what it actually is most likely doing that we can best estimate is enhancing sensitivity to the systemic IGF.

And when we look at that, what that means is that we are enhancing the response to IGF, not increasing IGF, which are two very different things.

There was a study that looked at strong neuroprotection in a gerbil brain ischemia model independent of the IGF-1 receptor.

A biologic cannot be compounded.

To put a number on why anyone is bothering, Monjaro and Zetbound, the two drugs Ritutrutide is designed to succeed, brought Lily 36 and a half billion dollars in 2025 one year for one company so the classification decides three things at once how long lily owns the molecule how long before the government can touch the price and whether anybody else is allowed to make a version of it nobody in that case is arguing red a true tide is more dangerous as a drug than as a biologic it's the identical molecule either way the phase three data doesn't change the mechanism doesn't change what changes is who's allowed to sell it and for how long that is not a safety determination that is pure profitability and before anyone decides i'm on team compounder this runs both directions a compounding pharmacy has sued lilly and novo norsk for its federal court in texas alleging a coordinated effort to suppress competition and limit access to compounded glp wants everybody in this fight has a pnl and nobody in it is a practitioner which is why is it legal is close to a worthless question to ask about your own body and here is how fresh this whole battle is because it moved a week before i even recorded this on august 12th 2026 lily filed six federal lawsuits against companies it accuses of selling black market red a true tide Four of the six defendants are peptide storefronts by name.

The other two are a compounding pharmacy and a med spa.

The legal theory, which is the part you need to understand, is that Lilly is going after the phrase research use only.

The risk is real and the enforcement is commercially motivated.

You don't have to pick, but you can now understand the influence of what you are being told to believe now.

if you think i'm reading too much into one company's legal strategy let me show you the version of this we've already run all the way to the end it just took 50 years to reveal itself psilocybin the compound in what most people call magic mushrooms has no reliably established lethal dose or an ld50 in humans the animal data puts the toxic threshold so far above any dose anyone actually takes that a fatal overdose is essentially unheard of in the literature.

That does not make it harmless.

But here is my honest opinion.

Not everyone should be using peptides.

Peptides are not nutritional requirements.

They are not a badge of commitment to health.

They are not automatically the next step after protein powder and creatine.

They may be living with obesity, metabolic disease, an injury that is not healing, a specific hormonal disorder, loss of function, or another medical issue.

And in those cases, a peptide-based therapy may be worth discussing.

The important question is, Do I have a problem for which a peptide is a reasonable, evidence-supported, and responsibly monitored option? Welcome back to Peptides Explained.

Find Fresh Air on the NPR app or wherever you listen to podcasts.

If you have a favorite wellness podcaster or influencer, you've probably heard about peptides at this point.

These synthetic peptides are exploding in popularity.

The injectable compounds are a string of amino acids and promise effects like weight loss, better sleep, muscle growth, and more.

With promises like these, it may come as no surprise that there's been an explosion of interest and a market ready to provide.

The loosely regulated market is already valued at around $140 billion, and by 2033 is projected to reach over $290 billion.

That's according to consulting firm West Monroe.

Last month, an FDA advisory panel voted to make six peptides more accessible to the public.

We, of course, have to talk about The Ordinary's, um...

This is their Multi-Peptide Copper Peptides 1% Serum.

So this one is going to cost you $32 for 30 mils.

And finally, we are going to end on Peach & Lily.

Mm

...

Multi-Peptides + 1% Copper Peptide.

I think this just feels like the most famous.