A scientist who develops peptide drugs, a physician immunologist, and a fourth-generation pharmacist walk onto a stage.
There is no punchline. That is roughly the problem. Further stoking the news is the recent decision by an FDA panel recommending approval of six new peptides for delivery by compounding pharmacies.
DOC is convening a conversation on peptides, and we found three people who look at the same molecules and reach different conclusions.
Dr. Ruth Gimeno of Eli Lilly (top left) has spent her career on the science of peptides, including the work behind GLP1s. Her position is unglamorous but hard to argue with: peptides are short chains of amino acids that the body clears fast, so making one useful takes real engineering, and knowing whether it works takes a formal study. Anecdotal testimonials are not a substitute. She also raises a point that gets skipped in the hype sweeping through the field: much of the published peptide data cannot be reproduced.
Dr. Helen Messier (top right) is a physician and immunologist working in longevity, and she describes herself as someone who “refuses the binary”. Patients ask her about peptides constantly. Some may be seeing benefits. The category is largely unregulated, human data is thin, and millions of people are dosing themselves, with nobody counting what happens next. Her argument is not that we should approve of this practice, rather, that the absence of monitoring is itself a choice, and a bad one. If people are going to do this anyway, someone should be collecting data, including on adverse events.
Alec Ginsberg, PharmD, is a pharmacist and the fourth generation running his family’s pharmacy in New York. His pharmacy does not compound these products. He worries about the science, and he worries about what happens to the drug patent system when the gray market moves faster than the approval process. He also asks whether any of this can pass the “Mom Test”: If your mom called you and said she was taking this drug, would you tell her it’s safe and alright?
That last question is at the heart of DOC’s session. The public conversation about peptides has been enthusiastic and one-sided. Informed consent requires a full debate, and right now most people taking these compounds have never heard it.
One idea already on the table from the group: an exploratory study built on wearable data. The people using peptides tend to be the same people already wearing rings and watches that track sleep, heart rate, and recovery. Finding a clean control group is hard. But capturing real regimens, real doses, and real outcomes at scale is not impossible.
Join us at DOC 2026 this year to be in the room when this conversation, and many more like it, happens live.