The NPR Response
Response to NPR's "Influencers are promoting peptides" article (Feb 23, 2026)
The 30-Second Version
Duration: 50–55 seconds Compliance: Carefully written. No compound names, no outcome claims, no product promotion. Education + journey framing only.
"So I track 178 genetic variants and over 100 blood markers with a medical team. And apparently that makes me an irresponsible influencer.
There's this article going around saying people online are promoting compounds with no data. And honestly? They're mostly right. Most people recommending this stuff have zero bloodwork, zero genetic data, no medical oversight.
But here's what the article leaves out.
It never mentions genetics. I have nine variants messing up one pathway in my body. Without knowing that, everything I was doing was a guess.
It never mentions tracking. I test over 100 blood markers with my medical team. If something's off — I see it in the data. Not six months later when something goes wrong.
The article basically gives you two options — trust the influencers, or trust your doctor. But your doctor checks 20 markers once a year and tells you you're fine.
There's a third option. Get your genetic data. Work with a medical team. Actually track what's happening in your body.
That's what I do. And I'm sharing all the receipts — my genetics, my bloodwork, everything I'm learning. It's all on my site.
Not because you should copy me. Because you deserve better than guessing.
I work with a medical team. Everything's linked in bio."
Last line (quotable): "You deserve better than guessing."
NPR just published "Influencers are promoting peptides for better health. What does the science say?"
I've been tracking my own biology for six months with a medical team. Here's what that article gets right, what it gets wrong, and what it leaves out entirely. 🧵
What they get RIGHT:
Most peptide research is animal or lab-based. That's true. BPC-157 has zero completed human trials. If someone tells you "the science proves it works" — they're lying or they haven't read the papers.
The article is correct about this. Full stop.
What they also get right:
Quality control is a real problem. Compounding pharmacies vary wildly. If you're buying peptides from a random website with no Certificate of Analysis, you genuinely don't know what's in the vial.
The "Wild West" framing isn't wrong.
So what does the article get WRONG?
It treats everyone using peptides the same way. The influencer selling a "protocol" to millions with no bloodwork, no genetics, no medical oversight — and the person working with a physician, tracking biomarkers monthly, with full genetic data?
Those are not the same thing.
What the article LEAVES OUT entirely:
Genetics.
Your DNA determines how you metabolize compounds, how your inflammation pathways work, whether your methylation is functional.
I have 178 analyzed genetic variants. Nine of them impair a single methylation pathway. Six drive inflammation.
Generic advice is dangerous BECAUSE of this.
What they also leave out:
Tracking.
I test 100+ blood markers. If something I'm taking is causing harm, I see it in the data — not six months later when symptoms show up.
hs-CRP, homocysteine, liver enzymes, kidney function, hormone panels. Monthly.
If you're not tracking, you're guessing. The article is right to be worried about people who guess.
The article frames angiogenesis — promoting blood vessel growth — as purely a risk.
You know what else promotes angiogenesis? Exercise. Sleep. Vitamin D. Fish oil. Turmeric. Your own estrogen. Statins. Metformin. Literally healing from a paper cut.
If "promotes angiogenesis" = cancer risk, you should also stop going to the gym.
My 78-year-old grandmother's back pain has dramatically improved under medical supervision. She's a different person.
But the article doesn't distinguish between someone working with a physician and someone buying mystery powder online. That's the gap. I'll do a full deep-dive on this soon.
Context matters. Dose matters. Your individual biology matters. Medical oversight matters.
This is exactly why you need baseline labs, genetic data, and a medical team BEFORE you start anything. Not after.
One more thing. The article implies that making money from peptide content is inherently suspect. They asked a creator if he "receives any income from peptide sales" like it's a gotcha.
I'd love to ask the writer: do you make money when your clickbait article goes viral? Of course you do. Everyone in this ecosystem is monetizing peptides — the influencers, the journalists, the platforms running the ads. At least the creators are sharing their actual data.
Here's what bothers me about articles like this:
They present two options — reckless influencer culture OR "just trust your doctor."
Your doctor checks 20 blood markers once a year and tells you you're "fine." That's not the alternative. That's the gap that created this entire space.
The actual responsible path nobody talks about:
- Get your genetics analyzed (not just 23andMe — full pathway analysis)
- Work with a physician who looks at your data, not just symptoms
- Track your biomarkers, not just how you feel
- Verify sourcing — my compounds come from a 503A & 503B pharmacy with DEA Schedule 2 certification. That's federal-level oversight. Not a random website.
- Share your data so others can learn
That's what I do. It's not sexy. It doesn't make a good headline. But it's how you use these tools without being reckless.
I'm going to start sharing everything publicly.
My genetic data. My bloodwork. My protocols. What I take, why I take it, and what the data says about whether it's working.
Not because I think you should copy me. Because transparency is the antidote to the "Wild West."
I work with a medical team. This is my data, not advice.
All of it — my genetic data, my bloodwork, my protocols — lives on my site. I also write a newsletter called The Manual where I go deep on the science. Links below.
This is what I put in The Manual every week.
Subscribe to The Manual →More Posts
Five Blood Tests Your Doctor Doesn't Order
Comprehensive bloodwork markers most doctors skip
The Supplement Most People Take Wrong
MTHFR + folic acid. 40% of people have this variant.
The Angiogenesis Argument
Deep-dive on the angiogenesis concern. What it actually is, what else does it, and why the framing is wrong.