| |
|
| |
DOORS OPEN AT 6:30, SHOW STARTS AT 7
In partnership with Pepper NYC and the Peptide Club of NYC
A peptide to heal your tendon. An injection to rebuild your knee. Exosomes to make your body younger. Regenerative medicine is moving fast, and consumers increasingly don't want to wait ten years for the clinical trials to catch up (the AIDS crisis..).
Some of these treatments have real science behind them. Others have promising early evidence. And some are being sold for thousands of dollars long before anyone can say with confidence that they actually work.
But maybe that's the point. We let adults make risky decisions everywhere else. If a patient understands the evidence is uncertain, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend their own money trying something experimental?
The alternative is the basic bargain medicine has relied on for decades: prove it works before you sell it. Because when the person explaining the risks is also making money from the treatment, "informed consent" can start looking a lot like a sales pitch.
So: should experimental regenerative therapies be sold to consumers, or should medicine have to prove they work first?
Arguing for, Julius Ritter is the founder of the California Peptide Club and is building infrastructure for the peptide space, from education to real-world outcome data. He argues that the answer to uncertain evidence is more transparency and better data, not keeping adults from making their own choices
Arguing against, Dr. Tiana Woolridge is a primary sports medicine physician at Hospital for Special Surgery, double board certified in pediatrics and sports medicine. She's trained in regenerative treatments like PRP herself, which is exactly why she thinks there's a difference between promising medicine and selling something before the evidence is there.
UNMUTED is the place where talking points go to die. Talk politics. Keep your friends. Make new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
