Stray Dog
EN中文
EN中文

Prices are Hyperliquid perpetual futures: contracts that track each stock and trade 24/7. They are not exchange prices and can differ from them, most of all while US markets are closed. Change is over 24 hours. For information only.

  • TSLA—
  • PLTR—
  • HIMS—
  • SPCX—
  • SOFI—
  • BTC—
…Loading prices
HIMS

FDA's own scientific reviewers oppose peptides, setting up a head-on clash with a pro-peptide committee

Sources (5)

A contrary signal came late on the same day, 30 Jun. The FDA's own scientific reviewers published their briefing for the 23-24 Jul advisory committee, and their conclusion was that the evidence is insufficient and the 7 peptides are not recommended for use. These include BPC-157 and TB-500, which overlap with HIMS's California peptide plant.

Read more

The 23-24 Jul meeting is now a clash between 'a supportive committee (whose interests lean towards approval) and the FDA's scientific reviewers (opposed on professional grounds)'. Add the efficacy gap Nature flagged on 12 Jun and you have a high-tail-risk mix: 'lax regulation, scientific opposition and a conflicted committee'. Upside on approval is limited ($29 sell-side consensus against a current price of $34.67), while a procedural upset would leave plenty of room to fall. The real verdict still comes on 23-24 Jul.

Key evidence

  • On the evening of 30 Jun, NBC, NPR and US News all reported, from the same source, the FDA scientific reviewers' pre-meeting briefing: insufficient evidence, use not recommended
  • The 7 peptides under review: BPC-157, emideltide, epitalon, KPV, MOTS-c, semax and TB-500
  • BPC-157 and TB-500 overlap directly with the focus of HIMS's California peptide plant
  • The FDA scientists' core argument: most of the peptides have only been studied in animals, and human safety and efficacy data are scarce
  • Precedent: advisory committees have previously voted down compounded peptides over immunogenicity risk and product contamination
  • This directly contradicts RFK Jr.'s position in April, when 12 peptides were reclassified as Category 1 (the first step towards approval)
Show 4 more
  • The other side, yesterday (30 Jun): the FDA published a 23-24 Jul committee membership that leans heavily towards peptide supporters, more than half of them running peptide clinics or businesses
  • Nature had already flagged the gap in efficacy evidence on 12 Jun
  • Closed at $34.67 on 30 Jun (+3.8%), up about 41% in June
  • Well above the sell-side consensus of about $29; the market is largely pricing in approval

Catalysts to watch

  • 23-24 Jul FDA advisory committee (binary event: the committee against the scientific reviewers)

Risks

  • Even with approval, legitimacy and credibility are open to challenge from Democrats, the medical community and political pressure from Jim Banks
  • A high-tail-risk mix of lax regulation, scientific opposition and a conflicted committee
  • The current price assumes approval, so upside is limited. A procedural or outcome upset would leave plenty of room to fall
  • The products HIMS's California peptide plant is aimed at (BPC-157 and TB-500) are exactly the ones being questioned

Sources 5

  1. NBC / NPR / US News, 30 Jun: same-source reports on the FDA scientific reviewers' briefing
  2. FDA 23-24 Jul advisory committee membership list (published 30 Jun)
  3. RFK Jr.'s April decision to reclassify 12 peptides as Category 1
  4. Nature, 12 Jun: report on the gap in peptide efficacy evidence
  5. HIMS closing price on 30 Jun: $34.67

A brief is a lead for our research, not a verified conclusion or advice.