The labor and delivery unit where she used to work in this rural northeastern Georgia community is no longer open. So, she asked former co-workers to be on standby around her anticipated due date. She and her midwife mapped out emergency rooms along the more-than-50-mile trek to the hospital in Greenville, South Carolina, where she planned to give birth. And, to prepare for a worst-case scenario, she curated items to keep in the car in case she went into labor en route.

“That’s a horrible place to put a pregnant woman in,” said Holden, who on Oct. 11 made the painful, hourlong trip to Greenville Memorial Hospital to deliver her son Tucker.

Holden lives roughly midway between Athens and Greenville, two of the nearest cities with labor and delivery units. Owing partly to Medicaid cuts from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, St. Mary’s Sacred Heart Hospital in Lavonia nearly a year ago. Its closure is part of a trend touching rural communities nationwide. From South Dakota to and from to , low Medicaid reimbursement and dwindling birth rates are pushing hospitals to shutter these services. Today, of rural hospitals offer labor and delivery services.

In Georgia, only 36% of rural hospitals have a labor and delivery unit, and four have closed since 2020, according to data from the .

To address the challenge the closings pose to patients seeking care, the state 鈥� which ranks among the for maternal health outcomes 鈥� has turned to federal money from the $50 billion . This fund was created by congressional Republicans to offset concerns about the outsize fallout Trump’s signature legislation would have in rural communities.

More than $12 million 鈥� out of the nearly $219 million approved for Georgia in the program’s first year 鈥� will be allocated toward placing obstetric carts in 43 rural hospitals without labor and delivery units. The carts will be outfitted with supplies needed for a birth or obstetric emergency. For example, they’ll have neonatal resuscitation tools, thermal blankets, and essential medications such as oxytocin, which stimulates contractions, and magnesium sulfate, used to treat seizures in pregnant people with high blood pressure.

The delivery carts sound fine, in theory, said Justin Peterson, an OB-GYN who practices in southern Georgia and has seen the pressures rural health institutions face providing maternal care.

Like Holden, Peterson worries that the carts, while helpful, will put supplies in the hands of ER doctors lacking extensive obstetric experience. Instead, he wants the state to fill coverage gaps by investing more to prevent the closure of labor and delivery units in rural areas.

“You’re putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage,” he said.

‘Can’t Practice Scared’

Brittany Mitchell was about seven months pregnant when Sacred Heart’s labor and delivery unit closed. She was reassigned to an OB-GYN in Athens, even though the nearly 50-mile drive from Lavonia was stressful and inconvenient.

That OB-GYN wanted to see Mitchell weekly after finding high levels of protein in her urine 鈥� a warning sign of preeclampsia, which can cause organ damage, seizures, and other complications. To make it to those prenatal appointments, she routinely gave up a day of work as a home health aide, a job she said already didn’t pay much.

But if Mitchell were to have another baby, she said, she’d still prefer to drive to Athens to see an OB-GYN than be treated by an ER doctor. When she had her first child nine years ago, the local OB-GYN had to act quickly when her daughter briefly lost oxygen.

“If they were in that situation,” she wondered of ER doctors, “would they know how to do all that?”

In written responses to 吃瓜不打烊, Lauren Williams, director of communications for the Georgia Department of Community Health, said that training ER medical staff is the main goal of the obstetric cart initiative. The rollout will include simulation drills, during which ER staff will practice high-risk procedures.

The Georgia Hospital Association will procure and distribute the carts. When exactly that will happen is unknown, but the grant funding must be spent by Sept. 30, 2027, said Anna Adams, the organization’s chief government relations officer.

The concept of obstetric carts is great, said Justin Law, an emergency doctor with SouthlandMD, a physician-owned and -operated healthcare management and staffing company. Most items planned for the carts are already available in ERs. But having them in one organized spot will be helpful, he said.

Still, while ER doctors are more frequently positioned at the front lines as labor and delivery closures persist, advocates argue that they shouldn’t be used as a stopgap in obstetric care.

In the decade he’s worked across rural Georgia, Law said, he’s never delivered a baby in the ER even though he’s trained in emergency obstetrics and has experience delivering babies as a paramedic. When a mother needs an emergency cesarean section or has another high-risk complication, she would likely be transferred to a hospital with labor and delivery capabilities, Law said.

Holden, the former obstetric nurse, said familiarity with obstetric delivery practices and procedures is essential because some complications can’t wait for a transfer. “You’re not going to save anybody’s life just because you got access to some equipment,” she said.

Adams understands the concerns and acknowledged that the ER is not the ideal location for delivering a baby. “But sometimes things happen that are outside of our control,” she said. “And when it does, we want to make sure those hospitals are prepared.”

Robin Clyatt, maternal health community outreach coordinator for , said ER doctors have vast knowledge. But they might see someone with a major maternal health complication, such as a hemorrhage, only a few times a year, and therefore may lack the skills to act immediately, she said.

“You can’t practice scared when it comes to obstetrics,” Clyatt said. “And that’s important, because when you practice scared, you do stupid things.”

Ways To Keep Access

The labor and delivery unit at the Coffee Regional Medical Center in Douglas serves six counties in southern Georgia. The number of live births there increased from to , which shows the impact when nearby facilities close, said Peterson, who practices at the Coffee Regional Hospital Women’s Center.

While he understands that hospitals must consider their bottom lines, business decisions in recent years have often taken precedence over patient care, he said.

“They just say, 鈥極h, you know, the numbers aren’t there. We’re closing,’” he said, adding that when rural labor and delivery units shutter, the chance they’ll reopen is small.

Mark Ralston, public relations manager for St. Mary’s Health Care System, which owns Sacred Heart, did not respond to multiple requests to further discuss the unit’s closure. But in its announcement, the system said the decision followed “an extensive 18-month discernment process that included intensive efforts to recruit additional physicians, create new partnerships, and pursue incremental funding sources.”

Nationwide, states are attempting to narrow gaps in maternal healthcare using federal funds. will establish maternal health hubs to determine where resources are needed and help mothers navigate the health system. in rural communities.

In its proposal for federal rural transformation money, Georgia included incentives such as funding 75 new residency slots in various specialties and creating a grant program that would reimburse physicians up to $250,000 in relocation fees if they chose to practice in rural areas.

State legislators could incentivize doctors to stay in rural areas, offer higher reimbursement rates for hospitals, and provide loan forgiveness for physicians, Peterson said. Communities should also look to incorporate certified midwives and community health workers, Holden and Clyatt said, though for both groups to practice. Currently, certified nurse midwives are allowed to practice only in partnership with a physician, which maternal health advocates argue creates a .

Holden had the ability to send her vitals to her doctor and meet with them virtually for prenatal care.

As she adorned bookshelves in baby Tucker’s cozy, sage-green nursery with vintage trinkets and family heirlooms, she said she thought of less-resourced mothers in the area, who may be on Medicaid or not have the luxury to travel an hour for a prenatal appointment.

Holden worries that without prenatal care, conditions like preeclampsia could go undiagnosed more often. “They don’t make it, and their baby doesn’t make it, because they never got that diagnosed and managed,” she said.

People like to remain optimistic that everything will go as planned, but “there are so many things that can go wrong,” she said. “And they can go wrong really quick.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Three Democratic senators issued recommendations a year after launching an inquiry into companies 鈥� Deloitte, General Dynamics Information Technology, Gainwell Technologies, and Conduent 鈥� that are paid billions in taxpayer dollars to build or run eligibility systems for safety net health coverage. Those benefits, provided to the poorest Americans, can mean the difference between having medical care or going without.

A handful of states directly operate their Medicaid eligibility systems, but most rely on contractors to build and run them. 吃瓜不打烊 found that Deloitte dominates this slice of government business. Deloitte-run systems have been plagued by errors that can result in eligible people losing their health coverage, previous 吃瓜不打烊 investigations have shown. Malfunctions can cost millions of taxpayer dollars and take years to fix.

“Administrative errors in this line of work are not like errors in other fields,” the senators . “There are life-and-death consequences for sick Americans who seek care only to find that their Medicaid coverage has been terminated.”

President Donald Trump’s signature tax and domestic policy law has mandated Medicaid changes that are forcing states to adapt their computer systems on a compressed timeline. Medicaid policies under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act add red tape and restrictions that make it harder for people to stay enrolled.

Those include the first federally mandated work requirements in Medicaid’s history. Next year, to keep benefits, millions of adult Medicaid enrollees in more than 40 states must prove they’re working or doing a similar activity for at least 80 hours a month, unless they qualify for an exemption.

Democratic senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia say the new restrictions 鈥� layered atop computer systems with histories of problems 鈥� will result in large numbers of people improperly losing health coverage.

State eligibility systems “have been built up, patched, and frankensteined for decades,” the senators said.

The senators sit on the powerful Senate Finance Committee, which oversees government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Many of their recommendations target the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Their ideas face long odds at the moment. Republicans control executive branch agencies, and any potential legislation would need to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress.

That balance of power could shift if Democrats win a majority of Senate seats in November’s midterm elections. The three lawmakers called on CMS to establish mandatory standards in state contracts with companies so states can receive federal funds.

These companies sign contracts with state governments, but the federal government approves them and pays the bulk of the cost. The federal government covers 90% of state costs to develop and implement state Medicaid eligibility systems and 75% of ongoing maintenance and operations expenses, according to federal regulations.

The lawmakers also said CMS should publicize the contracts and contract amendments. Currently, those documents can be obtained from state governments, but accessibility varies significantly.

The senators also said CMS should publicly disclose companies’ performance data and change orders. Change orders are used to adjust computer systems, and states set aside millions of dollars for them. But systems may require fixes beyond the agreed-upon work.

“The millions of Medicaid enrollees who will be required to prove their eligibility every six months, to document every hour of work on a glitchy portal, to find a doctor willing to certify that their cancer or their chronic condition is bad enough to qualify for an exemption 鈥� deserve contractors who are accountable for what happens when the system fails them,” they wrote.

In October 2025, the three Democratic senators, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), sent letters to several companies that CMS identified as eligibility system contractors. At the time, they wrote that it is each company’s responsibility to build functioning eligibility systems, “rather than to prioritize their bottom line.”

As of June, were enrolled in Medicaid, according to CMS.

The lawmakers had asked the companies about their contracts, lobbying expenditures, and protocols for making changes in light of system errors, among other issues. The companies provided the lawmakers with some details but often did not answer their questions.

The companies said states are responsible for making the final call on whether a person receives benefits. State workers approve or deny eligibility, Deloitte said in its response letter, “not a private contractor or an automated system acting alone.”

The companies did not provide the senators with specific details about documents or processes they use to help states make eligibility determinations.

The companies also denied they have any financial incentives to remove people from Medicaid. Conduent said it gets paid less if enrollment drops.

The companies did not say whether states are on the hook for paying to fix the companies’ errors.

Deloitte, Gainwell, GDIT, and Conduent said it’s common for states to require that they meet certain performance metrics.

Gainwell told lawmakers, “We take seriously the issues raised.”

GDIT said it would answer additional questions from lawmakers and told 吃瓜不打烊 that it “has a strong track record” of supporting Medicaid programs. In New York, GDIT said it has a “limited role” in determining eligibility because it relies on rules provided by the state. GDIT operates New York’s online Affordable Care Act marketplace, where New Yorkers can enroll in various health plans, including Medicaid.

Deloitte said in its response to the lawmakers: “We are proud of our work serving individuals and families across the U.S.”

CMS did not respond to a request for comment.

CMS takes steps to check whether Medicaid eligibility systems are working properly. As part of the process for certifying states’ systems, federal officials . They include whether states are correctly calculating people’s incomes, whether individuals are given timely eligibility decisions, and whether eligibility categories are accurate. However, it is rare for the federal government to withdraw federal money from states for falling short.

In August, CMS announced it intends to for Medicaid systems. The ultimate goal is to improve enrollees’ access to care and their experiences with these systems, CMS said. The agency also has said the standards will hold companies accountable to deliver systems that are “continuously improving” and have a “stronger capacity to implement critical policy changes.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

But in January 2025, the city’s health systems had no good options for Debbie Doppelt, a 60-year-old jeweler with an unusual form of lung cancer that mostly afflicts nonsmokers like her. The Food and Drug Administration hadn’t yet approved sunvozertinib, a drug developed in China that targets the mutation driving Doppelt’s tumors. She had been through chemotherapy and surgery, but the cancer had now spread to her brain. And she didn’t qualify for the relevant clinical trials.

Then an option emerged, in an offhand remark.

“Too bad she’s not Chinese,” a doctor told her son Max Doppelt, who had organized his mother’s care since her 2023 diagnosis. “She could go to a pharmacy in China and buy it.”

Within hours, mother and son had reached out to friends and relatives, one of whom procured a small supply of sunvozertinib from a contact living in China. A few months later, Max flew to Shanghai to get a refill.

Other patients have followed. “No organization or doctor is guiding patients to China, but word gets out,” Max said. He said he knows of at least 30 Americans who’ve made the pilgrimage to obtain the drug, which the FDA licensed in July 2025 but wasn’t yet on the U.S. market as of mid-October of this year.

Sunvozertinib, made by Shanghai-based Dizal Pharmaceutical, isn’t the only treatment drawing patients to China. Americans, Europeans, and others are trekking there to enter clinical trials for CAR-T therapy, an area in which China is .

China, until recently known more as a supplier of drug precursor chemicals and generic medicines, has become a biotech powerhouse, accounting for of new drugs tested around the world in 2025. U.S. pharmaceutical companies are testing new therapies there and signing billion-dollar contracts with Chinese firms to develop and market their drugs.

China’s progress has alarmed some politicians, who warn of lost jobs and U.S. dependency on Chinese medicines. The Trump administration in June kicked off Operation TrialBlazer, aimed at speeding up some FDA regulatory processes to lure back more clinical trials.

China’s poor showing in vaccine and drug development during the covid pandemic prompted the country to overhaul its biotech sector, dramatically altering the global industry, said Sam Rasty, a veteran of small biotech companies who now leads one called FynderBio. Venture capital now flows heavily to early-stage clinical work in China and Australia, where regulatory systems enable key first-in-human studies much more quickly than in the United States.

Chinese companies are so much faster at this process that U.S. biotechs, which used to share early advances at conferences or funding meetings, now routinely conceal their progress out of fear that competitors will take their ideas and speed them to market, said Steve Potts, CEO of Breakthru Medicine, a small biotech.

At a meeting he attended in May, nearly all the 60 biotech CEOs in the room planned to run phase 1 trials in Australia, Europe, or China, Potts said. Five or 10 years ago, most of those trials would have been carried out in the U.S.

“Slow and prohibitive” FDA requirements are driving investment to more-nimble Chinese companies, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the agency, Heidi Overton, warned in her opening statement at her Sept. 24 confirmation hearing.

The movement of clinical trials overseas “should give pause to every American and those who serve on their behalf,” Overton said. “When we lose this advantage, we lose our health security. And when we lose our health security, we lose everything.”

Overton pledged to continue TrialBlazer, which mirrors Australian processes begun in 1991. It is aimed at accelerating clinical trials and approvals so patients do not feel compelled to seek treatment abroad, said Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard. It is sometimes legal to obtain medication abroad for personal use, but the FDA “cautions patients about potential safety and quality risks associated with treatments outside our regulatory system,” she added.

As the FDA moves to streamline drug development, members of Congress are trying to slow Chinese firms’ integration into U.S. biotech.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, in June co-sponsored legislation with Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) requiring all U.S. pharmaceutical deals with Chinese companies to be cleared by the Treasury Department.

Others see biotech protectionism as misguided. China’s focus on improved medicines can only help us, said Peter Kolchinsky, managing partner of RA Capital Management, which has Chinese investments in its biotech portfolio.

“We may be adversaries in many areas, but we’re not competing with them to cure cancer. We are collaborating with them to cure cancer,” he said. “There are things that are bigger enemies than any other nation on Earth.”

Cancer Knows No Boundaries

A minor but persistent cough led to the diagnosis of Debbie Doppelt’s cancer in late 2023. Chemo, immunotherapy, and surgery kept it at bay for months, but in December 2024, scans showed the cancer had spread to her brain, with 10 tiny tumors.

The FDA earlier that year had approved amivantamab, a drug that targeted the mutation driving Doppelt’s tumor, but Max was concerned about its toxicity. Also, several doctors he consulted told him that amivantamab might not penetrate brain tissue to fight cancer there.

Doppelt tried to enter a clinical trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where she was a patient, for zipalertinib, another drug that targeted her mutation. But in January 2025, the Doppelts learned that a slight scarring on her lungs had rendered her ineligible for the study.

That left sunvozertinib, which gained approval in China in 2023. It was also being tested in the U.S., but only in late-stage trials in which half the subjects received chemotherapy only. That risk was a nonstarter for Doppelt, whose cancer had already outsmarted chemo.

So Max flew to Shanghai, returning with 26 boxes of sunvozertinib in his luggage. The drugs cost about $10,000, he said.

“Getting on the plane and bringing the medicine home felt like my life’s purpose,” Max said. “The data was so clear that this drug had significant efficacy in the brain. Anything else she might do, she might not last a year.”

On Sept. 1 of this year, AstraZeneca signed an agreement with Dizal to distribute the drug worldwide, and it plans to make it available in the U.S. by the start of 2027, spokesperson Tara Parsell said.

Doppelt, who runs a diamond business with her husband, has tried to stay positive and healthy, scarcely missing a day of work since her 2023 diagnosis. She said she’s grateful she has a loving community and the means to afford the best available therapies.

“I think I’ve been pretty successful at having, actually, an amazing three years,” she said. “In some ways a better three years, with all of it, than the three years before, because you’re so appreciative of everything.”

Doppelt’s parents were Holocaust survivors. “They were always saying: 鈥楾his piece of bread tastes so good! Do you know what it is to be hungry?’”

吃瓜不打烊ing for help for his mother gave Max, a 30-year-old computer engineer, an idea for helping patients find the right treatment 鈥� which, in cases of advanced cancers, may be a clinical trial.

A year ago, he quit his tech job and that uses artificial intelligence to combine data from research and drug company sites with a patient’s health records to help them find the right study.

Similar apps are being used to help drug companies and hospital systems increase the percentage of U.S. cancer patients who enter clinical treatment trials, currently . This will also strengthen the U.S. drug industry, said CEO Kent Thoelke, whose company offers an AI program designed to help hospitals and clinics enroll trial subjects.

About 300 patients have used Max’s app. So far his clients, whom he doesn’t charge, have all been lung cancer patients like his mom. Sunvozertinib seems to help about half those who take it, he said.

A 70-year-old woman whom Max had assisted got a six-month supply of the drug earlier this year from China, only to learn after three months that it wasn’t working. “My cancer had spread,” said the woman, whom 吃瓜不打烊 agreed not to name, to protect sensitive health information.

鈥業’ll Do Everything in Our Power’

Doppelt has done well on the drug. Some 19 months after starting on it, her cancer was still mostly kept at bay, with the help of a few radiation treatments and dose adjustments.

AstraZeneca’s plans to widely distribute sunvozertinib would mean no more trips to China. But Max had few illusions that the drug would work for his mom forever.

“She has a metastasizing cancer that will learn to bypass the drug,” he said. “At that point we’ll be dependent on the latest and greatest therapies. If they happen to be in China, I’ll do everything in our power to go there.”

At his Upper East Side apartment one recent afternoon, Max examined the current clinical trial outlook for his mother. He pulled up her profile on the app and scrolled down a list scoring available trial sites according to their fit and proximity.

“This one looks good,” he said, pointing to a clinical trial for firmonertinib, a drug China approved in 2021 that’s under study in the U.S. and elsewhere.

CAR-T therapy is another possibility, particularly a variety that the University of Colorado has developed to boost patients’ immunological attack on mutations like the ones driving Doppelt’s cancer.

But Kyle Concannon, a leader of the Colorado research team, said regulatory uncertainty has slowed his progress. As new tools enable sophisticated measures of things like toxicity and tissue distribution, they add time, cost, and risk to the therapy’s development. These technologies may be better at detecting possible harms, “which is good,” Concannon said, “but the alternative to a new medicine, with a natural disease like lung cancer, is the individuals will die from their disease.”

Max Doppelt and other patient advocates, while pushing for faster FDA processes, don’t want to rule out more Chinese medicine runs.

“When drugs are approved in China but not in the U.S., of course we will deploy the China option where necessary,” said Marcia Horn, CEO of the nonprofit International Cancer Advocacy Network. “Lives depend on it.”

Max would prefer to see the drugs his mother needs developed in the United States. But he, too, opposes any effort to freeze out the Chinese biotech industry.

The discovery of new life-preserving drugs “really brings us together,” he said. “We’re all humans at the end of the day.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

On Oct. 14, a temporary “” appeared on a White House docket, proposing to allow licensed pharmacies to make and sell certain unapproved peptides to people. Scientists at the FDA had advised against the measure at a , warning that the drugs hadn’t been adequately vetted in clinical trials.

A panel that advises the FDA disagreed, however, voting to loosen restrictions. Many of the panel members are new appointees with in the peptide industry. In an email, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements.

“I voted ‘yes’ for patient safety, the greater good, and medical freedom,” Haleem Mohammed, one of the new committee members, said at the . He’s the chief medical officer of a men’s clinic that sells peptides, Gameday Men’s Health.

To make good decisions, consumers need to rely on accurate information, but much of the hype around peptides is misleading. 吃瓜不打烊 flags four misleading phrases commonly used by those promoting peptides — and one truth.

Red Flag: Peptides aren’t drugs.

Gary Brecka, a co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, says peptides aren’t drugs of his podcast. He talks about using them to “help regulate cortisol, improve circulation, all kinds of things.” When peptides are used to treat, prevent, or cure conditions, or to affect the body’s function, they are, , drugs.

“Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but made of the same building blocks. Humans make many peptides, including insulin. Insulin is a drug when people inject it to regulate blood sugar.

“Most of the drugs we have had some antecedent in nature,” said Jacob Sherkow, a professor of law specializing in biotechnology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “Heroin is natural. No one in their right mind would call it not a drug.”

Brecka did not respond to requests for comment, but Chris Woodward, a public relations representative for him, said in an email that the health issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice.

Red Flag: Peptides are safe because they’re natural.

Peptide promoters that peptides are safe because they’re natural. This clip of Brecka’s discussion with Brigham Buhler, a co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a that sells peptides, is an example. Some influencers go further, saying that peptides are safe because they’re made by the human body. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s murky territory. One of the most popular experimental peptides, BPC-157, was developed by Croatian scientists who isolated what they called “body protective compound” from gastric juices in the stomach lining. However, researchers have been unable to find a trace of BPC in the human genome, meaning it’s not made by humans, said Katrin Svensson, a peptide scientist at Stanford University. Researchers in Taiwan suggest the peptide is produced by stomach microbes, according to .

Even if BPC-157 and other peptides exist in nature, Svensson said, “natural things can be toxic.” People have died from taking , for example. And drugs considered safe can still make people feel ill. To learn about safety, and whether the benefits of a drug offset the side effects, researchers conduct placebo-controlled trials. These reveal problems that might not be obvious in the short term, such as liver damage, as well as underlying conditions that could turn minor issues into something serious.

The FDA is considering lowering restrictions on BPC-157 and five other experimental peptides that have not undergone high-quality clinical trials and are not FDA-approved. “I am excited about peptides too,” said Svensson, whose lab studies several peptides that she hopes to develop into drugs. “But,” she added, “you need to show they’re not harmful.”

Red Flag: These peptides treat illnesses and heal injuries.

Kris Wusterhausen, one of the new appointees to the FDA advisory panel, that the experimental peptide BPC-157 “can reduce [acid] reflux disease” and treat “neurologic disorders.” He’s the founder of an antiaging company that sells “clinically guided peptide treatments.” He did not respond to requests for comment.

Such claims are common among peptide promoters who say that various experimental peptides treat muscle injuries, covid, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. But vanishingly few clinical trials have been conducted.

A summary of a small clinical trial testing BPC-157 as a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease was published in 2005, but it lacked critical details about how the study was conducted. FDA scientists who called it “inadequate.”

Another concluded that BPC-157 relieved knee pain for 14 of the 16 patients involved, but it lacked a control group, meaning the participants might have felt better because of other factors, or their pain simply resolved over time.

In a 2025 on BPC-157 as a treatment for musculoskeletal injuries, researchers warned that it should be “approached with caution” because of a lack of evidence. Flynn McGuire, a physical rehabilitation doctor at the University of Utah and an author of the review, said anecdotes about people having miraculous recoveries are even less reliable.

He has told patients he won’t prescribe BPC-157 until quality studies are conducted. “People want new things quickly,” he said, “but medicine and science just don’t work fast.”

Peptide enthusiasts also tout laboratory studies, such as a particular peptide stimulating blood vessel growth. Such research is critical, but it doesn’t speak to safety, efficacy, or off-target effects in people, like fueling cancerous growths. Human biology is complicated, which is why most substances that show promise in early experiments fail in clinical trials.

Red Flag: Peptides can’t be patented.

A few months before Kennedy took charge at HHS, on the social media platform X that the FDA hindered access to peptides and other alternative therapies because they couldn’t be patented. It’s a common misconception about peptides: In an about the drugs, researchers found many posts suggesting that mainstream medicine has sidelined peptides because pharmaceutical companies cannot patent the substances and therefore can’t turn a profit.

Yet hundreds of peptide patents are listed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. A patent on an early formulation of BPC-157 is .

“One cannot obtain a patent on the natural thing itself,” Sherkow said, “but if you slightly modify it, link it to something that allows me to inject it, formulate it to be more stable, all of that stuff is patentable and is being patented.”

Peptide patents can be lucrative. Pharmaceutical companies are suing one another over patents surrounding GLP-1 peptides, the basis of Ozempic and other such weight loss drugs. The market for those medicines is projected to within the next decade, according to the investment bank Morgan Stanley.

So why haven’t pharmaceutical companies invested in clinical trials on popular peptides? Clinical trials cost millions of dollars, so companies first must be convinced the drugs look promising enough for FDA approval, as well as have an edge over current medications.

Companies conduct experiments before investing big bucks. They may have done so for certain peptides and been discouraged by the results, Svensson said.

Pinchas Cohen, a gerontology scientist at the University of Southern California, said investors backed out of funding trials on a peptide he helped discover, MOTS-c, because they worried its use overlapped with GLP-1 medications. “Investors felt we couldn’t compete with that,” he said.

Kennedy’s push to make experimental peptides more accessible might make clinical trials even more unlikely, researchers say, because compounding pharmacies wouldn’t need FDA approval to sell the drugs for human use.

In a letter to the FDA, the pharmaceutical trade organization PhRMA advised against easing restrictions on unapproved peptides, saying it would “erode incentives for manufacturers to undertake the substantial time and cost required for FDA approval.”

True: Americans aren’t as healthy as they could be.

Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement are right when the U.S. spends per person than any other nation and ranks below all other wealthy nations in . They also rightly note the high cost of treatment. Six in 10 U.S. adults said they worried about affording prescription drugs in a , with 4 in 10 saying they’ve skipped doses or taken other measures because of the price.

Researchers have outlined policies to lower healthcare costs and improve public health, such as limiting and improving access to . What’s not on the list: skipping clinical trials to sell unproven treatments that could harm people.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The administration of President Donald Trump has used claims of widespread wrongdoing to justify investigations, suspensions of billions of dollars in payments to states, and the cancellation of Affordable Care Act health coverage for hundreds of thousands of people.

has opened a broader political fight over the extent of fraud and the administration’s response to it. Republicans say they’re safeguarding taxpayer dollars by going after bad actors. Democrats contend the administration has relied on insufficient evidence to target blue states and cut programs Republicans have long tried to shrink. Meanwhile, Trump’s pardons of executives convicted of healthcare fraud, administration moves to weaken some protections against abuses, and a high-profile error by Trump regulators stand in contrast with the administration’s proclaimed fraud-fighting goals.

The dispute is becoming a talking point for both parties leading up to the November election.

Republican candidates are trying to win voters’ confidence by emphasizing their efforts to halt what they say is the misuse of taxpayer dollars in federal health programs.

“Going after fraud gives Republicans a healthcare message when they would otherwise just be defending cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊. The approach, he said, helps “blunt” those attacks.

Democrats, however, traditionally have an advantage on healthcare in general, with are with such issues. Now Democrats are portraying Republicans’ fraud crackdown as a cover for the GOP’s weakening of safety net programs. But the GOP messaging could resonate at the ballot box.

About 44% of voters 鈥� and 54% of Republican voters 鈥� say fraud in government programs is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about, conducted in mid-September, suggesting the fraud focus might be connecting with the GOP base. Such fraud is also the top issue rural Republican voters want candidates to talk about, based on a by KFF and the Associated Press.

It’s an issue that is hardly new, and government watchdogs have repeatedly documented fraud by health providers and brokers, as well as improper enrollment in government health programs. A report by the in March warned that the “sheer amount of payments in the Medicare program creates significant fraud risks.” And in a , GAO investigators were able to get subsidized insurance for fake ACA enrollees.

What has changed is the prominence the issue now occupies in national politics.

Administration’s Fraud Targets

Trump administration authorities have this year charged hundreds of people, , in alleged billing schemes. It has announced and increased scrutiny of enrollment in federal programs, withholding in federal Medicaid payments over claims of lax oversight 鈥� with what Democrats say is a laser focus on blue states despite a lack of evidence.

The administration’s more expansive claims about fraud 鈥� and the actions it has taken in response 鈥� have generated fierce political clashes.

Most recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services canceled ACA enrollments covering 760,000 people. While Democrats have questioned the methods that found them to be fraudulent, federal officials said they included nonexistent consumers whose applications were submitted by brokers or agents who can earn commissions from insurers.

CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz that the cancellations included people who had coverage through the ACA but hadn’t used it. He also said some had no Social Security numbers, calling that evidence of problems.

“About 35% of current people on the Obamacare system 鈥� 35%, more than a third 鈥� had never used the program. They haven’t bought a prescription medication. They haven’t seen a doctor. That just is not possible,” Oz said. “So we know there is fraud.”

Democrats and some health policy analysts challenge that conclusion. They say that younger and healthier people are much less likely to use their insurance and that not using their coverage doesn’t mean they were improperly enrolled. Critics also say the absence of Social Security numbers doesn’t necessarily establish fraud; for example, newborns can be added to their parents’ plans before receiving a number.

“This is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to kick hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans off their healthcare,” on the social media site X. “Millions are already struggling to access healthcare鈥攁nd this is their plan?”

There are political risks for the GOP as well. The disenrollment of alleged phantom accounts is likely to ensnare legitimate consumers, say health analysts and ACA advocates, leading to a potential backlash against Republicans if scores of people lose coverage just before the midterm elections.

States that tend to deliver for GOP candidates will be hit especially hard, they say, because ACA enrollees are concentrated in those states. The 4.5 million people in Florida and 4.1 million in Texas who have marketplace coverage account for nearly 40% of the country’s ACA enrollment, according to .

Conservative health policy advisers say the administration took multiple steps to avoid canceling legitimate coverage, including attempts to contact consumers and requirements that additional criteria be met before coverage was terminated.

“Those criticizing the action either don’t understand it or see some political advantage in mischaracterizing it,” said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a former Trump health policy adviser.

Democrats, meanwhile, highlight inconsistencies in the administration’s broader anti-fraud campaign.

They note that the Department of Health and Human Services last year of insurance brokers and agents who had been suspended in 2024 by the Biden administration for suspected fraud or abuse. The Trump administration also laid off from involved in regional oversight of the ACA marketplace.

On Oct. 3, to pass legislation with mandatory prison terms for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, eliminating probation as an option.

But Trump has also pardoned health industry executives convicted of major fraud schemes, including people who are connected to his political allies or who spent heavily on lobbying on their behalf. The pardons included a sentenced to three years in prison for a nearly $40 million tax scheme and, in Trump’s first term, convicted for Medicaid fraud.

Trump’s pardons in 2021 of executives who profited from massive public healthcare fraud spurred criticism from the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. Critics now say the administration is portraying cuts to Medicare and Medicaid as necessary for weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse while exonerating criminals who have engaged in some of the biggest schemes in federal health programs.

Blue State Allegations

HHS has raised concerns about Medicaid fraud and program integrity in several states, and the administration has deferred or threatened to cut federal Medicaid funding while disputes are investigated.

Democrats say the administration is itself engaging in fraud by using unsubstantiated allegations of abuse to politically target blue states.

One of the most striking clashes occurred in New York.

Federal officials launched an investigation of the state’s Medicaid program after claiming that personal care services 鈥� including help with bathing, dressing, and meal preparation 鈥� had been provided to more than 5 million people, which would have amounted to roughly three-quarters of the state’s Medicaid population 鈥� an almost impossibly large proportion.

“It is time for New York to come clean about its Medicaid program,” CMS’ Oz .

CMS its calculations were wrong. The agency said that it had misunderstood the state’s billing codes and that the actual number of beneficiaries who received the services was closer to 450,000. The administration continued its scrutiny of the New York program, however, and later suspended millions of dollars in federal funding for the state’s Medicaid fraud unit, wasn’t producing enough indictments.

The administration also withheld about from California, citing concerns about program integrity and oversight of some home medical services. State officials deny the allegations, saying has grown because of factors such as higher wages for home health aides and an increase the number of older people receiving care.

The White House announced plans to in federal funds from Minnesota, claiming the state had failed to protect its Medicaid program from abuse. State officials have and gone to court to challenge the decision.

Vice President JD Vance, who chairs Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, and other administration officials announced the state deferrals at the White House, giving what traditionally would have been technical disputes between state and federal health officials a much higher political profile. Vance’s office did not respond to 吃瓜不打烊 questions about the administration’s anti-fraud activities related to healthcare.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said , a Georgetown University research professor and a senior adviser at CMS during the Obama administration. “It’s a deferral, not a finding of fraud. This is being elevated by political decision-makers.”

Republican candidates have pounced on the investigations and allegations. In Minnesota, Republican gubernatorial candidate , who is speaker of the Minnesota House, released claiming that her Democratic opponent, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, “has never done anything to stop the fraud here in Minnesota.” Klobuchar has said that as governor she would “launch a top-to-bottom audit of state government to root out fraud.”

In New York, , a Democrat whose office runs the Medicaid fraud unit, criticized the decision to withhold funds and said weakening the operation would benefit criminals. Her Republican challenger in the November election, , has cited the Trump administration’s claims , telling Fox News Digital that James is “totally failing to prosecute Medicaid fraud.”

The administration says its actions are necessary because fraud diverts taxpayer money from people who legitimately qualify for government programs.

“The fraud doesn’t just steal money 鈥� it steals our trust,” Oz said in August on .

Democrats and healthcare advocates say the White House’s anti-fraud crusade is being used by Republicans to distract from criticisms over its to Medicaid, the ACA, and other federal health programs.

Republican-backed legislation enacted last year is projected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Congressional Republicans also declined to extend enhanced ACA premium subsidies that expired , increasing premium costs for many people who buy insurance through the marketplaces. Enrollment has since declined by millions.

Overall, the combined effect of GOP-led changes will result in more uninsured people by 2034, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Those changes have given Democrats an opening to campaign on protecting healthcare coverage and affordability while Republicans seek to shift some of the debate toward fraud and government spending.

“It’s really a way to distract and reframe the cuts in a different way, to say it’s part of an anti-fraud effort,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group focused on expanding health coverage. “Fighting fraud shouldn’t result in people losing coverage.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Not all of those kicked off were fraudulently enrolled, 吃瓜不打烊 has learned. Insurance industry sources said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has reinstated a small number of people whose coverage should not have been canceled. More could follow in the coming weeks if enrollees discover they are uninsured when they go to use their coverage.

Still, the sweep was long overdue, say supporters such as Brian Blase, whose Paragon Health Institute has of the cited by those who allege in the ACA. But other policy experts question how many legitimate consumers were caught in the dragnet, perhaps because they failed to open a letter from their insurer or answer a phone call.

Questions continue to swirl, even as a second phase of the anti-fraud effort is underway. An additional 419,000 sign-ups are being scrutinized. Insurers must let CMS know how many of those enrollees don’t respond to outreach efforts by “around mid-to-late November, after the midterm elections,” said David Merritt, senior vice president of external affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

He confirmed that some BCBS members are among those who have been reinstated. He also said that CMS has an expedited review process for those who discover they have been improperly disenrolled.

Overall, however, the administration is providing few details about the cancellations, such as how robust the outreach was to those it targeted, how long it takes for people to get reinstated after discovering their coverage was wrongly canceled, and how many such cancellations have been reversed.

“It may be true that some of those enrollments were not authorized, but it can be equally true that people got lost in the shuffle and have a valid enrollment. Without more information, it’s almost impossible to tell,” said , a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown Law. “That they are not being very transparent is telling too,” she said of the administration.

The enrollment cut comes as part of a larger Republican strategy to focus on fraud in government programs, including and , which resonates with GOP voters.

At an Oct. 14 press conference, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz touted the removal this year of subsidies for with duplicate Medicare, Medicaid, or Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage, citing not fraud but a failure to look for concurrent enrollments or continued coverage for dead people. They credited an by the Trump administration to restore more frequent data matching checks than were done under the prior administration.

Unauthorized sign-ups by rogue insurance agents seeking commissions and other potential impropriety in the ACA marketplace 鈥� applicants’ providing incorrect income estimates, for example 鈥� has been a concern for several years, with much debate over the magnitude of the problem.

Even so, how the recent move to cancel the 760,000 enrollments will play out politically is uncertain. with gas prices as a top concern for voters. It is likely that many removed from the ACA are in red states, such as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Those areas in ACA enrollment from 2020 to 2025, driven in part by now-expired enhanced subsidies put in place during Joe Biden’s presidency. Additionally, the cancellations target only enrollees in states that use , the federal ACA marketplace. The fully running their own marketplaces generally have programs, such as multifactor authentication, and have reported few or none of the kinds of unauthorized sign-ups plaguing the federal marketplace.

“To the extent there is a reaction depends on whether the government got it wrong, whether people try to get care and then find out their coverage is no longer active,” said Adrianna McIntyre, assistant professor of health policy and politics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

How It Played Out

According to information the agency provided to 吃瓜不打烊, CMS in June selected for further review nearly 1.2 million enrollments that had all of what it deemed four warning signs for fraud:

• The application included no Social Security number or immigration document number.
• A broker was involved in the sign-up process.
• The plan had no monthly premium payment.
• The enrollee had had no contact with their insurer and no claims filed.

Then, as first reported by 吃瓜不打烊, CMS sent lists of those ACA accounts to specific insurers, instructing the carriers to review them and use at least two methods of contact 鈥� such as a phone call and a letter 鈥� to try to reach the enrollees. Policyholders were given 30 days to respond to the insurers’ outreach and provide the missing information. CMS disenrolled those who didn’t respond.

Johnny Wallin, chief operating officer of Texas-based Marketplace Insurance Exchange, which helps clients in about 35 states enroll in coverage, said insurers reached out to his organization for help contacting people on the CMS lists, prompting “an all-hands-on-deck” effort by agents to reach clients, some of whom were vacationing overseas.

“Getting them to answer the phone isn’t easy,” he noted, although he suspects his agents had a better chance of getting a reply than an insurer because their clients are familiar with their phone numbers. Still, they could not reach about 60 of them.

Additionally, his team has been asked by insurers to help contact those targeted in the second phase of CMS’ review. A recent case involved a client who needed to upload his new green card after his previous one expired, but language barriers meant that he had to take time off work to come in for agents to help with the process.

CMS would not provide a list of the insurers it contacted, but publicly available documents show that New York-based Oscar Health was one.

In an August earnings call with analysts and investors, CEO Mark Bertolini said the company was reviewing the files and that “there are a number of cases ” with people on the list. In other words, the company reached enrollees CMS had targeted over fraud concerns.

He did not specify how many it had reached. The company declined to comment for this article because it is in a voluntary “quiet period,” when publicly traded companies limit disclosing information before the release of an earnings report.

Still, in with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Oscar Health estimated that 250,000 to 300,000 of its members might be disenrolled because of the CMS effort. Nationally, the company had about 3 million members in the second quarter and reported strong profits.

A Smaller Patient Pool

Overall ACA enrollment has , falling by nearly 3 million in the first few months of the year, due in large part to the expiration at the end of last year of the enhanced subsidies. The Trump administration has also taken some credit, saying its focus on weeding out improper enrollments and other changes, such as eliminating a special year-round low-income enrollment period, led to the decline.

CMS has also suspended some brokers for improper activity and barred new brokers from enrolling clients in ACA insurance on the federal exchange during the upcoming open enrollment period.

CMS did not respond to requests for data on the reasons it canceled enrollments. What percentage of enrollees were deemed ineligible due to incorrect income reporting or because they had other health coverage, such as through their jobs? How many because their ACA applications lacked immigration documents or Social Security numbers?

“Currently, there is no additional data to share,” the agency’s press office said.

But people outside the administration have been vocal.

“This was clearly phantom enrollees,” said Paragon’s Blase. He thinks more than 99% of the cancellations are of zero-premium coverage that people were signed up for by rogue call centers without their knowledge, or for people who don’t exist at all.

Blase said the carriers had a big incentive to get hold of the enrollees because they would lose the subsidies they were being paid if the plans were canceled.

And for any people unfairly caught up, Blase and Trump administration officials say all they have to do to be reinstated is call the marketplace and provide their Social Security number or other missing information.

“Everyone has the political incentive for that process to be that easy,” Blase said. “We’re a month before the election.”

But, as prior reporting has shown, it isn’t always a quick process to get an ACA plan canceled or reinstated following an unauthorized sign-up or switch, even when a consumer discovers it themselves and reaches out to the marketplace.

Brokers and policy analysts note that some of the factors used to question enrollments 鈥� such as a plan’s having no claims filed in a year 鈥� are not that unusual because many people don’t visit a doctor or hospital in a given year.

Insurers “want those healthy people in the insurance pool to help bring down the rates,” said Ronnell Nolan, president and CEO of Health Agents for America, a trade group for health insurance agents. “We’re against fraud, and CMS has allowed a lot of fraud to happen. But we don’t want people who just didn’t go to the doctor to be canceled.”

And even with the outreach required by CMS, not everyone answers phone calls from unknown numbers or opens their mail or emails.

A found an average “open rate” on emails of 28.6%.

Policy experts also note that, while lack of a Social Security number on an ACA application could indicate a fake enrollee, it might also be an oversight, or the number might not be required, like for a child if the who is not seeking coverage for the child.

“There will be legitimate people who don’t have a claim or don’t respond to an inquiry from an insurer,” said , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “If the goal is to target fraudulent enrollment, what CMS did is better than tossing people at random, but is likely to miss the mark.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

“It was like I was underwater, like it took the most to do anything,” he said.

Meetze stopped taking the drug but endured fatigue and anxiety for months afterward, and his eyes and muscles twitched, he said.

He had taken BPC-157, a peptide drug popularized by podcasts about wellness, longevity, and what’s called “body optimization.” “Peptide” is a general term for substances that are smaller than proteins but composed of the same building blocks. Dozens of , including insulin and GLP-1 weight loss medicines, have garnered approval by the Food and Drug Administration. But BPC-157 and many others have not because they haven’t undergone clinical trials.

This fact hasn’t stopped online influencers from promoting them as remedies for muscle injuries, gut issues, covid, and more. Use of BPC-157 is growing in the U.S., particularly among white males, according to a of millions of de-identified electronic health records. Since 2020, the analysis, which hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that more than 1,000 people told doctors they had used the drug.

Meetze said he decided to take BPC-157 after listening to Andrew Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist with more than 16 million followers on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, who talks up peptides frequently . Studies in mice suggest that BPC-157 helps muscles heal and has “very high safety profiles,” Huberman , “at least, with respect to the lethal dosing.” His guest on , Craig Koniver, a doctor who sells peptides through his wellness clinic, called BPC-157 “super safe” and recommended it for “anyone who’s working out on a regular basis.” Koniver did not respond to requests for comment.

Huberman didn’t respond to multiple queries from 吃瓜不打烊, but an automatic reply on his Huberman Lab website that says the podcast doesn’t constitute medical advice: “Any reliance on information provided through the podcast is solely at the user’s own risk.”

Hoping BPC-157 might help him advance as a weightlifter, Meetze said he bought the drug last year from an online vendor, Researchem. A chemical supply company with that name sells experimental peptides , warning that the substances are “solely for laboratory research” and are “not intended for human consumption.” (It lists an address in Hillsboro, Oregon, that corresponds to a shared office space. A receptionist at the space said Researchem wasn’t registered there, and multiple queries from 吃瓜不打烊 to the email address listed on the website went unanswered.)

Companies are required to warn that experimental peptides, which haven’t been approved by the FDA, are for research use only. But many companies may soon be permitted to drop the warning because of a push by health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lower barriers to their use. He and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement have promoted peptides as a way to improve the country’s health.

On the social media platform X, before he took the helm at the Department of Health and Human Services, Kennedy the “aggressive suppression” of “peptides, stem cells, raw milk” and “anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.” (In fact, peptides are heavily patented.)

He has repeated the pledge since taking office. On early this year, Kennedy said he was a “big fan” of peptides and wanted to make many of them “more accessible.” On a podcast with the co-chair of the MAHA Action committee, Gary Brecka, the FDA’s role should be to assess science, “but not tell people and not tell physicians what they can and cannot prescribe.”

“If you want to take an experimental drug,” he added, “you ought to be able to do that.”

This summer, Kennedy’s health department with financial stakes in the peptide industry to a panel that advises the FDA. At an in July, the new appointees voted to ease restrictions on six experimental peptides, including the trendy compounds BPC-157, TB-500, and MOTS-c. Specifically, they advised adding these peptides to a list, called 503A, that would allow specialized pharmacies to make the drugs for human use, even though the FDA hasn’t approved them.

In an email, HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote that every committee member satisfies the FDA’s ethics requirements. “FDA — not podcasts or politics — determines which substances qualify for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List,” she wrote. The FDA has yet to issue a final decision.

The vote went against FDA scientists who on the six peptides, concluding there wasn’t enough evidence to show they improved any condition. Furthermore, the scientists highlighted a potential for liver damage, allergic reactions, or other serious consequences.

“People are saying this is about medical freedom — putting decisions back in the hands of patients,” said Reshma Ramachandran, a regulatory science researcher at Yale School of Medicine. “But what we see in practice is that incentives aren’t actually centered around patients. They’re centered around selling products.”

Scientists also warned that drugmakers would be reluctant to invest millions of dollars into clinical trials on peptides if they could be sold without FDA approval.

“The chances of clinical trials getting done now are diminished,” said Eric Topol, executive vice president of Scripps Research, a biomedical science institute in San Diego. “We will have more people who are prey to predators that will sell, sell, sell.”

A lack of data leaves consumers in the dark.

Meetze sought help on Reddit, where people post about pain, headaches, vision problems, and a lack of motivation after taking experimental peptides. Peptide enthusiasts often comment on these posts with skepticism, attributing a person’s problems to contaminated products, preexisting conditions, or misuse of the drugs. The online vitriol in the Reddit conversations can be intense, so Meetze welcomed an invitation to join a private group on the social platform Discord in which people with BPC-157 side effects tried to figure out what happened to them and how to fix it.

“There are millions of success stories with these peptides,” Meetze said, “but no one wants to believe that this wrecks some of our lives.”

Wolverines and Migraines

One member of the private side-effects group, a 46-year-old software engineer named Dominik E., said he got an excruciating migraine within days of taking BPC-157 with TB-4, another unapproved peptide — a combination called the “Wolverine Stack” because of its purported ability to heal wounds rapidly, like its namesake Marvel superhero.

“My left eye started throbbing really badly, and the left side of my face became numb,” he told 吃瓜不打烊, which agreed to only partially identify him and others interviewed for this article who were concerned about divulging sensitive health information.

After two months of migraines, Dominik said, the pain eased, but his face felt inflamed. “It is a total nightmare,” he said.

“I’m afraid how people will judge me,” said Lois S., a woman who works at a Michigan elementary school. She hoped BPC-157 and another unapproved peptide, retatrutide, would help with weight loss, but she stopped taking the treatment when she felt pain.

“I sought out this substance from a lab that clearly labeled it not for human use, purchased a syringe, and injected this in my kitchen,” she said. “That belies all logic about what a normal person would do.”

Peptide proponents argue that shoddy manufacturing — not the peptides — causes harm. Therefore, they say, the FDA must protect the public by allowing doctors to prescribe peptides made for human use by pharmacies that specialize in . Typically, compounding pharmacies manufacture alternatives to FDA-approved drugs so a patient can, say, get a liquid version of a drug that the original manufacturer makes only as pills.

Adding unapproved peptides to the FDA’s list of compoundable drugs would mark a departure from the list’s purpose, said Peter Lurie, a former FDA official who now directs the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. He noted that federal and state oversight for compounding pharmacies is often lax, and they’ve been .

Furthermore, he added, the move would mislead consumers into thinking they’re buying drugs backed by clinical trials. People promoting peptides often point to promising laboratory research as evidence. Rats with spinal injuries after BPC-157 injections, for example, and old mice given the experimental could run longer. On average, however, fewer than 10% of substances that show promise in animal studies prove effective in clinical trials.

“A lot of this pseudoscience stuff sounds deeply impressive — inflammation this and telomere that — but at the end of the day, none of it really matters,” Lurie said. “You’ve got to show clinical benefit in humans: Does it work?”

Peptide promoters lean on anecdotes, often without verifiable numbers. In a at the White House, the MAHA influencer Brecka said: “Twenty million people have been prescribed these things without adverse events.” His guest on the episode, Brigham Buhler — who is the co-author of The Peptide Revolution and owner of a compounding pharmacy that sells peptides and a clinic, Ways2Well, that prescribes them — told Brecka that none of its 75,000-plus patients had reported adverse events from peptides.

Buhler cited even higher numbers in the movie , a documentary featuring Kennedy and other leaders of the MAHA movement and that bears the MAHA trademark. In the segment on peptides, Buhler said: “Having treated literally hundreds of thousands of people through our compounding pharmacy, we’ve never had a major adverse event.”

Topol asks why those boasting success haven’t conducted clinical studies. “If influencers and companies really believe these peptides are helping people,” Topol said, “then they should put their profits back into rigorous research.”

Chris Woodward, a spokesperson for Brecka and his company, the Ultimate Human, said in an email that the health and wellness issues discussed on Brecka’s podcast do not constitute medical advice. “Mr. Brecka consistently advises his audience to consult a licensed physician,” Woodward wrote. Buhler did not respond to requests for comment.

Not all anecdotes are rosy. At an antiaging conference last summer in Las Vegas, two women were rushed to the hospital and intubated after being injected with experimental peptides and vitamins, according to citations that Nevada’s state pharmacy board issued against the doctor running the booth and his colleagues for prescribing and administering drugs without a state medical license.

An for adverse events contains concerning reports. Although the database can’t prove that a drug, vaccine, or medical device caused harm — the reports are brief, unverified, and voluntary — it signals issues worth exploring. A 36-year-old woman was hospitalized in December after taking the experimental peptide BPC-157 for weight control and a skin disorder, for example, and a 48-year-old man was hospitalized with a “life-threatening” condition after taking the peptide.

FDA scientists presented some of these reports at the July meeting and flagged worrisome outcomes in animal experiments, such as a revealing signs of liver toxicity in rats and dogs injected with BPC-157.

Brian Lee, a liver disease specialist at the University of Southern California, was among the panel’s minority who voted against easing restrictions. Without clinical studies, he said, afflictions that take time to develop, like liver damage and cancer, might not be spotted for years: “I think this endorsement can be potentially harmful, and I cannot in good conscience vote ‘yes.’”

The panel’s newcomers disagreed. “I do not believe the FDA made a good case on issues with safety with BPC,” said Kris Wusterhausen, founder of an antiaging company in Texas, the Resurge Clinic, which sells a BPC-157 product for $149.

“Once you’ve seen the effects of BPC,” he said, “you can’t unsee it.”

Awaiting Trial

Deepak Srivastava, president of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, designed a clinical trial two decades ago to see if a peptide he studies, TB-4, could repair tissue after a heart attack. Before enrollment, people volunteering for the study would be screened for early signs of cancer because TB-4 triggers vessel growth and cell migration, which might exacerbate malignant growths. He worries about the FDA panel’s vote to ease restrictions on a derivative of TB-4, before such trials have been completed, saying, “You need to have a healthy respect for the fact that drugs can be harmful.”

Pinchas Cohen, a peptide researcher at the University of Southern California, was less cautious, saying the FDA buzz might drive investors to fund trials. He’s seeking support to bring a peptide his lab identified, MOTS-c, to market. It’s “un-ideal” for people to take unproven drugs, Cohen said, but that’s what’s happening: “The world is changing and people like me need to accept that this is the new reality and find ways to make it as safe as possible.”

In the meantime, people like Meetze resort to podcasts and online forums for advice. His symptoms faded after a year, but he still had spells of feeling “zero emotions.”

Peptide users describe this condition as anhedonia. It’s come up on .

Huberman occasionally mentions other potential peptide risks, like cancer, sprinkling them into advice on how to take them. Take a with 1.2 million views: “I do not think that BPC-157 is not without its quote-unquote ‘side effects,’” Huberman says. “If you’re going to go down this path of taking BPC-157, I would encourage you to take the minimal effective dose, to not simply do it every day, and certainly to not do it continuously, and of course to monitor your other health metrics for anything that could potentially resemble cancer or tumor growth, because obviously stimulating angiogenesis for wound repair sounds like a great thing, recovering and being able to do your workouts or play your sport, or move about more comfortably, of course, a wonderfully attractive thing to do.”

“Isn’t that what we all want? But obviously not with the trade-off of growing a tumor,” he said, before interrupting the discussion to advertise a supplement company sponsoring the show.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.

In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.

But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.

“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.

吃瓜不打烊 reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency .

The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “.”

“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”

Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library’s webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.

, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.

Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.

“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”

CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.

“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The Conversation Begins

The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.

“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”

Gleason is best known as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.

As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.

The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, associated with Kennedy’s . While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.

The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.

The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”

Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of 吃瓜不打烊. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.

The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.

Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.

If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”

A ‘Sales Engine’

Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.

Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.

“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”

A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after 吃瓜不打烊 asked about comments made during the meeting.

CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.

Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.

“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.

The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.

CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.

CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.

Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data, offering users a free option with limited functionality or its full features for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.

“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”

In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.

“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”

‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’

What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.

Tech vendors have to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the , or TEFCA.

A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.

On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.

Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.

“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.

Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.

“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”

Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from 吃瓜不打烊. In an interview, Valdes told 吃瓜不打烊 that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”

Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.

One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.

“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.

Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “,” also the title of a 2025 co-authored by Howells that urges doctors’ offices to abandon paper records.

Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.

As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.

“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.

She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

In the Associated Press-KFF survey of more than 2,000 rural voters in August, about a third said the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement had been positive for their community and about a third said it had been negative. The remaining 3 in 10, roughly, said it had no impact.

Trump promised tough enforcement on the campaign trail in 2024, and the survey highlights how a cornerstone of his base, rural supporters of his Make America Great Again movement, are especially likely to say they see a benefit where they live from the Republican president’s stringent immigration policies.

Yet many rural voters also say immigrants are a key part of their local economies, and some believe Trump’s immigration actions have gone too far.

Laura Leigh Taylor, a 37-year-old farmer who voted for Trump in 2024, said she disapproves of the wide-ranging scope of Trump’s immigration crackdown, which resulted in a friend’s hardworking father being deported.

“I understand getting rid of the rapists and the murderers,” she said. “But all the people that fell in between, that really weren’t doing nothing but taking care of their family, … they got torn from their families.”

Taylor now regrets her vote for Trump. As a resident of Smithville, Georgia, a town of about 600, Taylor thinks she will vote for Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in November because, she said, the Democrats have been the ones talking about families being uprooted by Trump’s immigration enforcement.

“Just because of that simple fact, I’m going to go with him,” Taylor said.

Most Rural Voters Want Politicians To Talk About Immigration

Roughly three-quarters of rural voters say it’s “extremely” or “very” important for midterm candidates to talk about immigration, though that’s lower than the share who want them to address the cost of living, fraud in government programs, or healthcare costs.

Rural voters don’t overwhelmingly think Trump’s immigration policies have helped their communities, but they are also less likely than the general public to say that Trump has overstepped in his efforts, which have involved mass deportations and rapid deportations of immigrants to countries where they have no ties.

Only about 4 in 10 rural voters say Trump has “gone too far” in restricting legal immigration or deporting immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization, below the 55% of U.S. adults overall who said the same in a September AP-NORC poll.

John Thomas, a 55-year-old from Liberty, Kentucky, supports Trump’s efforts to deport people without legal status. Thomas, who has just been approved for disability benefits after injuring his back in 2008, believes they put too much of a burden on the healthcare system. Regulating immigration, he said, is a means of providing better healthcare to Americans.

“They’ve been taking from everybody,” Thomas said of immigrants. “People that really need this stuff can’t get it because of them.”

David Grabowski, a professor of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School, said that research suggests immigrants use less healthcare than native-born Americans. “It is hard to argue that they are placing an undue burden on the system,” he said, because many immigrants work in healthcare and pay taxes.

Most Rural Voters See Immigrants’ Economic Importance

Immigrants often play key roles in sustaining local industries, including by filling jobs in manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture. The survey suggests the vast majority of rural voters see immigrants in the country legally as an important part of their local economies.

Shannon Monnat, director of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University and president of the Rural Sociological Society, said immigration has been a demographic lifeline for much of rural America. Rural areas have been losing young adults for years, she said.

“For a lot of small towns, immigrants are the reason the school and hospital stayed open and the county didn’t shrink,” Monnat said.

About 7 in 10 rural voters see immigrants who are in the country legally as “very” or “somewhat” important to their local economies, and a similar share say the same about temporary or seasonal agriculture workers. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants take seasonal jobs on U.S. farms each year, with most of them coming from Mexico, on H-2A visas.

Rural voters with a connection to agriculture and farming are more likely than those without one to say that temporary or seasonal workers are “very important” to their local economies, the poll found.

Jeff Miller, a 56-year-old Republican hydro blaster and vacuum technician, has mostly been pleased with Trump’s agenda, and he believes things are “heading in the right direction.” The one thing Miller has struggled with is Trump’s aggressive immigration policy, which he blames for the deportation of a “really good worker” and friend, who was removed from the U.S. when his work permit expired.

Miller, from Racine, Ohio, said he would support exceptions for hard workers, or just a less aggressive approach.

“There’s kind of an up-and-down thing because I lost a really good friend over that,” Miller said.

Rural voters are much less likely to say immigrants who are in the country illegally are beneficial, but 45% say they are at least “somewhat” important to local economies.

Albert Martinez, a 70-year-old Democrat from San Diego, Texas, voted for Trump in 2016, but he now believes the Trump administration has “gone amok.” The Army veteran said he is a proponent of getting criminals out of the country, but that is not what he is seeing happening with current immigration enforcement.

“They started doing everybody across the board,” Martinez said. “Innocent kids and women, people who work in restaurants, people who work in hotels, people who are building homes, people who are doing masonry work, and innocent, good, taxpaying people. Taxpayers. It’s insane.”

Rural MAGA Voters Support Trump’s Immigration Policies

Some of Trump’s most loyal supporters 鈥� rural Republicans who consider themselves MAGA supporters 鈥� are about twice as likely as rural, non-MAGA Republicans to see a benefit to Trump’s immigration policies where they live.

Roughly 4 in 10 rural voters identify as MAGA Republicans, while about 1 in 10 are Republicans but not MAGA supporters.

About two-thirds of rural MAGA Republicans say Trump’s immigration policies have had a positive impact where they live. Roughly half say the Trump administration has “not gone far enough” on deporting immigrants in the country illegally, while about half say his actions have been “about right.”

Katherine Reed, a 27-year-old Republican who supports the MAGA movement, has been pleased to see the Trump administration’s deportation policies play out. The resident of Mount Pleasant, Texas, believes her community has always been safe but that the administration’s policies have had a positive impact by reducing violent crime nationwide, saying, “It’s made life for people a lot safer.”

She believes if someone comes to America, they should “respect the law of the land” and “do it legally.”

“I want really amazing people to become Americans,” Reed said. “That’s the whole point of America.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

吃瓜不打烊 chief rural correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble discussed the findings of a KFF-Associated Press poll about rural support for the Make America Healthy Again movement on NPR’s Morning Edition on Sept. 30.

• .
• Read Tribble’s “Rural MAHA Followers Say Trump Health Policies Haven’t Reached Their Communities,” co-reported with Ali Swenson and Linley Sanders of the AP.

Céline Gounder, 吃瓜不打烊’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed a new GLP-1 weight loss drug on CBS News’ CBS Mornings and health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments at a MAHA summit this week on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings, both on Sept. 30.

Gounder also discussed how Anthropic’s Claude agents might help develop new gene-editing technology on CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on Sept. 24.

• .
• .
• .

吃瓜不打烊 senior correspondent Renuka Rayasam discussed聽the Rural Health Transformation Program on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 25.

• .

• Read 吃瓜不打烊’ ongoing coverage: Rural Health Payout.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .