Dr. Kayse Shrum

🌿Wellness Wednesday: Peptides Part 3

There is a LOT of discussion right now around Retatrutide — and not just because of the remarkable weight loss data.

Retatrutide is a triple agonist, meaning it targets:

* GLP-1
* GIP
* Glucagon receptors

In early trials, it has shown weight loss approaching bariatric surgery levels in some patients.

But behind the scenes, there is another major battle happening:
How should Retatrutide be classified?

Eli Lilly and Company has been arguing that Retatrutide should potentially be classified as a biologic rather than a traditional peptide drug.

Why does that matter?

Because biologics are regulated differently than standard drugs:

* Longer exclusivity protections
* Different manufacturing standards
* More restrictions on compounding
* Greater barriers to generic or copycat competition

In simple terms:
If Retatrutide ultimately receives biologic-type protection, it could significantly limit future compounding and keep costs very high for patients.

That is why this conversation matters to the general public.

For patients, this debate is really about:

* Access
* Affordability
* Safety
* Innovation
* And who controls the future of these therapies

Supporters of Lilly’s position argue:

* these are highly complex molecules,
* manufacturing consistency matters,
* and stricter oversight protects patients.

Critics argue:

* biologic-style protections may reduce affordability,
* limit access,
* and prevent compounded alternatives that many patients rely on during shortages or due to cost.

The FDA has not made a final determination, and legal challenges are still ongoing.

Wellness Wednesday: Peptides Part 2

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly discussed expanding access to certain compounded peptides and reconsidering FDA restrictions that were put in place in 2023. The issue centers primarily around peptides that had been placed on the FDA’s “Category 2” bulk substances list, which effectively prevented traditional compounding pharmacies from preparing them.

The peptides most commonly discussed in reports and industry coverage include:

* BPC-157
* CJC-1295
* Ipamorelin
* Thymosin Alpha-1
* AOD-9604
* Selank
* GHK-Cu

These compounds are popular in wellness, recovery, anti-aging, metabolic health, and sports-performance communities, but most are not FDA-approved drugs for those uses.

Kennedy’s argument appears to be:

* people are already using these peptides,
* banning legal compounding pushes patients toward unregulated “research chemical” markets,
* licensed compounding pharmacies are safer than gray-market internet sourcing,
* and some peptides show enough promise to justify broader physician-supervised access while more research develops.

Critics—including some FDA and public health experts—argue that many of these peptides still lack:

* large randomized clinical trials,
* long-term safety data,
* manufacturing consistency data,
* and clear efficacy evidence.

As for whether this has actually advanced: yes, somewhat—but it is not finalized policy.

What has happened:

* FDA advisory committee meetings were scheduled for July 2026 to reconsider several restricted peptides.
* FDA is reportedly reviewing whether certain peptides should move back to “Category 1,” which would again allow traditional compounding under physician prescription.
* Public statements from Kennedy and HHS have clearly signaled support for loosening restrictions.

What has not happened:

* There has not yet been broad formal FDA approval of these peptides.
* Most still do not have large Phase III-style clinical trial evidence.
* Final FDA reclassification decisions are still pending.

Medicine often evolves this way. Early observations generate interest, formal trials follow, safety signals emerge over time, and eventually some therapies become mainstream while others fall away.

That was true for:

* GLP-1 medications,
* hormone therapies,
* biologics,
* immunotherapies,
* and many cardiovascular drugs.

The key tension right now is balancing:

* innovation,
* patient access,
* affordability,
* quality control,
* and evidence-based medicine.

And peptides are sitting directly in the middle of that debate.

Nashville Part 2 ☀️🎶

There’s just something about Broadway. Good music, great food, endless people watching, a little shopping and my favorite guy by my side. We enjoyed every minute of the Nashville sunshine and Broadway energy. 🤍

✨

Celebrating the sweetest couple, Zach & Carrie Swon, as they begin this beautiful new chapter together. ✨ From the stunning setting outside of Nashville to the unforgettable music and incredible entertainment, every detail was perfect. Darren and I were honored to share in such a special night filled with love, laughter, and a little country music magic. Congratulations to the newlyweds! 🤍🎶

🌿Wellness Wednesday🌿

Peptides are one of the most fascinating—and rapidly evolving—areas in medicine right now.

Peptides are short chains of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. In the body, they often act like messengers, telling cells what to do: regulate blood sugar, stimulate hormones, influence appetite, support tissue repair, or communicate between organs.

Some peptides are naturally made by your body. Some come from food when proteins are broken down. Some are prescribed medications.

There is ongoing discussion around how some of these medications may ultimately be regulated and classified, including whether certain peptide therapies could be treated more like biologics. That matters because classification impacts:

* Cost
* Availability
* Compounding restrictions
* Long-term access for patients

For many people, affordability and access are already major barriers in obesity and metabolic treatment.

What is compounding vs Pharmaceutical Manufacturing? Both require physician prescription.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing =
“Mass-produced, FDA-approved, highly standardized.” More costly. Very consistent dosing.

Compounding =
“Customized pharmacy-prepared medications prescribed for individual patients.” Typically More Affordable. Less consistent dosing.

Why This Became Such a Big Debate

With medications like Semaglutide and Tirzepatide:

* demand exploded,
* costs remained high,
* shortages occurred,
* and compounding pharmacies stepped in to fill access gaps.

Pharmaceutical companies argue:

“These are patented drugs requiring precise manufacturing and safety oversight.”

Compounding advocates argue:

“Patients cannot afford or access these medications otherwise.”

And that tension is now extending into peptides broadly.

The science is moving fast.
The regulation is trying to keep up.
And patients are caught in the middle of innovation, access, cost, and evidence.

One thing is certain:
the conversation around peptides is not going away. ✨

Part 2: Secretary Kennedy’s view on FDA rules on peptides Part 3: Lily’s strategy to create higher costs and restrict access for the very promising Retatrutide

Creating the perfect Nashville lineup one detail at a time 🤠✨

From the bands to the branding irons to every little finishing touch… the girls at Wild Spade Hat Bar absolutely brought my vision to life.

A black hat for the wedding festivities 🖤
A straw hat for daytime Broadway adventures ☀️🎶

Now all that’s left is the fun. 😉