Daniel Resnicow

@Hired_Sellout Straight to prison.

Not all of you are going to marry shape rotaters. It is better to come to terms with this early.

@RNAiAnalyst I'm actually looking to switch from Zep to Foundayo, mostly for cost reasons.

@DResnicow I knew that comment would come, but also that it would be from somebody who knows what I meant.

Peptides 1, Small Molecules 0. Biology loves biology and consumers don't like ingesting chemicals when they don't have to. $nvo $lly

@WUTangKids Is donating for bagpipe lessons not an act of international terrorism?

The #TartanArmy contingent that stayed in Providence are donating nearly $30K to local charities….we don’t deserve these awesome people 🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 bostonglobe.com/2026/06/15/met… - $10K to the children's hospital - $10K to help underprivileged kids play soccer - $6.5K to help kids learn bagpipes

@WUTangKids Careful, he will block you for pointing out the fallacies of his posts or the fact that he just posts the same things over and over every few months

Ummm that’s just CLEAR lmao and you have to pay for it….bro thinks he found some secret portal at Newark 🤣

Upset about how few people I could share this with that would laugh like I did when reading it.

@rtnarch Crap, I hate tennis.

People who will live longer prefer to play tennis.

@jrkelly The placebo effect is strong.

Yeah a lot right in this article but there are other signals in the consumer interest in peptides: 1. People don’t spend $400/vial on something they don’t think works. Not everyone’s biology is the same, clinical trials are hard to do and don’t catch every edge case, and there’s some “efficacy” signal in what people will buy across lots of people. Signal is especially good if it’s expensive. This thing probably does make her knee feel better. 2. Safety is the issue. There’s plenty of things that will drive muscle mass and also have gnarly side effects for example. I think the argument around peptides should focus here rather than “do you believe my clinical trial or how you feel?” Dr’s aren’t going to win that argument. But — if your doc tells you something may make you feel good but is long-term unsafe … that argument can land and it is what people should hear if it is unsafe. Also — I hope many of these consumer biotech products will be net safe (ie more positive than negative long term) !!! GLP-1s are and they are awesome.

@mwmoedinger I feel encouraged, ours isn't nearly this bad, can't wait to see what you come up with!

I fix bad floorplans for people every day. Here's one that's particularly terrible, and my fix. My assumptions: - Can't move or change structure/demising walls/entrance/windows - Type B ADA - Must keep whatever mechanical the original had

@grok @PeterDiamandis @grok so it was 3 experiments over two months. Could a small team of humans have run this with a high end liquid handler in the same amount of time?

No, 86k isn't accurate—OpenAI/Ginkgo reported >36,000 unique CFPS reaction compositions tested (across 580x 384-well plates) for the 40% cost cut on sfGFP. It was batches in high-throughput plates, not 86k standalone expts. Took 3 rounds/2mo to reach SOTA (full 6 rounds longer). Robotic cloud lab executed runs autonomously after AI design, but humans set goals/constraints, prepped reagents/buffers/lysates, and oversaw. Not fully hands-off.

OpenAI ran 86,000 experiments in 2 days. AI is talking to robotic labs in a tight loop. Result: a protein synthesized at 40% lower cost. This is the new scientific method.

@bradloncar @JMaraganore RA has been saying as much for MA biotech specifically.

@JMaraganore I think biotech needs an advocacy organization that is focused on improving our industry’s (and science’s) image with the general public. It would make everything else, including the lobbying work, so much easier if we had more public support.

I applaud formation of this new advocacy group! One size doesn’t fit all, and many biotechs have unique policy needs as compared to big pharma. Bravo!

@GlopesMd Further to this, initial prices are now $199/month....sure, not affordable to all, but pretty good for a life-changing medicine.

Weight loss beyond obesity is without a doubt a much bigger market, and I agree that people would be willing to pay. The initial prices however are beyond what most can afford. If we had a perfect market in pharma we would reach that optimal price much faster. That’s the point. The issue is more on the lack of competition on the manufacturer side than the size of the market. And those are all and the same.

I have published more than 300 articles in my career, but this was my first opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. Recent commentary suggests that market competition alone is driving down prices of GLP-1 receptor agonists. Experience from oncology offers a sobering counterpoint. When multiple biologics targeting the same pathways—such as PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors—entered the U.S. market, meaningful price erosion never followed, despite overlapping indications and similar efficacy. Competition occurred through marketing, incremental trials, and label expansion—not pricing. Pharmaceutical markets are inherently imperfect, and heavily intervened on. Patents and exclusivity reward innovation, but without deliberate mechanisms to promote post-exclusivity competition, monopolistic pricing can persist. GLP-1 therapies share key features with oncology biologics: complex manufacturing, branded delivery systems, and strong prescriber and patient loyalty. Absent rebate reform, transparent net pricing, or accelerated biosimilar substitution, true price competition for GLP-1s is unlikely to be durable. Early price declines may reflect short-term positioning rather than structural change. Balancing innovation with affordability isn’t anti-market—it’s essential to keeping the market credible, functional, and socially sustainable. @uicc @WSJ @SylvesterCancer @ASCO @JCOGO_ASCO @OncoAlert @oncodaily wsj.com/opinion/the-fr…

@oldsailor @GlopesMd And this will just eliminate innovation, and newcomers/competition, thus keeping prices artificially inflated

@GlopesMd @DResnicow Not only that, if pricing was transparent and there was a free market, pharmacies would compete on service and the corporate chains would no longer be able to manipulate market share with PBMs as their main driver.

@oldsailor @GlopesMd The emerging DTC market has already led to price reductions for Novo and Lilly GLPs, and as more come to market in the next few years and DTC becomes more common, prices will continue to drop. What you are proposing is essentially eliminating market exclusivity via patents

@AppleHelix I guess what this proves is that if you get cancer, you'd be much better off if you were a mouse.

Hmm, the academic here started a company. But the "cure" is combination of 3 patented molecules from others? How is he going to get FTO?

@A_May_MD What about the 50 other compounding pharmacies selling GLP-1s with on-staff doctors writing prescriptions with little more than an online multiple choice questionnaire?

Plain as day for me: “What we’re really talking about here is protecting the intellectual investments of companies that focus on cures for the American people in comparison to companies that knock off cures and knock off solutions at the last minute, undercutting those investments from legitimate companies.”

Fresh CNBC interview with head of DOJ on $HIMS. Please watch this if you still think that they’re only coming for the oral. This makes it very clear they’re going after the whole GLP-1 operation. Catastrophic for $HIMS.

@RNAiAnalyst There are better ways of doing this.

$guts making the news.

Fascinating 2025 tends