I don’t disagree on that 
With skin care, there are well over 80 peptides used in a lot of high end skin care products. One of the great things about peptides is that they are very targeted and typically have short half lives if not modified to increase that. The risk of spill over effects are quite low and adverse reactions don’t last. I think the higher risk is the complexity of many skin care products with 30 to 40 ingredients that are not peptides. The lower the compound count for highly penetrating methods, the better, in my opinion.
With injectables for purposes other than skin care, I’m not terribly concerned about those as they are 1 thing, not a bunch of things like skin care products and the highly targeted aspect remains, as an injectable is generally 1 thing.
Peptides are instruction sheets that only specific receptors can read. Not every cell can read every peptide instruction.
I get questions on this all the time and I explain it like this. Say your body was a building, first under construction, and then being maintained.
Under construction you have multiple trades at work. The master plan requires instructions that are comprehendible to the trade in question and we don’t care if any other trade can read it.
Digging the foundation requires instructions that the plumbing trade can’t read
Framing the building requires instructions the electrician can’t read
Siding the building requires instructions the roofers can’t read
Only the trade that needs to do it’s specific job can read it’s own instructions and all the other trades ignore that.
Same thing happens when the building is finished, sanitary, maintenance, security, IT infrastructure, all get their instructions that are incomprehensible to the other maintainers, so they do not respond.
Our cells are like this, only specific cells can read insulin (a peptide)
only specific cells can read GLP1 (a peptide)
etc.
IMHO, Peptides in general are one of the safest interventions we can do as humans.
So why are there not more RCT studies on the peptide we know and love?
If you can’t make money off the end result, why waste money proving anything about it?
The main problem is how to monetize peptides and the pharma companies have figured out some of that but not all due to the nature of peptide synthesis. If the peptide is bio-identical (humans are a peptide factory making over 7,000) , that is a real problem for getting IP, so it has to be modified to improve it’s performance, as GLP1-RA’s have been created. Even then, because of how peptides are made, they are more easily knocked off.
