"peptide" is just a category of chemical. Some of them do good things, some do bad things, some do nothing at all.
Anyone talking about "taking peptides" as a meaningful sentence is absolutely dismissible in the same way someone talking about "taking chemicals" is dismissible.
If there were suddenly thousands of websites advertising "taking chemicals" as cure-all solutions, and a two-year fad where thousands of accounts advertised "chemicals" on social media, and vernacular use of "taking chemicals" meant "self-inject unregulated substances from unknown foreign manufacturers", then do you see how it would make no sense to make this pedantic point to dismiss any concern over the new "taking chemicals" craze?
Maybe I wasn't clear, when I say people should be dismissed for saying "taking chemicals," I mean that they don't get to turn the conversation into a battle of anecdata to try to make their arguments.
For the vast majority of these chemicals, there's no evidence they do anything beneficial. Until there is, you're an idiot for taking them and our regulators are idiots for letting them be marketed to you as if there are benefits.
The entire conversation is goofy because once there's solid enough evidence of safety and efficacy, we just call it a "drug" like any other drug, but somehow a lot of the voluntary lab rats in this craze trust a gas station kiosk more than a billion dollar RCT.
Anyone talking about "taking peptides" as a meaningful sentence is absolutely dismissible in the same way someone talking about "taking chemicals" is dismissible.