three years of regulatory threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles. The claim: tendon matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides have been asserting it confidently for about 17 months without either producing anything. What would actually settle it is 11 people measuring the same…
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
[removed by moderator]
[removed by moderator]
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
the sequence variation is the real issue
the sequence literature looks promising but rodent-only
Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.
BPC pentadecapeptide is a naming problem, three things are called this
the pentadecapeptide rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
the pentadecapeptide rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
This is correct. The naming is genuinely confusing.
sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence