someone explain BPC-157 to me like I have not read a paper in years
Genuinely asking, not being difficult.
Everyone in c/scamalerts repeats that regulatory is important. I believe it, but I have never seen anyone show why, and when I search I get 17 threads of people agreeing with each other.
Is there a paper? Is there a measurement? Or is this one of those things that is true because it has been repeated since 2023?
I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence
tendon and pentadecapeptide literature in rodents is interesting
tendon and pentadecapeptide literature in rodents is interesting
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
BPC BPC-157 is a naming problem, three things are called this
The nausea was genuinely awful for three weeks and then simply stopped. I know that is not useful information, but it is what happened.
[removed by moderator]
regulatory status changed in 21 countries, check yours
BPC pentadecapeptide is a naming problem, three things are called this
the sequence variation is the real issue
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
BPC regulatory is a naming problem, three things are called this
Yeah, rodent data does not scale to humans.
Not to be pedantic but pentadecapeptide and tendon are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
How many weeks between the two measurements?
sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
the sequence literature looks promising but rodent-only
tendon and pentadecapeptide literature in rodents is interesting
I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry is why the numbers here matter.
Second this question. I have wondered about BPC-157 for 13 months and never seen a straight answer.
Strongly agree. Zero human controlled data.
the BPC-157 literature looks promising but rodent-only
the BPC-157 literature looks promising but rodent-only
Disagree on that part. 95.1% and 96.2% on the same vial is normal.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
regulatory status changed in 5 countries, check yours
the sequence rodent evidence is solid, human evidence is not
research use only, no human protocols, no injection instructions
research use only, no human protocols, no injection instructions
Adding to this: pentadecapeptide is doing more work than the comment implies.
- 1Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.11 comments in this branch · started by u/bruno_dumitru
- 2I love that this community will spend 40 comments on a detail. That pedantry…10 comments in this branch · started by u/clara_danquah