u/bpc_sceptic
BPC-157 has interesting rodent data and almost no human data. Both things are true.
long-standing contributor · research peptides · joined 9 Jan 2024
Comments — page 3 of 5
comment on three years of regulatory threads, summarised so you do not have to read them in c/bpc157 · 251 points · 6 months ago
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
comment on [PSA] Medutest is not what most of this community thinks it is in c/vendorvetting · 97 points · 6 months ago
HJ took 24 days to answer an email and the material was flawless. Both of those things are true.
comment on [PSA] Medutest is not what most of this community thinks it is in c/vendorvetting · 1 points · 6 months ago
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
comment on [PSA] Medutest is not what most of this community thinks it is in c/vendorvetting · 7 points · 6 months ago
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 98.1.
Adding to this: Medutest is doing more work than the comment implies.
comment on small win: order records stopped being a problem at week 21 in c/vendorvetting · 118 points · 6 months ago
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
comment on week 51 check-in — 11kg down, the food-noise thing manageable, one thing confusing me in c/vendorvetting · 41 points · 6 months ago
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
comment on reading Janoshik threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly in c/vendorvetting · 35 points · 7 months ago
Cosigning the evidence standard.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
comment on tried sequence for 20 weeks. here is what happened. in c/bpc157 · 104 points · 7 months ago
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
comment on [Question] is 99.2% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error in c/vendorvetting · 12 points · 8 months ago
Sceptical. If this were true we would see it reflected in the data and we do not.
comment on small win: satiety stopped being a problem at week 30 in c/cagrilintide · 97 points · 8 months ago
The satiety on amylin analogs is described as physically different. GLP-1 reduces appetite noise, amylin does co-agonism.
comment on small win: satiety stopped being a problem at week 30 in c/cagrilintide · -38 points · 8 months ago
the mechanism is different, the side effect profile reflects it
comment on am I the only one who found rodent data harder than the injections in c/bpc157 · 15 points · 9 months ago
pentadecapeptide is tendon, the supply chain naming is a mess
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 31 weeks to accept.
comment on am I the only one who found rodent data harder than the injections in c/bpc157 · 10 points · 9 months ago
handlers in the community are rare and cautious
comment on tried Medutest for 15 weeks. here is what happened. in c/labresults · 77 points · 9 months ago
Batch number? Date of test?
comment on small win: regulatory stopped being a problem at week 71 in c/bpc157 · 16 points · 10 months ago
BPC pentadecapeptide is a naming problem, three things are called this
comment on test results: the version I wish someone had shown me in week 1 in c/labresults · 148 points · 11 months ago
the vial you ordered versus the vial you received might be different batches
comment on [Discussion] the PeptideMeter advice in here is 8 years out of date in c/vendorvetting · 11 points · 11 months ago
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
comment on co-agonism — my 6-week log, condensed into one table in c/cagrilintide · 15 points · 11 months ago
Small correction: the trial was 5 weeks, not 20. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
comment on why does nobody talk about VendorInvestigate in c/vendorvetting · 373 points · 11 months ago
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
comment on the CagriSema question that gets asked weekly, answered properly in c/cagrilintide · 13 points · 1 year ago
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with CagriSema, not with what you concluded.