AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited — does this still hold?

The question in the title: AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

What changes if the standard account of AOD-9604 is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.

Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.

The opening post is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

One caution on AOD-9604: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Fragment compounds — where the material is part of a larger natural protein — should be identified by sequence rather than by name, because the naming in this space is inconsistent between suppliers.

Whatever the answer on AOD-9604 turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.

AOD-9604 is a fragment of human growth hormone and has been discussed as a potential weight-loss agent based on theoretical mechanism. The fragment hypothesis — that the fragment retains a specific property of the intact hormone — is not settled for this compound.

Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.

What I want from this AOD-9604 thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.

On post #3 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Adding a small correction to the AOD-9604 summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.

Thymosin alpha-1 has a regulatory history in several jurisdictions and a real clinical literature, which puts it in a different evidential category from most of its neighbours here.

Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.

AOD-9604 is a fragment of human growth hormone and has been discussed as a potential weight-loss agent based on theoretical mechanism. The fragment hypothesis — that the fragment retains a specific property of the intact hormone — is not settled for this compound.

Fragment compounds — where the material is part of a larger natural protein — should be identified by sequence rather than by name, because the naming in this space is inconsistent between suppliers.

The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.

Posting my AOD-9604 numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.