Posting this under the heading it deserves: AOD-9604 and the fragment hypothesis, revisited Everything below is what sits behind that.
Reading back through what has been written here about AOD-9604, three questions come up every time and only one has ever been answered properly.
Listing all three, with what I think the state of the answer is for each, so the thread can start further along than the last one did.
The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Before the thread moves on from AOD-9604 — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
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.
I keep a log for AOD-9604 specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
The arithmetic in post #4 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Practical note on AOD-9604: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
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.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Naming conventions for research peptides cause confusion because suppliers do not follow a standard. The same compound gets different names from different suppliers. If you are researching something, confirming the sequence or mass is more reliable than confirming the name.
I had written a reply contradicting post #9 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
A note on scope: what I am saying about AOD-9604 applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about AOD-9604 than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Picking up post #13: that is the part I would want checked first.
Several compounds discussed here have no published human pharmacokinetics at all. That means half-life claims in circulation were derived from an animal model or from nothing.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Post #13 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Where the AOD-9604 reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
Adding the measurement that post #17 says would settle it.
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.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
Distinguishing three things in the AOD-9604 discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Building on post #17 rather than restating it.
An update on my earlier AOD-9604 post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Post #18 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
A compound with no established assay is a compound where a certificate can say almost anything. That is not an accusation about anyone; it is a statement about what a document can carry.
A guess, clearly labelled as one.
A methods point on AOD-9604 rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
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.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
The reason AOD-9604 keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
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.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
On post #24 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
If someone has run AOD-9604 properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.