This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about AOD-9604 in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Post #31 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
AOD-9604 has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Anyone submitting an unusual compound for testing should tell the laboratory what it is rather than what it is sold as. Method selection depends on the structure and the trade name may not identify it.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Adding a null result on AOD-9604. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Picking up post #36: 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.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
When "no data" is the complete and final answer: if there is no published human data on a compound, that is the state of knowledge. Hope is not a substitute and reasoning from theory is not a substitute. That is not a reason for shame; it is the honest epistemic position.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for AOD-9604 post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Where I part company with post #38, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Source for the AOD-9604 figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
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.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
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 where I would start, not where I would stop.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Research-use-only status: what it means legally and practically
Research-use-only status: what it means legally and practically Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Asking about research-use-only status directly, because I…
|
+72 | 81 | 44k | 1d |
|
Melanocortin agonists: mechanism and the documented adverse profile
Melanocortin agonists: mechanism and the documented adverse profile — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Melanocortin agonists, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+7 | 11 | 5.5k | 20mo |
|
When "no data" is the complete and final answer
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: When "no data" is the complete and final answer Asking about the compound itself rather than about a trial of it. I have read the maintained page…
|
+154 | 165 | 6.3k | 15mo |
|
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything
Why catalogue breadth is not evidence of anything I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. What changes if the standard account of catalogue breadth is wrong?…
|
2 | 38k | 2d | |
|
Sequence verification for an obscure compound: how it is done — what changed since
On the subject in the title: Sequence verification for an obscure compound: how it is done — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of Sequence…
|
+100 | 108 | 1.3k | 8mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics: different mechanisms, conflated discussion
On the subject in the title: GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics: different mechanisms, conflated discussion Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics…
|
+47 | 53 | 6.9k | 2h |
|
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+74 | 82 | 2.8k | 6mo |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this still hold?
The question in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to…
|
+6 | 10 | 3.1k | 1d |
|
Documentation that appears only after payment
Documentation that appears only after payment Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that documentation deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring…
|
+113 | 124 | 13k | 7mo |
|
Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: Prescription requirements and telehealth models — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on Prescription requirements and telehealth…
|
+87 | 94 | 1.1k | 21d |