Marking my uncertainty on BPC-157 explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
14 likes 16mo
Compounds · Repair & healing peptides · continued
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
titrate_trace, post #17: I read post #15 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. BPC-157: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which. Go to post
Taking BPC-157 seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Everything in post #29 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The pentadecapeptide sequence is short and stable enough to survive conditions that would degrade a larger peptide, which is one of the few things about it that is well characterised.
0 likes 16mo
BPC-157: the preclinical literature is extensive, mostly from a small number of research groups, and reports effects across a wide range of injury models. The breadth of reported effects is itself worth noting — a compound that improves outcomes in tendon, muscle, gut, nerve and bone through a single mechanism would be remarkable, and remarkable claims deserve proportionate scrutiny.
0 likes 15mo
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex biological system. That is not a criticism of preclinical work — it is what preclinical work is for.
20 likes 15mo
What I would want before treating BPC-157 as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
8 likes 15mo
to.varga, post #7: Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is. Go to post
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Post #36 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The lyophilised cake is worth looking at before adding diluent. A collapsed or shrunken cake is not a purity finding but it does say something about how the vial was made and how it travelled.
0 likes 15mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
On post #38 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured in published work covers specific formulations under specific conditions. Extrapolating to a reconstituted preparation in a different diluent at a different concentration is an extrapolation, acknowledged as one.
Picking up post #38: that is the part I would want checked first.
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature: a large proportion of the evidence comes from one research group. That is not necessarily wrong — one group can do excellent work — but it is worth noting when evaluating the breadth of support for a claim.
13 likes 15mo
g.haaland, post #8: Answering the question post #4 raises rather than the one it answers. Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex… Go to post
The arithmetic in post #42 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-residue peptide with an unambiguous mass (≈1419.5 Da). Identity confirmation by LC-MS is trivially easy, which means there is no excuse for an unverified identity on this compound.
titrate_trace, post #17: I read post #15 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. BPC-157: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which. Go to post
Answering the question post #40 raises rather than the one it answers.
The distinction between "no evidence it works" and "evidence it does not work": we have the first for these compounds. That is genuinely different from the second and the distinction matters, but it also means treatment plans based on these compounds are being built on theoretical grounds, not empirical ones.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
TB-500 is usually the 7-residue actin-binding fragment of thymosin beta-4, not the full 43-residue protein. The two are routinely conflated in supplier documentation and in the literature. Evidence about the full protein does not automatically apply to the fragment.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
Where I part company with post #44, and it is a narrow parting.
Where the BPC-157 reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
27 likes 14mo
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
0 likes 14mo
g.tanaka, post #24: I had written a reply contradicting post #22 and deleted it. Here is what survived. Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature: a large proportion of the evidence comes from one research group. That is not necessarily wrong — one group can do excellent work — but it is worth noting when evaluating the breadth of support for a claim.… Go to post
The absence of adequately powered published randomised human trials is the central fact about BPC-157. This site states that plainly rather than hedging. Mechanistic plausibility does not substitute for it.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
This follows post #46 rather than contradicting it.
BPC-157's published evidence is overwhelmingly preclinical and mostly rodent. That is not a dismissal — it is the state of the literature, and any discussion that starts elsewhere is starting from something that is not there.
0 likes 14mo
The preclinical work is genuinely interesting and it is preclinical. A rodent tendon model is a model of a rodent tendon, and the translation record from that kind of model is poor.
0 likes 14mo
Two sentences on BPC-157 and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
12 likes 14mo
s.beaulieu, post #5: A note on scope: what I am saying about BPC-157 applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking. Go to post
Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157: the preclinical work studied injection. Oral claims are common in supplier marketing and poorly supported by published evidence. If you are comparing orality between compounds, that is a distinction worth noting.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
c.castellanos, post #47: This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching. Go to post
The arithmetic in post #51 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
TB-500 is usually the 7-residue actin-binding fragment of thymosin beta-4, not the full 43-residue protein. The two are routinely conflated in supplier documentation and in the literature. Evidence about the full protein does not automatically apply to the fragment.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
I had written a reply contradicting post #51 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured in published work covers specific formulations under specific conditions. Extrapolating to a reconstituted preparation in a different diluent at a different concentration is an extrapolation, acknowledged as one.
18 likes 14mo
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex biological system. That is not a criticism of preclinical work — it is what preclinical work is for.
7 likes 14mo
a.villalobos, post #56: Reading a preclinical wound-healing model: the model shows whether a mechanism is plausible in a specific context. It does not show magnitude of effect in humans, does not show safety profile in humans, and does not show whether the effect survives in a more complex biological system. That is not a criticism of preclinical work — it is… Go to post
I would be cautious about generalising from the BPC-157 example above. It is a good example. It is one example.
Practical experience of BPC-157, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
0 likes 13mo
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
24 likes 13mo
Taking post #58 at face value and following it one step further.
The distinction between "no evidence it works" and "evidence it does not work": we have the first for these compounds. That is genuinely different from the second and the distinction matters, but it also means treatment plans based on these compounds are being built on theoretical grounds, not empirical ones.
11 likes 13mo