This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
I had written a reply contradicting post #87 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The failure mode on CJC-1295 is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
Confirming post #91 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Effects reported at the level of appetite are the most consistently described and the most mechanistically direct for the ghrelin-receptor compounds, which is not what most people are taking them for.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on CJC-1295, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Where I part company with post #91, and it is a narrow parting.
GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics are often conflated but they are different mechanisms. GHRH analogues (like CJC-1295) cause the pituitary to release growth hormone. Ghrelin mimetics (like GHRPs) act on the ghrelin receptor directly. The effect on growth hormone secretion is similar but the mechanisms are distinct.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
A methods point on CJC-1295 rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
Post #95 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Storage: these are lyophilised short peptides and are generally reasonably stable dry and considerably less so in solution. Reconstituting only what will be used within the period the supplier's own data covers is the conservative approach.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
If someone has run CJC-1295 properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.
The honest answer on CJC-1295 is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
I read the earlier replies on CJC-1295 twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Confirming post #103 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
GHRH analogues versus ghrelin mimetics are often conflated but they are different mechanisms. GHRH analogues (like CJC-1295) cause the pituitary to release growth hormone. Ghrelin mimetics (like GHRPs) act on the ghrelin receptor directly. The effect on growth hormone secretion is similar but the mechanisms are distinct.
I would call that likely rather than established.
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Post #107 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
On analysis: these are short peptides and generally straightforward chromatographically, which means a poor purity result is more likely to reflect the synthesis than the method.
The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.
This follows post #107 rather than contradicting it.
Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating: rodent studies can show a mechanism is plausible. They cannot show magnitude of effect in humans or safety profile in humans. That gap is larger for secretagogues than for incretin agonists because the human evidence is thinner.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
The thing about CJC-1295 that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
Post #112 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
On analysis: these are short peptides and generally straightforward chromatographically, which means a poor purity result is more likely to reflect the synthesis than the method.
CJC-1295 exists in two forms in circulation — with and without the drug affinity complex — and they have very different half-lives. Product descriptions frequently do not say which, and the difference is not cosmetic.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Careful with the language on CJC-1295. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
The practical version of CJC-1295 is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Post #116 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Storage: these are lyophilised short peptides and are generally reasonably stable dry and considerably less so in solution. Reconstituting only what will be used within the period the supplier's own data covers is the conservative approach.
Agreed, and I will stop repeating the version of this I had been repeating.