Coming back to: When "no data" is the complete and final answer

Adding the measurement that post #14 says would settle it.

Melanotan II is a non-selective melanocortin agonist, which is why its effects are not confined to pigmentation. The non-selectivity is the mechanism and not a side issue.

I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.

Post #12 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

The honest summary for most of this subcategory: a plausible mechanism, animal data, and first-hand accounts. Saying so is more useful than assembling the accounts into something that reads like evidence.

That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.

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.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.

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.

Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.

Post #16 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

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.

One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.

I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.

Where a compound has a legitimate pharmaceutical form somewhere in the world, the labelling for that form is usually the single most useful document available and is almost never consulted here.

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.

Narrowing post #22, because the general version has more than one answer.

For any compound without a widely available reference standard, retention-time comparisons across laboratories are close to meaningless. Only a mass result travels.

That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.

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.

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.

Answering the question post #25 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.

The arithmetic in post #25 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

This subcategory exists because some people will research compounds outside the main groups discussed here. The standard of evidence and honesty about its limits applies to everything discussed, not just to approved drugs.

A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.

I had written a reply contradicting post #25 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.

Confirming post #29 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

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.

If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.