Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset

Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Posting a small dataset on Reading a preclinical wound-healing model. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is stated so it can be discounted appropriately.

What I would like is not agreement but a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in mine. If one exists I would rather read it than argue for this one.

The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

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

A methods point on Reading a preclinical wound-healing model rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.

Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.

Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.

Adding a reference point for Reading a preclinical wound-healing model. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.

Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.

Post #3 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

For anyone arriving from search engines: this subcategory discusses published preclinical work and the absence of published clinical work. It does not endorse or recommend these compounds.

I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on Reading a preclinical wound-healing model, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.

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.

Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are 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.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.

Adding a small correction to the Reading a preclinical wound-healing model summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

What would change the position on repair peptides: adequately powered, published, peer-reviewed randomised controlled human trials with pre-specified outcomes. That is the standard applied to every other therapeutic claim on this site and it is the standard applied here.

The confident version of this sentence would be wrong, so here is the hedged one.

Taking post #12 at face value and following it one step further.

I have been on both sides of the Reading a preclinical wound-healing model argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

Nothing in this subcategory is medical advice and several members here are describing experiments on themselves. Both of those things should be stated plainly rather than implied.