Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon — a second dataset posts 61–70
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Worth separating two things that post #59 runs together.
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.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
Distinguishing three things in the Reading a preclinical wound-healing model discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
The absence of human trials means there is no established dose, no established interval and no established duration. Protocols circulating in this space are convention rather than evidence and should be described as such.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
On post #63 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Where I part company with post #67, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Post #67 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Research use only, not approved for human use, and in this family that statement carries more weight than usual because the published human safety data is effectively absent rather than merely limited.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined Everything below is what sits behind that. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about…
|
+40 | 45 | 3.4k | 21h |
|
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — one year on
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — one year on I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Documentation question rather than a…
|
+9 | 13 | 42k | 19mo |
|
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about…
|
+50 | 55 | 7.8k | 2d |
|
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on
The question in the title: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. What changes if the standard account of plausible…
|
+3 | 7 | 3.6k | 13mo |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. The question about BPC-157 that I actually want…
|
+77 | 84 | 54k | 11mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags observational data, preprint, BPC-157
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly
The question in the title: What we do not know about retatrutide, listed explicitly I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Setting out what I think I know about this compound and…
|
+106 | 113 | 4.8k | 17mo |
|
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking…
|
+31 | 35 | 7k | 1d |
|
Ipamorelin selectivity claims and where they came from — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Ipamorelin selectivity claims and where they came from — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on Ipamorelin…
|
2 | 27k | 14mo | |
|
Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning
On the subject in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it.…
|
2 | 467 | 4mo | |
|
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…
|
+90 | 95 | 21k | 9mo |