Reading a preclinical wound-healing model and its relevance to a human tendon posts 121–150
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Picking up post #121: that is the part I would want checked first.
A note on scope: what I am saying about reading a preclinical wound-healing model applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
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.
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.
Adding the measurement that post #125 says would settle it.
What I would tell a new member reading about reading a preclinical wound-healing model for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
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.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
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.
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.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
Answering the question post #130 raises rather than the one it answers.
The number people quote for reading a preclinical wound-healing model is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
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.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
Everything in post #134 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
What I would check first on reading a preclinical wound-healing model is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on reading a preclinical wound-healing model. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Anecdote is the whole of the human evidence base here, and this community's convention is to say so rather than to aggregate anecdotes into something that sounds like data.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Reading a preclinical wound-healing model has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Taking post #139 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Dose-response is unstudied in humans for essentially everything in this family, which means the confident numbers in circulation came from somewhere other than a trial.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
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.
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.
Answering the question post #144 raises rather than the one it answers.
Two claims get bundled together under reading a preclinical wound-healing model and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
The arithmetic in post #147 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
On reading a preclinical wound-healing model, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
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.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.