TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein posts 91–119
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Having read the whole TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Worth separating two things that post #92 runs together.
An honest declaration on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
Post #94 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Coming back to post #92, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
I would keep TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
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.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
The strongest argument against my own position on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
TB-500 is a fragment rather than the whole thymosin beta-4 protein, and the two are used interchangeably in product descriptions when they should not be. The fragment is what is generally supplied.
Confirming post #100 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
I had written a reply contradicting post #102 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The honest answer on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 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.
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
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.
I read the earlier replies on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 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.
Taking post #108 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
Post #107 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A note on how TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 gets discussed rather than on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
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.
For anyone finding this later: the short answer on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I keep a log for TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Post #112 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
Two things can be true about TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
I had written a reply contradicting post #114 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Before the thread moves on from TB-500 and thymosin beta-4 — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
Confirming post #117 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
Post #117 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Small correction to my own earlier position on TB-500 and thymosin beta-4. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
This topic was referenced in
- TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein — does this still hold?Compounds › Repair & healing peptides · 23 replies
- Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year onCompounds › Repair & healing peptides · 7 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer
What would change my mind about repair peptides: a specific answer — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Documentation question rather than a pharmacological…
|
+26 | 30 | 1.1k | 23h |
|
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Something about analytical identity of BPC-157 does not reconcile…
|
+3 | 7 | 5.2k | 10mo |
|
About the Repair & healing peptides category
BPC-157, TB-500 and similar. Mostly preclinical evidence; this subcategory is strict about not overstating it. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 19k | 13mo | |
|
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein — does this still hold?
TB-500 and thymosin beta-4: the fragment versus the protein — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Two things I would like separated…
|
+19 | 23 | 4.2k | 19mo |
|
Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Oral versus injected administration claims…
|
+23 | 27 | 7.7k | 15mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags observational data, TB-500, BPC-157
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass — does this still hold?
Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-mer with a simple mass — does this still hold? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. The question about Analytical…
|
+28 | 33 | 1.6k | 1mo |
|
About the Repair & healing peptides category
BPC-157, TB-500 and similar. Mostly preclinical evidence; this subcategory is strict about not overstating it. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit…
|
4 | 19k | 13mo | |
|
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does — what changed since
CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of…
|
4 | 5.1k | 7mo | |
|
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect What changes if the standard account of plausible mechanism is wrong? I ask because I have been…
|
+14 | 18 | 57k | 13mo |
|
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment
Evidence quality in the secretagogue literature: an honest assessment Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin evidence quality…
|
2 | 25k | 9d |