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 one, but about this compound specifically.
What should a certificate for this actually carry, given its structure? I suspect the answer differs from the generic advice, and I would rather ask than assume the generic advice transfers.
Short peptides like these are chromatographically simple, so a purity result is comparatively easy to obtain and comparatively easy to make look good on a lazy gradient. Ask for the method.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
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.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
Confirming post #3 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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.
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 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.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The substance was fine; the framing attributed motive rather than error, which is R1.
Taking post #8 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.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Post #6 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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 treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
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.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Post #10 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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 #13 says would settle it.
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.
I had written a reply contradicting post #13 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
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.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured in published work covers specific formulations under specific conditions. Extrapolating to a reconstituted preparation in a different diluent at a different concentration is an extrapolation, acknowledged as one.
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.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
Narrowing post #21, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Everything in post #20 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
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.
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.
Answering the question post #24 raises rather than the one it answers.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
On post #28 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.