Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit posts 61–67

The arithmetic in post #58 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Mechanistic accounts in this area run well ahead of the outcome data. Angiogenesis and cell migration effects in a dish are real observations and are a long way from a clinical result.

Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.

Answering the question post #60 raises rather than the one it answers.

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.

It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.

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.

This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.

Reading back through, this was answered upthread and I missed it. My fault.

Narrowing post #62, because the general version has more than one answer.

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.

Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.

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 have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.

The strongest argument against my own position on absence of controlled human data, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.