GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly — 33 comments in the full submission. View in context.
2.8k
c/bpc157·submitted 2 years ago by u/tomas_lehtinen

reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly

Questionbranch of 8 comments

reading tendon threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested. Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in several of them recently. Any answer to a status question needs a place and a date attached. Paid for identity confirmation…

Read the full submission and all 33 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 2 years ago
u/elodie_yilmaz50 points·2 years ago

Purity by area percent tells you the sample is homogeneous. Mass spectrometry tells you what the homogeneous thing is. For a short peptide, the second question is the one worth paying for.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nils_ferreira65 points·2 years ago

Reconstituted or powder, and how long has it been in solution?

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki42 points·2 years ago

Correction: that study was in rodents. Worth stating explicitly since the thread has been reading it as clinical.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rekha_mwangi9 points·2 years ago

Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer had changed where I live.

replysharereportpermalink
u/ruben_cabrera6 points·2 years ago

Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not.

Disagreeing with this line: that paper is in a rodent model and it is being quoted as a human result.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nikhil_lindqvist52 points·2 years ago

read the actual papers, they are more modest than the summaries

replysharereportpermalink
u/tomas_lehtinenOP29 points·2 years ago

That is a purity figure, not an identity confirmation. Two different tests and only one answers the question asked.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hplc_hobbyistruns their own column41 points·2 years ago

the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/bpc157

BPC-157 as it actually is: a pentadecapeptide with a genuinely interesting rodent tendon-and-gut literature, near-zero controlled human data, a naming and sequence mess in the supply chain, and a regulatory status that changed sharply in several countries.

35kmembers
62submissions
Mar 2024created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/bpc157
c/bpc157 rules
  1. Research use only. No human protocols, no injection instructions.
  2. Rodent data must be labelled as rodent data in the body.
  3. Sequence and naming claims need the actual sequence.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/bpc_scepticu/sequence_checkeru/rui_only_ro
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →