reading BPC-157 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
Something I keep coming back to: reading BPC-157 threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Went and read the primary rodent papers after arguing about a summary for a week. They are much narrower than the threads suggest. Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer…
It is a fifteen-residue peptide with a published sequence, which makes synthesis straightforward and makes identity verification the meaningful test rather than an optional extra.
Disagree — that is a rodent study and you are stating it as a human effect. The distance between those is the entire argument.
Correction: that study was in rodents. Worth stating explicitly since the thread has been reading it as clinical.
the human evidence is thin and the rodent evidence is not
Paid for identity confirmation rather than just purity for the first time here. Worth it, and it is not the default on most certificates.
sequence confirmation is the test worth paying for
Not convinced. A high purity figure with no identity confirmation tells you the sample is homogeneous, not that it is what you ordered.
the tendon claims are the most repeated and the least evidenced