BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset

Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.

BPC-157 looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.

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.

It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.

This follows post #24 rather than contradicting it.

Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.

It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.

Where I part company with post #44, and it is a narrow parting.

Where the BPC-157 reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.

Picking up post #63: that is the part I would want checked first.

BPC-157 is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.

BPC-157's published evidence is overwhelmingly preclinical and mostly rodent. That is not a dismissal — it is the state of the literature, and any discussion that starts elsewhere is starting from something that is not there.

I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.

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.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.