Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157

Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

I have spent a fortnight trying to pin oral versus injected administration claims down and I want to set out where I have got to, because I suspect the honest answer is duller than the thread this will produce.

What I have: a consistent observation across a small number of cases, collected the same way each time. What I do not have: any controlled comparison, or any reason to think my cases are representative.

The specific question is whether the pattern survives once the obvious confounder is removed. I cannot remove it with what I have.

Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.

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 have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.

I keep a log for oral versus injected administration claims specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.

Small correction to my own earlier position on oral versus injected administration claims. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

This follows post #3 rather than contradicting it.

Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature: a large proportion of the evidence comes from one research group. That is not necessarily wrong — one group can do excellent work — but it is worth noting when evaluating the breadth of support for a claim.

Where I have landed on oral versus injected administration claims, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

The confident answers on oral versus injected administration claims and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

Taking post #7 at face value and following it one step further.

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.

Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.

Analytical identity of BPC-157: a 15-residue peptide with an unambiguous mass (≈1419.5 Da). Identity confirmation by LC-MS is trivially easy, which means there is no excuse for an unverified identity on this compound.

Offering a way to settle oral versus injected administration claims rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.

I had written a reply contradicting post #10 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Second-hand on oral versus injected administration claims, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.