I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived. What I would check first on Oral versus injected administration claims is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 Working notes rather than a conclusion.
A follow-up question about Oral versus injected administration claims that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
Confirming the opening post from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this Oral versus injected administration claims discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.
What I would check first on Oral versus injected administration claims is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
The arithmetic in post #3 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The lyophilised cake is worth looking at before adding diluent. A collapsed or shrunken cake is not a purity finding but it does say something about how the vial was made and how it travelled.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Oral versus injected administration claims: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #8 runs together.
Whatever the answer on Oral versus injected administration claims turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
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.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
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.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Everything in post #11 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Trying to state the Oral versus injected administration claims position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Narrowing post #11, because the general version has more than one answer.
Oral versus injected administration claims is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Taking post #14 at face value and following it one step further.
Reported local reactions are common enough in first-hand accounts here to be worth mentioning and are not characterised in any published series.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
I read post #16 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where I would push back on the Oral versus injected administration claims consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Small methodological point on Oral versus injected administration claims: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
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.
This follows post #19 rather than contradicting it.
I would keep Oral versus injected administration claims and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Post #19 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
Adding a reference point for Oral versus injected administration claims. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Since Oral versus injected administration claims keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Narrowing post #24, because the general version has more than one answer.
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 have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
The absence of adequately powered published randomised human trials is the central fact about BPC-157. This site states that plainly rather than hedging. Mechanistic plausibility does not substitute for it.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature, examined Everything below is what sits behind that. Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about…
|
+40 | 45 | 3.4k | 21h |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. The question about BPC-157 that I actually want…
|
+77 | 84 | 54k | 11mo |
|
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…
|
+20 | 24 | 47k | 4mo |
|
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit
Revisiting: Why the absence of controlled human data on BPC-157 matters more than people admit Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about…
|
+50 | 55 | 7.8k | 2d |
|
Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on
The question in the title: Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect — one year on I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. What changes if the standard account of plausible…
|
+3 | 7 | 3.6k | 13mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Study critique category
Structured criticism of a specific published study. Criticise the method, not the author. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
4 | 114 | 16mo | |
|
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured
Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Something about stability of BPC-157 does not reconcile and I would like a second…
|
2 | 805 | 30d | |
|
Naming conventions for research peptides and the confusion they cause — one year on
Naming conventions for research peptides and the confusion they cause — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Asking about Naming conventions for research peptides…
|
+1 | 5 | 181 | 2y |
|
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I would like to know what people here actually do about BPC-157,…
|
+44 | 48 | 3k | 10mo |
|
Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper
On the subject in the title: Retatrutide phase 2 in type 2 diabetes: the Lancet paper Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about retatrutide phase 2 in type on behalf of the question I keep seeing…
|
+12 | 16 | 50k | 12mo |