the tendon claims trace back to a small number of animal studies that get cited well past what they support
#other-peptides 2025-08-24
Sunday48 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- electrolyte_eli — BPC-157 human evidence is close to absent, the rodent work is extensive and thats a different thing 09:54
- VialBot — Assay note: ERP lot G-0641 reported at 98.6% of label content. 13:14
- oasis_ola — coming back to this reconstituted 2 in 2ml and it stayed clear for the whole vial, which is the low bar we work with, we shall see 13:42
BPC-157 human evidence is close to absent, the rodent work is extensive and thats a different thing
🧪15
did nothing for me
verification channel has some
is the secretagogue appetite increase a real effect or dose dependent
how many weeks is a fair run for GHK-Cu topically
[edited]took a full month off everything to get a baseline and it was the most useful month of my log
how do you separate healing from time when the injury was going to heal anyway
no human data
anyone tried one variable at a time here or is everyone stacking
secretagogues made me ravenous, which is a fairly direct signal that something was happening
one thing at a time
✅5
anyone run TB-500 on its own rather than stacked with something
baseline month helped
slightly off topic but anyone stopped everything for a month to get a baseline
nobody here can tell you whether BPC will help your injury and anyone who does is guessing
does anyone log these the way people log doses in the other channels
unrelated but GHK-Cu is the one where photos would help and nobody ever controls the lighting
is the human evidence thin or genuinely absent
i stacked three things for 12 months and the honest conclusion is that i learned nothing
ran it alone
is the tendon stuff anecdote or is there something behind it
the labs will run purity on most of these, its identity and content, not efficacy
rodent data only
⚠️2😂5👀6
Batch lookup A-2601: 4 independent reports on file, earliest 2025-06-16.
ran GHK-Cu for 7 weeks and stopped because i couldnt tell, which is a result of a kind
[edited]Assay note: ERP lot G-0641 reported at 98.6% of label content.
changed my mind on stacking, i used to defend it and now i think it just makes a log unreadable
if youre going to run something, run it long enough and alone, otherwise dont bother logging it
tesamorelin has a licensed indication and everything outside it is us extrapolating
how long do people run TB-500 before deciding it did nothing
placebo maybe
does GHK-Cu do anything you can actually see
🙏2
anyone got a before and after on GHK-Cu that isnt just lighting
get it tested
coming back to this reconstituted 2 in 2ml and it stayed clear for the whole vial, which is the low bar we work with, we shall see
🧪4💀12
no long term human safety data for most of these, which is the sentence people skip past
the scepticism here is because the evidence is thin, not because people are being difficult
sceptical but curious
cant tell honestly
stacked, learned nothing
ran TB-500 alone for 24 weeks specifically so i could attribute anything that happened
⚠️5
i was confident BPC did something for my elbow and a year later im not, injuries resolve
the verification channel takes these, its just that far fewer people submit them
is there a reason this channel is so much more sceptical than the compound ones
injuries heal anyway
🧊1
the honest split is that some of these have licensed uses and some have a reputation and nothing else
ran one thing at a time for 2 years and ended up with three conclusions, two of them boring
⚠️3