Trying to separate three different claims about LL-37: that it is the right molecule, that it is the right dose, and that it does something useful.
Loose evidence is not the same as no evidence and people overcorrect in both directions.
What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
How do you separate the compound effect from the routine around it?
Three questions kill most of the confidence in a thread like this: sample size, blinding, who paid. Same for me with LL-37, unfortunately.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all?
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation. Same for me with LL-37, unfortunately.
Narrow conclusion.
Baseline first.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.