Trying to separate three different claims about BPC-157: that it is the right molecule, that it is the right dose, and that it does something useful.
Most of the popular protocols are borrowed from clinical populations and applied to healthy people without comment.
What the peptide class does pharmacologically does not require the subjective effect to be large to be real.
The measured outcome and the hoped-for outcome are rarely the same thing in these threads.
What would change your mind about this?
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Baseline first.
Baseline first.
Nobody has ever been talked out of a stack by a stranger on the internet.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment.
Most of what is called evidence here is one person, one vial, one month. Not on BPC-157 but the pattern is familiar.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? Two years in on BPC-157 and it lines up.
Baseline first.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.