The problem with BPC-157 discussion is that the anecdote and the mechanism get merged. Here is my attempt to keep them apart.
Loose evidence is not the same as no evidence and people overcorrect in both directions.
The comparison group matters more than the compound when the outcome is something as fuzzy as focus.
The animal data is stronger than the human data and the human data is not nothing, it is just small.
Sample size, blinding, and who paid for it. Those three questions kill most of the confidence in most of these threads.
What would change your mind about this?
Sterility is the part people wave through and it is the part that actually bites.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.
Baseline first. Six weeks in on BPC-157 and it lines up.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison. How long have you been on BPC-157?
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Sleep, food, or the compound? Yes.
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything. Currently on BPC-157 myself.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero?
Test one thing at a time. It feels slower and it is the only way to learn anything. Currently on BPC-157 myself.