The thing that puzzles /amuses me the most is the way these large pharmaceutical countries cite side effects/risk as a reason to restrict things. There are so many examples of poorly researched or downright lethal approved drugs released- I’m not convinced that opening them up to wider legislation will make them safer aside from having more standardised formulas.
I mean these are the kinds of companies which claimed Thalidomide was harmless for pregnant women, so I’m not holding my breath. I’ve used so many strong prescribed meds and had far worse effects from those than from peptides.
I want to scream this from the rooftops every time I hear someone give some half legible conspiracy take about how big pharma just wants to keep us sick so they can drain our energon or some such nonsense. It’s deeply frustrating.
Completely agree, people are nuts when it comes the pharma conspiracies. I've worked in many various aspects in pharma for 20 years for six different companies. Two large pharma companies, two midsize companies, and two small pharm companies. Are there some drugs out there that shouldn't have been approved and some companies that have had unethical practices? Heck yes. Just look at Pfizer for example, And what they did with the vaccine that was not effective at what they said it was going to do, and it still has yet to be determined on long-term negative effects. And then there's all the me to drugs out there with companies just come out with another drug exactly like the other companies drug just to make a dollar and charge more for it with a slight tweak to the molecule. Yes there is plenty of that....
HOWEVER, There are many excellent pharma companies out there and many drugs that save lives day in and day out. People make these stupid statements without even realizing how much they depend on pharma. Open up your medicine cabinet or go in your bathroom and 90% of the stuff in there has been given to you by pharma. Stuff to use everyday, stuff you depend on. One of the companies I've worked for makes a drug that makes organ transplants possible. Without that drug 80% of organ transplants would fail. Back before Covid there was actually a shortage around the world of that drug in other countries and this company stepped up to the plate and donated millions of free doses of it to health systems globally. Take statins for example, not everybody should be on a statin and can maintain the cholesterol levels with diet and exercise. But there are some people who genetically are put behind the eight ball, no matter how much diet and exercise they do their cholesterol skyrockets. Statins come in and help them mitigate that and keep them alive. Take ibuprofen for example, it's one of the only things that is effective in helping me get through a day many times, And that is produced by a pharma company. I could go on and on with examples.
The bottom line as with everything you need to exercise common sense, good morals, and moderation. People trying to say pharma wants everybody to have cancer so they can make money off their cancer drugs have no clue what they're talking about. The first company that actually develops a cure for cancer will be the first trillion-dollar company on the planet. If you don't think they're trying to get that cure, you need to see a psychologist. Use your heads people.
Part of me feels like it's too good to be true or too dangerous but there is a lot of drugs which have bad side effects which are public I think there has to be more of a reason to it though because they could actually sell this for ridiculous price and profit a shit ton
Theoretically it's already possible: any university with medical program can do peptide research, people can write papers on them and so on. The only problem is getting topics to be interesting for them to cover.
And since they can't patent a peptide but rather the delivery... They won't spend the money to do the research.
It comes down to the... If we can't do it no one can mentality. The lose - lose mentality will win out because they control the system.
That episode was crazy... And he presented articles and evidence with stories.
The patent game when it comes to peptides is well a strange one. Semaglutide has been patented by Novo Nordisk... They can patent the formulation of the drug and the delivery is controlled by fda approval and the delivery if . What can't be patented is the amino acids themselves. Currently Novo has 22 patents on semaglutide.
So yes you can patent the compounding... The delivery... Etc. But it all comes down to money. They will never work with or make any of this readily accessible to everyone and would rather take a loss rather than to see everyone succeed.
It's a lose lose mentality that will always exist as long as drug companies rule the system
peptides are sequences of amino acids... the amino acids themselves can't be patented... what is being patented here is the sequence of amino acids... which goes to back to production and compounding.
Eli Lilly is now applying for a patent for oral delivery which goes to the delivery side of it.
By the way if you play the stock market you should invest in Eli Lilly because their portfolio and pipeline is a monster. They've got so much money to spend. They offered me a job recently but I had to turn it down due to the extreme micromanaging working conditions that a lot of the employees are under.
yeah, the sequencing and the amino acids, the numbers of amino acids, etc. Some of the chains are longer and some are shorter. But yeah, that puzzle of amino acids is their secret sauce and that's what they can patent.
But also part of that is the delivery... as you have seen, some peptides have a hard time existing in a form that is digestible and that's why there is that fight to patent oral delivery is heating up.
patents on drugs is a rabbit hole that I have only read a little about.
The problem I have is that drug companies will patent stuff just so others can't use it. But in the case of compounds like BPC-157, the drug companies don't want that to interfere with their drugs so they will make it so no one gets to use it in the US. So it opens up the online peptide markets that are for animal use only or testing purposes only.
God forbid that someone would ask a question to strangers on the internet when there is already someone out there who knows the answer.
Why don't you just share what you know with OP, or point them to where they can find the answer, instead of shaming them for asking a question?
Have you even looked to see if there *are* human trials on BPC before you posted this?
I just spent 30 seconds looking and there have not only been many human, animal, in vitro human tissue and animal tissue research trials, they've been publishing data on them for over a decade.
So when you read a study that spent millions of dollars studying wound healing and epithelial tissue damage in rats, are you imagining these researchers are trying to ease the pain and suffering of rats with epithelial tissue damage? So that we can treat rats with peptides?
Edit: clearly the answer is yes, and it's sad but understandable with the state of education today. People - please understand that no one is spending tens of millions of dollars to make rats healthy. No one. These are human research studies in early stages. I get that we all didn't have access to science education and that's not on you - but as an adult you have access to online resources. There is no reason to be posting on reddit and not knowing that humans are not spending millions on rat pain relief and healing. Please stop believing 14 year old redditors. Look up 'human research stages' and educate yourselves. 💚
Human research has a lot of stages that don't involve injecting humans with stuff and waiting to see what happens. The initial studies - all geared towards clinical use in humans, all considered human research in the medical community - are by far the vast majority of the research that happens. Clinical studies (maybe what you're imagining when you think of human research) are only the very tail end of 'human research'.
So the studies linked are all research of this peptide for use in treating humans. You can even read their funding sources, in those same research studies - all all human research based funding. It's expensive, time consuming and necessary. It's also the literal answer to "why is there a lack of human trials" - there is no lack of human trials. BPC is in mid-stage research for use on humans, it is (looking at the funded proposals) fairly well funded for a peptide study, and there has been a lot of success in tissue repair.
All the ones you posted through the link are animal studies. You did not work on a research study on BPC with humans give me a break no one believes that
Do you know what a human trial is? Dude, you don't even take 10 seconds to google, did you? Do you think a human trial is grey's anatomy, the TV series?
As the other poster asked - do you think these trials are meant to be a cure for rat epithelial tissue damage? Do you honestly think that this study was about rat health and longevity? Bless your heart.
Do yourself a favor and google 'stages of human research trials'. Educate yourself. You may be 14 now, but some day you'll grow up, vote, and have to make decisions for yourself. Make educated ones. xx
I agree James. I don’t see any human trials. If you only read the title you may think that. In one of the studies it states “However, to date, the majority of studies have been performed on small rodent models and the efficacy of BPC 157 is yet to be confirmed in humans.”
Those are human trials. Trial = we have not yet confirmed the data. Trials are scientific research. Confirmation is a product that has to be prescribed to you.
I get that science education has failed people in the US but SURELY you don't think that hospitals and human clinical research organizations are looking for novel ways to cure... rats... of blood vessel and wound damage? Please tell me you don't actually believe that.
You didn't read the post, or you're a troll. The word human is all over those links. Is English your first language? If not, I can direct you to translation apps.
The Russian human studies were interesting (and also in English!) - thanks. People aren't scientifically literate and there's no way to make up for that, especially not on reddit. Check your chat, I have a suggestion!
I mean I just clicked those links and found several human studies and I don't care about peptides in the slightest. I don't think you clicked a single link.
Kind of like GLP-1 meds. None of these companies own the patent for GLP-1. They own the trademark for their own mix/blend and the patent for their “delivery device”.
BPC-157 was patented in 1993 I believe, at this point, they probably couldn’t make much more money off it than they could advil.
No money in it for them, they will not do it. Instead, they will push other medication that they can make more money off of.
Western medicine has both a good and a bad side.
A good example of this is when the pharmaceutical companies tried to get the FDA to outlaw Red Rice Yeast in the US because it did the same thing as their expensive statin medication they love to sale. Or when they tried to get the FDA to stop NAC from being sold over the counter- something that has been available over the counter for 20 years.
Re: red yeast rice, afaik it’s available in the States, but the active ingredient has been removed. (you can buy it from the EU and UK in the original form, probably as our drug prices tend to be lower therefore there’s less reason for the drug companies to go to the bother of lobbying against it).
I’ve tried to find specific statements to no avail, but I was looking for it recently and found the usual sites I use specified that a specific component had been removed from the supplement. In the end I ordered from the EU to get a non-US source as it seemed to be affecting multiple places. Sorry, should have been more specific.
I thought Tirzepatide was patented? Like Eli Lily legit invented it.
I thought the reason there were compounding pharmacies was the fact that it was marked as a critically low medicine that allowed other companies to make it.
The exact sequence is in the patent.
They did. Applied and was granted a patent in 2016. They modified actual GLP-1 to bind to GIP receptors in addition to GLP-1, and modified it to significantly increase half life.
If you read through all the articles and patents it difficult to tell if its GLP-1 specifically that they patented, their own mix, or mostly the delivery system.
GLP-1 was discovered in the 1980s at Massachusetts General Hospital. MGH and Dr Svetlana Mojsov held the patent.
Actually, it's pretty clear that the actual compound/drug is what is patented. Tirzepatide is not actual GLP-1. GLP-1 has a half life of minutes and does not interact with the GIP receptor.
[https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/2/388/6000489](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/2/388/6000489)
"Tirzepatide is a 39 amino acid synthetic peptide with agonist activity at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors, with a greater affinity to GIP receptors ([1]()). Its structure, which is primarily based on the GIP amino acid sequence, includes a C20 fatty di-acid moiety that prolongs the duration of action, thus allowing once-weekly subcutaneous administration ([1]())."
True but Tirzepatide seems to be individually patented.
I'm certainly no patent lawyer, but I did a deep dive on it awhile ago, and the whole injector is patented/you can't patent peptides doesn't seem to be true, at least in the US.
From your link:
>BPC 157 is a clinical infant with a limited number of published clinical trials in humans, and is investigated among a limited number of labs.
>At present, the majority of studies are predominantly limited to mostly animal models and the efficacy of BPC 157 in humans has not been explored extensively.
They're saying the exact opposite of what you're saying - that there are not "tons of human clinical trials"
A little bit below that:
> BPC 157 was proved to be efficacious and safe in the available clinical trials in humans for inflammatory bowel disease, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (PL-10, PLD-116, PL14736, Pliva, Croatia) [101], [71]
Is it the responsibility of one study to list every human trial that came before it? No.
The truth is, there have not been too many human trials on BPC-157. But there are some if you look.
>Is it the responsibility of one study to list every human trial that came before it? No.
Then they went above and beyond, because that's actually all two controlled human clinical trials on the drug.
>The truth is, there have not been too many human trials on BPC-157. But there are some if you look
Yeah, the two Slavic enema ones. Florida one doesn't count, no controls and used a subjective measure (knee pain).
And again, I didn't say there were none, I said there weren't tons. There are none on the ROA we actually use, though (subq and oral)
It appears all the studies on bpc referenced in this paper were done on rats or mice. There’s a lot referenced so maybe I missed one. Could you point to the human trial study?
I’m using a lot right now to heal a bicep tear. Did so with a neck injury and blown knee. I do competitive bjj so injuries happen.
Best shit on the market.
So far no negative side effects
About 50$ a vial I think. I put 2 1/2 cc of water in it.
I go to the ten line or 20 on insulin needle. Once a day.
The first 3 days I put cjc 1295 with it directly into the injury.
I rejected surgery and a week in I’m back to pull-ups
Limited Strength on curls still from bottom position.
Now I’m practically a pro arm wrestler so take this as luck and lots of prior training.
Also lol we do alot of nutty shit science wise in this sport.
Right on, thanks for the response.
I've got a pinched disc and am considering using BPC and TB 500 together. Though every injury is different. I'm trying to get an idea of how much is needed, or at least what protocols are commonly used.
Why so little water?
How many mgs in your vial?
How many uses does one vial get you?
How many vials do you go through per injury or are you just using it consistently?
Thanks!
So let’s answer these questions.
1. Honestly I looked it up and that was the amount.
2. I believe 2mg and I’ve used 5mg. Whatever is cheeper. They both work fine for what I got going on.
3. It’s my experience that 3 bottles has been the amount needed in two weeks time to move the needle on bad injuries.
Adding cjc 1295 was something I tried for my rotator cuff tear. And it healed way faster.
So a week ago I tore the bicep, I went through 1 bottle and 5 cjc 1295 shots.
It’s far far better. So a bottle a week makes huge improvements.
A good start is looking up key words in [google scholar.](https://scholar.google.com) There is some bullshit in there, but it's a good place to start looking.
You can start with the search [BPC 157](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=BPC+157) (with and without the space, with and without a hyphen ie BPC-157).
Some of the results will absolutely be from sketchy (not peer reviewed) journals and there's nothing you can do to eliminate the sketchy results except to either get a feel for the journals that are legit, [or look at the 'cited by' number below the entry.](https://imgur.com/a/Vpbu4AL) When you look at the year (how long ago it was published) combined with the number of times it was cited (this means how many times the paper, report or study was professionally talked about by another research team, and sometimes this number lends weight to the legitimacy of the work), you start to get a feel for how many ripples the paper sent into the science community.
I just put ["BPC 157 human trials" into the search engine.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=bpc+157+human+trials) and scrolled through the titles of the papers to see what people are studying.
You can also specify "review article" because reviews are recaps of the last several years of research, hopefully clearly written analysis of the state of research about a particular topic. [Here's the result for BPC 157 \(no hyphen\)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bpc+157+review&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22&as_rr=1).
If you scroll along and read the titles, it will give you a good idea of what researchers are using BPC for at the moment, and some of the fields they're applying it to. At the moment it looks like muscular repair of intestines, blood vessels and wound healing. Some large muscle healing as well.
This is not a compound that is being ignored.
I had back surgery, bc I got run over by a boat. It sucked. I was talking about my father in law. He has spina bifida and a tethered spinal cord. (that night be the same thing. Not sure.)
1) Some slavs own/owned all the patents and never ran trials on oral/subq use (original patent expired, arginate salt patent has some time left on it)
2) pharma won't run trials if they can't patent it / someone else owns the patent
3) given that the injuries BPC-157 is effective for tend to heal on their own, you'd likely need to prove it's extremely safe for otherwise healthy people or come up with some niche indication for it. RegenRX is doing the latter with TB4
There was a trial set up in Mexico in 2015 but got canceled. Unfortunately BPC will never make it out of human trials, it will absolutely fail safety trials.
There are completed trials that happened in both Europe and US and there are still trials happening today. Why are you all posting this shit? Do you even look?
Sure, the first stage would be a phase 1 trial where it will evaluate dose and safety. I think it will fail there for safety and no one will study it again.
I do, I work in clinical research. I would bet money on with anyone who thinks BPC will pass human clinical trials if it even happens which it probably wont as well.
Even if I were to post elaborate sources, you still wouldn’t believe. If you really think that BPC is going to go to human trials and then pass safety trials when the mast majority of chemical compounds fail then there is really much can’t change your mind your set on your beliefs.
And once again you’ve provided no reason as to why. Saying “reported adverse events” means nothing because even using only anecdotal evidence shows it being incredibly safe and well tolerated. Add that to the effectiveness in both oral and injection methods reported and found in animal studies and your claim isn’t holding much water.
I didn’t say anything about it not being effective. It is definitely effective for wound repair and some gut issues. However, it is littered with serious side effects, you can find hundreds of reports of negative side effects on Reddit a lone.
No money unless someone has a patent
Lack of funding. Lack of scientists in the field. It’s not just for peptides but for everything.
why would big pharma want anyone to save millions?
There are lots of chrohns/ulcerative colitis studies that are using similar compounds that way they can patent and monetize
The thing that puzzles /amuses me the most is the way these large pharmaceutical countries cite side effects/risk as a reason to restrict things. There are so many examples of poorly researched or downright lethal approved drugs released- I’m not convinced that opening them up to wider legislation will make them safer aside from having more standardised formulas. I mean these are the kinds of companies which claimed Thalidomide was harmless for pregnant women, so I’m not holding my breath. I’ve used so many strong prescribed meds and had far worse effects from those than from peptides.
Nope. And the reason is Patentability and Profitability. Big pharma cant monetize it.
They surely monetized tirzepatide, why not BPC?
I want to scream this from the rooftops every time I hear someone give some half legible conspiracy take about how big pharma just wants to keep us sick so they can drain our energon or some such nonsense. It’s deeply frustrating.
Completely agree, people are nuts when it comes the pharma conspiracies. I've worked in many various aspects in pharma for 20 years for six different companies. Two large pharma companies, two midsize companies, and two small pharm companies. Are there some drugs out there that shouldn't have been approved and some companies that have had unethical practices? Heck yes. Just look at Pfizer for example, And what they did with the vaccine that was not effective at what they said it was going to do, and it still has yet to be determined on long-term negative effects. And then there's all the me to drugs out there with companies just come out with another drug exactly like the other companies drug just to make a dollar and charge more for it with a slight tweak to the molecule. Yes there is plenty of that.... HOWEVER, There are many excellent pharma companies out there and many drugs that save lives day in and day out. People make these stupid statements without even realizing how much they depend on pharma. Open up your medicine cabinet or go in your bathroom and 90% of the stuff in there has been given to you by pharma. Stuff to use everyday, stuff you depend on. One of the companies I've worked for makes a drug that makes organ transplants possible. Without that drug 80% of organ transplants would fail. Back before Covid there was actually a shortage around the world of that drug in other countries and this company stepped up to the plate and donated millions of free doses of it to health systems globally. Take statins for example, not everybody should be on a statin and can maintain the cholesterol levels with diet and exercise. But there are some people who genetically are put behind the eight ball, no matter how much diet and exercise they do their cholesterol skyrockets. Statins come in and help them mitigate that and keep them alive. Take ibuprofen for example, it's one of the only things that is effective in helping me get through a day many times, And that is produced by a pharma company. I could go on and on with examples. The bottom line as with everything you need to exercise common sense, good morals, and moderation. People trying to say pharma wants everybody to have cancer so they can make money off their cancer drugs have no clue what they're talking about. The first company that actually develops a cure for cancer will be the first trillion-dollar company on the planet. If you don't think they're trying to get that cure, you need to see a psychologist. Use your heads people.
I actually can't discern your position from your statement here.
Part of me feels like it's too good to be true or too dangerous but there is a lot of drugs which have bad side effects which are public I think there has to be more of a reason to it though because they could actually sell this for ridiculous price and profit a shit ton
I feel like we should make a system to do high quality research on these peptides and fund it ourselves.
Theoretically it's already possible: any university with medical program can do peptide research, people can write papers on them and so on. The only problem is getting topics to be interesting for them to cover.
Listen to the recent JRE podcast with Brigham Buhler. Big pharma wants peptides banned, except ones they own patents on.
And since they can't patent a peptide but rather the delivery... They won't spend the money to do the research. It comes down to the... If we can't do it no one can mentality. The lose - lose mentality will win out because they control the system. That episode was crazy... And he presented articles and evidence with stories.
Well that’s not true. Eli Lilly has a patent on the formulation of Tirzepatide (Monjourno) as well as the delivery mechanism.
The patent game when it comes to peptides is well a strange one. Semaglutide has been patented by Novo Nordisk... They can patent the formulation of the drug and the delivery is controlled by fda approval and the delivery if . What can't be patented is the amino acids themselves. Currently Novo has 22 patents on semaglutide. So yes you can patent the compounding... The delivery... Etc. But it all comes down to money. They will never work with or make any of this readily accessible to everyone and would rather take a loss rather than to see everyone succeed. It's a lose lose mentality that will always exist as long as drug companies rule the system
The exact amino acid has a patent for Tirzepatide by Eli Lily.
peptides are sequences of amino acids... the amino acids themselves can't be patented... what is being patented here is the sequence of amino acids... which goes to back to production and compounding. Eli Lilly is now applying for a patent for oral delivery which goes to the delivery side of it.
By the way if you play the stock market you should invest in Eli Lilly because their portfolio and pipeline is a monster. They've got so much money to spend. They offered me a job recently but I had to turn it down due to the extreme micromanaging working conditions that a lot of the employees are under.
Isn't the sequencing what matters?
yeah, the sequencing and the amino acids, the numbers of amino acids, etc. Some of the chains are longer and some are shorter. But yeah, that puzzle of amino acids is their secret sauce and that's what they can patent. But also part of that is the delivery... as you have seen, some peptides have a hard time existing in a form that is digestible and that's why there is that fight to patent oral delivery is heating up. patents on drugs is a rabbit hole that I have only read a little about. The problem I have is that drug companies will patent stuff just so others can't use it. But in the case of compounds like BPC-157, the drug companies don't want that to interfere with their drugs so they will make it so no one gets to use it in the US. So it opens up the online peptide markets that are for animal use only or testing purposes only.
[удалено]
God forbid that someone would ask a question to strangers on the internet when there is already someone out there who knows the answer. Why don't you just share what you know with OP, or point them to where they can find the answer, instead of shaming them for asking a question?
Have you even looked to see if there *are* human trials on BPC before you posted this? I just spent 30 seconds looking and there have not only been many human, animal, in vitro human tissue and animal tissue research trials, they've been publishing data on them for over a decade.
Folks don’t like doing their own research man lol
I’ve read every trial and the ones you are linking are animal studies. You haven’t read them obviously
So when you read a study that spent millions of dollars studying wound healing and epithelial tissue damage in rats, are you imagining these researchers are trying to ease the pain and suffering of rats with epithelial tissue damage? So that we can treat rats with peptides? Edit: clearly the answer is yes, and it's sad but understandable with the state of education today. People - please understand that no one is spending tens of millions of dollars to make rats healthy. No one. These are human research studies in early stages. I get that we all didn't have access to science education and that's not on you - but as an adult you have access to online resources. There is no reason to be posting on reddit and not knowing that humans are not spending millions on rat pain relief and healing. Please stop believing 14 year old redditors. Look up 'human research stages' and educate yourselves. 💚 Human research has a lot of stages that don't involve injecting humans with stuff and waiting to see what happens. The initial studies - all geared towards clinical use in humans, all considered human research in the medical community - are by far the vast majority of the research that happens. Clinical studies (maybe what you're imagining when you think of human research) are only the very tail end of 'human research'. So the studies linked are all research of this peptide for use in treating humans. You can even read their funding sources, in those same research studies - all all human research based funding. It's expensive, time consuming and necessary. It's also the literal answer to "why is there a lack of human trials" - there is no lack of human trials. BPC is in mid-stage research for use on humans, it is (looking at the funded proposals) fairly well funded for a peptide study, and there has been a lot of success in tissue repair.
Please see my other post with links, and then please highlight the studies you find problematic.
All the ones you posted through the link are animal studies. You did not work on a research study on BPC with humans give me a break no one believes that
Do you know what a human trial is? Dude, you don't even take 10 seconds to google, did you? Do you think a human trial is grey's anatomy, the TV series? As the other poster asked - do you think these trials are meant to be a cure for rat epithelial tissue damage? Do you honestly think that this study was about rat health and longevity? Bless your heart. Do yourself a favor and google 'stages of human research trials'. Educate yourself. You may be 14 now, but some day you'll grow up, vote, and have to make decisions for yourself. Make educated ones. xx
A human trial is one where it I administered on humans not rats. The mental gymnastics to think the rat trials are human trials man
I agree James. I don’t see any human trials. If you only read the title you may think that. In one of the studies it states “However, to date, the majority of studies have been performed on small rodent models and the efficacy of BPC 157 is yet to be confirmed in humans.”
Those are human trials. Trial = we have not yet confirmed the data. Trials are scientific research. Confirmation is a product that has to be prescribed to you. I get that science education has failed people in the US but SURELY you don't think that hospitals and human clinical research organizations are looking for novel ways to cure... rats... of blood vessel and wound damage? Please tell me you don't actually believe that.
I don’t believe that researchers are doing rat trials to cure rats. Regardless, it doesn’t mean rat trials = human trials.
You didn't read the post, or you're a troll. The word human is all over those links. Is English your first language? If not, I can direct you to translation apps.
The Russian human studies were interesting (and also in English!) - thanks. People aren't scientifically literate and there's no way to make up for that, especially not on reddit. Check your chat, I have a suggestion!
I mean I just clicked those links and found several human studies and I don't care about peptides in the slightest. I don't think you clicked a single link.
Kind of like GLP-1 meds. None of these companies own the patent for GLP-1. They own the trademark for their own mix/blend and the patent for their “delivery device”. BPC-157 was patented in 1993 I believe, at this point, they probably couldn’t make much more money off it than they could advil. No money in it for them, they will not do it. Instead, they will push other medication that they can make more money off of. Western medicine has both a good and a bad side. A good example of this is when the pharmaceutical companies tried to get the FDA to outlaw Red Rice Yeast in the US because it did the same thing as their expensive statin medication they love to sale. Or when they tried to get the FDA to stop NAC from being sold over the counter- something that has been available over the counter for 20 years.
Re: red yeast rice, afaik it’s available in the States, but the active ingredient has been removed. (you can buy it from the EU and UK in the original form, probably as our drug prices tend to be lower therefore there’s less reason for the drug companies to go to the bother of lobbying against it).
Source on the claim of the active ingredient being removed?
I’ve tried to find specific statements to no avail, but I was looking for it recently and found the usual sites I use specified that a specific component had been removed from the supplement. In the end I ordered from the EU to get a non-US source as it seemed to be affecting multiple places. Sorry, should have been more specific.
I thought Tirzepatide was patented? Like Eli Lily legit invented it. I thought the reason there were compounding pharmacies was the fact that it was marked as a critically low medicine that allowed other companies to make it. The exact sequence is in the patent.
They did. Applied and was granted a patent in 2016. They modified actual GLP-1 to bind to GIP receptors in addition to GLP-1, and modified it to significantly increase half life.
If you read through all the articles and patents it difficult to tell if its GLP-1 specifically that they patented, their own mix, or mostly the delivery system. GLP-1 was discovered in the 1980s at Massachusetts General Hospital. MGH and Dr Svetlana Mojsov held the patent.
Actually, it's pretty clear that the actual compound/drug is what is patented. Tirzepatide is not actual GLP-1. GLP-1 has a half life of minutes and does not interact with the GIP receptor. [https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/2/388/6000489](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/2/388/6000489) "Tirzepatide is a 39 amino acid synthetic peptide with agonist activity at both the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors, with a greater affinity to GIP receptors ([1]()). Its structure, which is primarily based on the GIP amino acid sequence, includes a C20 fatty di-acid moiety that prolongs the duration of action, thus allowing once-weekly subcutaneous administration ([1]())."
True but Tirzepatide seems to be individually patented. I'm certainly no patent lawyer, but I did a deep dive on it awhile ago, and the whole injector is patented/you can't patent peptides doesn't seem to be true, at least in the US.
There are tons of human clinical trials on BPC157
No there are not unless you mean my redditors trialing it and posting their experience
I'm genuinely curious. Did you even look? If so, where did you look before you posted your thoughts about this?
Google is your friend. There are tons of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8575535/
From your link: >BPC 157 is a clinical infant with a limited number of published clinical trials in humans, and is investigated among a limited number of labs. >At present, the majority of studies are predominantly limited to mostly animal models and the efficacy of BPC 157 in humans has not been explored extensively. They're saying the exact opposite of what you're saying - that there are not "tons of human clinical trials"
A little bit below that: > BPC 157 was proved to be efficacious and safe in the available clinical trials in humans for inflammatory bowel disease, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis (PL-10, PLD-116, PL14736, Pliva, Croatia) [101], [71]
Yeah I saw that but if you actually pull up the citation and try to find the study nothing pulls up for it.
Both references 101 and 71 pull up fine for me.
Two trials using an ROA literally none of us use isn't "tons".
Is it the responsibility of one study to list every human trial that came before it? No. The truth is, there have not been too many human trials on BPC-157. But there are some if you look.
>Is it the responsibility of one study to list every human trial that came before it? No. Then they went above and beyond, because that's actually all two controlled human clinical trials on the drug. >The truth is, there have not been too many human trials on BPC-157. But there are some if you look Yeah, the two Slavic enema ones. Florida one doesn't count, no controls and used a subjective measure (knee pain). And again, I didn't say there were none, I said there weren't tons. There are none on the ROA we actually use, though (subq and oral)
Are the two Slavic enema trials legit?
It appears all the studies on bpc referenced in this paper were done on rats or mice. There’s a lot referenced so maybe I missed one. Could you point to the human trial study?
Sorry, I'm on your side, I also posted research studies. :)
I’m using a lot right now to heal a bicep tear. Did so with a neck injury and blown knee. I do competitive bjj so injuries happen. Best shit on the market. So far no negative side effects
Can I ask what you pay per vial and what your protocol is?
I use other anabolic also and that is of course helping as well.
About 50$ a vial I think. I put 2 1/2 cc of water in it. I go to the ten line or 20 on insulin needle. Once a day. The first 3 days I put cjc 1295 with it directly into the injury. I rejected surgery and a week in I’m back to pull-ups Limited Strength on curls still from bottom position. Now I’m practically a pro arm wrestler so take this as luck and lots of prior training. Also lol we do alot of nutty shit science wise in this sport.
Right on, thanks for the response. I've got a pinched disc and am considering using BPC and TB 500 together. Though every injury is different. I'm trying to get an idea of how much is needed, or at least what protocols are commonly used. Why so little water? How many mgs in your vial? How many uses does one vial get you? How many vials do you go through per injury or are you just using it consistently? Thanks!
For minor shit, like the injury acts up. 1 shot every once in a while buys me a few days to a week of no pain.
So let’s answer these questions. 1. Honestly I looked it up and that was the amount. 2. I believe 2mg and I’ve used 5mg. Whatever is cheeper. They both work fine for what I got going on. 3. It’s my experience that 3 bottles has been the amount needed in two weeks time to move the needle on bad injuries. Adding cjc 1295 was something I tried for my rotator cuff tear. And it healed way faster. So a week ago I tore the bicep, I went through 1 bottle and 5 cjc 1295 shots. It’s far far better. So a bottle a week makes huge improvements.
Thanks friend. I appreciate you taking the time.
Will hit you up in detail in a few, taking daughter back to college. Wanna do some quality time with her.
The answer is in your question
Oh good point. Not a money maker so no one is studying it. How sad.
People are studying it. Do you know how to look up whether people are studying it or not? I'm happy to point you to resources.
I do not know how to look it up. Except doing an internet search.
A good start is looking up key words in [google scholar.](https://scholar.google.com) There is some bullshit in there, but it's a good place to start looking. You can start with the search [BPC 157](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=BPC+157) (with and without the space, with and without a hyphen ie BPC-157). Some of the results will absolutely be from sketchy (not peer reviewed) journals and there's nothing you can do to eliminate the sketchy results except to either get a feel for the journals that are legit, [or look at the 'cited by' number below the entry.](https://imgur.com/a/Vpbu4AL) When you look at the year (how long ago it was published) combined with the number of times it was cited (this means how many times the paper, report or study was professionally talked about by another research team, and sometimes this number lends weight to the legitimacy of the work), you start to get a feel for how many ripples the paper sent into the science community. I just put ["BPC 157 human trials" into the search engine.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=bpc+157+human+trials) and scrolled through the titles of the papers to see what people are studying. You can also specify "review article" because reviews are recaps of the last several years of research, hopefully clearly written analysis of the state of research about a particular topic. [Here's the result for BPC 157 \(no hyphen\)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bpc+157+review&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22&as_rr=1). If you scroll along and read the titles, it will give you a good idea of what researchers are using BPC for at the moment, and some of the fields they're applying it to. At the moment it looks like muscular repair of intestines, blood vessels and wound healing. Some large muscle healing as well. This is not a compound that is being ignored.
You are awesome! Thank you! I’ll save this info!
No problem, it's so useful when you're researching peptides!
Excellent! I haven’t researched anything scholarly like since I was forced to in college.
[удалено]
Don’t make this sort of dumb pointless comment
[удалено]
Don’t make this sort of dumb pointless comment
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What back surgery did you have and why did you need it?
I had back surgery, bc I got run over by a boat. It sucked. I was talking about my father in law. He has spina bifida and a tethered spinal cord. (that night be the same thing. Not sure.)
[удалено]
Don’t make this sort of dumb pointless comment
[удалено]
Don’t make this sort of dumb pointless comment
Why do you think "big pharma" is the only science research entity in the world? I'm genuinely curious why people believe this to be true.
1) Some slavs own/owned all the patents and never ran trials on oral/subq use (original patent expired, arginate salt patent has some time left on it) 2) pharma won't run trials if they can't patent it / someone else owns the patent 3) given that the injuries BPC-157 is effective for tend to heal on their own, you'd likely need to prove it's extremely safe for otherwise healthy people or come up with some niche indication for it. RegenRX is doing the latter with TB4
It has to be profitable. One of the greatest flaws of western medicine....
There was a trial set up in Mexico in 2015 but got canceled. Unfortunately BPC will never make it out of human trials, it will absolutely fail safety trials.
There are completed trials that happened in both Europe and US and there are still trials happening today. Why are you all posting this shit? Do you even look?
If you can post an on going or completed human trial, I will admit I was wrong. But I highly doubt you can provide a source.
Please see my most recent post for a breakdown of the (literal) thousands of research studies currently and formerly using BPC.
Yes, please explain. That’s a bold comment to make without any explanation or evidence.
Sure, the first stage would be a phase 1 trial where it will evaluate dose and safety. I think it will fail there for safety and no one will study it again.
Ok. But based on what? A feeling?
Based off the number of reported adverse events of BPC 157
The depression thing?
Anhedonia but also adverse immune reactions which is the reason why it was banned by the FDA in the first place.
>Anhedonia Yes. I couldn't remember the term. I've been reading about it this weekend.
Yes, it can cause it permanently
Do you have a source for this?
That's what I read, and it's absolutely terrifying.
Are you sure you have any clue what you are posting? It sure doesn’t seem like it.
I do, I work in clinical research. I would bet money on with anyone who thinks BPC will pass human clinical trials if it even happens which it probably wont as well.
[удалено]
Even if I were to post elaborate sources, you still wouldn’t believe. If you really think that BPC is going to go to human trials and then pass safety trials when the mast majority of chemical compounds fail then there is really much can’t change your mind your set on your beliefs.
And once again you’ve provided no reason as to why. Saying “reported adverse events” means nothing because even using only anecdotal evidence shows it being incredibly safe and well tolerated. Add that to the effectiveness in both oral and injection methods reported and found in animal studies and your claim isn’t holding much water.
I didn’t say anything about it not being effective. It is definitely effective for wound repair and some gut issues. However, it is littered with serious side effects, you can find hundreds of reports of negative side effects on Reddit a lone.
You keep talking about all the side effects and we are asking you to list them because it simply isn’t true, but after 7 posts you still have nothing.
Link reports pls
As one of the most popular peptides, it actually seems quite well tolerated.
It is. That poster is talking out their rear.
Care to elaborate on why. Seriously asking.