4 ms·

According to redditors that surf pubmed.

by dubswithus 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
and transitively according to the pubmed studies. You could have skipped the middle step.
- dubswithus 4y ago
  There's a lot of crap posted on pubmed. And why didn't you just say... not well studied, not well supported, etc? If Cochrane were to review it would they say the evidence is weak for anything you could possibly claim.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    Cochrane is a massive failure, they systematically ignore the relevant research. BPC is litterally called the Body Protective Compound, what more hint do you need? There are 164 studies on pubmed, the vast majority showing potent geroprotective power. In addition it is by far one of the most effective treatment for IBS and it remarkably potently reduce the time it takes for injuries to resorb and the quality of the repaired tissue. It has angiogenic advantages vs VEGF and I have seen many people trying it for various "incurable" disease and finding it was the first thing that helped them (e.g. a connective tissue disease). The thing is 1) people, including most researchers, are scientifically illiterate 2) In addition to mediocrity, incentives are fundamentaly extremely broken given that those peptides, being endogenously produced by the human body (a trenscendant characteristic versus synthethic drugs, which dramatically reduce the propensity of side effects)) it is not patentable. Substances endogenously created by the body cannot be patented and therefore cannot be monetized hence nobody will ever pay clinical trials. Of course a world where medecine can't leverage the same tech as the human body is doomed to be very limited. If you wanna add some substance to the discussion, learn the topic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bpc+157&sort=date https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bpc+157&sort=date
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > BPC is litterally called the Body Protectice Compound, what more hint do you need? Are you familiar with Miracle Mineral Supplement?
      - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
        Well played pessimizer. Yes indeed naming can be misleading or outright delusional. I don't think Miracle Mineral Supplement was named after scientists discovered empiric evidence of a miracle action though.. Anyway the naming is irrelevant, I just said it for the style and because it add strength (only in the case we assume the namers are not fraudulent). As said, irrelevant.
    - dubswithus 4y ago
      Are you actually a researcher? Skilled in the sciences? Degrees and phds? An expert in your field? If not, I don't see how you could possibly claim: > 1) people, including most researchers, are scientifically illiterate Wouldn't you need to be an expert in this field to know?
refurb 4y ago
Indeed. Please don’t ingest drugs based on studies people whip up just to hit their publication count so they get tenure.

According to redditors that surf pubmed.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

and transitively according to the pubmed studies. You could have skipped the middle step.

dubswithus 4y ago
There's a lot of crap posted on pubmed. And why didn't you just say... not well studied, not well supported, etc? If Cochrane were to review it would they say the evidence is weak for anything you could possibly claim.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  Cochrane is a massive failure, they systematically ignore the relevant research. BPC is litterally called the Body Protective Compound, what more hint do you need? There are 164 studies on pubmed, the vast majority showing potent geroprotective power. In addition it is by far one of the most effective treatment for IBS and it remarkably potently reduce the time it takes for injuries to resorb and the quality of the repaired tissue. It has angiogenic advantages vs VEGF and I have seen many people trying it for various "incurable" disease and finding it was the first thing that helped them (e.g. a connective tissue disease). The thing is 1) people, including most researchers, are scientifically illiterate 2) In addition to mediocrity, incentives are fundamentaly extremely broken given that those peptides, being endogenously produced by the human body (a trenscendant characteristic versus synthethic drugs, which dramatically reduce the propensity of side effects)) it is not patentable. Substances endogenously created by the body cannot be patented and therefore cannot be monetized hence nobody will ever pay clinical trials. Of course a world where medecine can't leverage the same tech as the human body is doomed to be very limited. If you wanna add some substance to the discussion, learn the topic: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bpc+157&sort=date https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bpc+157&sort=date
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > BPC is litterally called the Body Protectice Compound, what more hint do you need? Are you familiar with Miracle Mineral Supplement?
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      Well played pessimizer. Yes indeed naming can be misleading or outright delusional. I don't think Miracle Mineral Supplement was named after scientists discovered empiric evidence of a miracle action though.. Anyway the naming is irrelevant, I just said it for the style and because it add strength (only in the case we assume the namers are not fraudulent). As said, irrelevant.
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    Are you actually a researcher? Skilled in the sciences? Degrees and phds? An expert in your field? If not, I don't see how you could possibly claim: > 1) people, including most researchers, are scientifically illiterate Wouldn't you need to be an expert in this field to know?

refurb 4y ago

Indeed. Please don’t ingest drugs based on studies people whip up just to hit their publication count so they get tenure.