3 ms·

> Ok, and? According to our new AI overlords, a short synopsis of potential risks of BPC 157 based on mechanistic and animal work to date (don't know human ris

by dc396 6mo ago

> Ok, and? According to our new AI overlords, a short synopsis of potential risks of BPC 157 based on mechanistic and animal work to date (don't know human risks because there haven't been sufficient clinical studies): * Possible pathologic angiogenesis (abnormal blood‑vessel growth), which theoretically could support tumor growth or inflammatory and autoimmune processes. * Modulation of nitric‑oxide pathways that, at high levels, might contribute to anemia, altered drug metabolism (CYP enzyme activity), and possibly neurodegenerative processes in theory. * Concerns that its pro‑healing, pro‑growth signalling (e.g., FAK–paxillin) could encourage cancer spread if malignant cells are already present; this remains theoretical, with no proof in humans. * Possible liver and kidney toxicity suggested in some commentary and extrapolated from preclinical work, but not well characterized in people. * Immune reactions or allergic responses, including fevers, rash, hives, muscle aches, or systemic inflammatory responses These do not appear to be results that would appear overnight. It would be "nice" if the folks injecting random shit into their bodies also disclaimed any subsequent medical intervention as a result of said shit, but that I suspect that's unlikely.

rzmmm 6mo ago
My total layman view is that powerful drugs often have powerful side effects.
- XorNot 6mo ago
  That's because you grew up in a society still deeply coded to puritan moral viewpoints. People for so upset that GLP-1 has no long term side effects. There's still the crowd completely sure everyone will get HyperCancer in 10 years or something (they won't).
  - rzmmm 6mo ago
    I'm glad we have GLP-1, and I don't think there are really major side effects. But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity. It seems to be like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: it's a miracle in clinical trials but in the real world the patients just lower the doses or discontinue treatment after 1-2 years and go back to their old habits.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity This is totally false. I know a number of people who took GLP-1 to treat their obesity and then stopped and have stayed not obese.
      - stouset 6mo ago
        If only there were a federal administration whose responsibility it was to collect data about food and drugs so we could rely on something more than anecdotes from random strangers on the Internet.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Do you have a link to those data showing GLP-1 agonists are ineffective?
        rzmmm 6mo ago
        I emphasize it's like the drug disulfiram: Very effective as long as patients take the full dose, but the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment. This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829779 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment Do you have a source for this "lack of real-world efficacy"? > This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years "With a with a median on-treatment weight change of −2.9%" [1]. Of those who discontinued and experienced "weight gain since discontinuation," they were "associated with an increased likelihood of GLP-1 RA reinitiation." I'm genuinely struggling to see how this source shows real world inefficacy. In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to. Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this? > it's like the drug disulfiram Have clinicians made this connection? [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829779 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
  - cthalupa 6mo ago
    We have no specific reason to believe there are concerns with GLP-1s for cancer or anything else, beyond the mildest signal in rodent studies around thyroids. We do not have robust clinical data for things like BPC-157 but we do have strong preclinical data and an understanding of the mechanisms in play. I use BPC-157/TB-500/Ghk-CU/KPV - so I'm certainly OK taking the risks. But those mechanisms mentioned before? The same things we're counting on for healing and inflammation reduction are the same things that we know can cause an increase in tumor growth rate and chance of metastasizing. VEGF/VEGFR2 expression are even suppression targets for some cancer therapies. Are there powerful and useful medications out there, available today, that we both don't have good scientific data on and are free enough of serious side effects? For sure! Is everything out there that, though? No. Some things that work will have too serious of a side effect profile to be feasible. Some things won't work at all, despite however much anecdata is out there. As for the general idea... I agree there's no law that says a medicine with a strong positive effect must also have strong side effects. And we have plenty that don't - statins, particularly the latest generation, like pitavastatin, are effectively side effect free for the hugely overwhelming majority of people and have great lipid lowering effects. Even older ones showed extremely minimal incidents of things like muscle pain - a vanishingly small number of people relative to the total amount on the medications report muscle pain, and when investigated, quite a lot of even that ends up being unrelated to the statins. Yet the narrative persists that make it sound like anyone on statins is going to have their muscles ache 24/7
diath 6mo ago
Have you ever looked at leaflets attached to any medicine prescribed by doctors?
- dc396 6mo ago
  You mean the ones that are the result of experience through controlled clinical trials with statistical analyses and error bars, yep, sure. I guess I have a bit more faith in those leaflets and the testing regimes that generates them than the word of some gymbro or influencer who injected themselves and didn't immediately fall over dead.

by dc396 6mo ago

rzmmm 6mo ago

My total layman view is that powerful drugs often have powerful side effects.

XorNot 6mo ago
That's because you grew up in a society still deeply coded to puritan moral viewpoints. People for so upset that GLP-1 has no long term side effects. There's still the crowd completely sure everyone will get HyperCancer in 10 years or something (they won't).
- rzmmm 6mo ago
  I'm glad we have GLP-1, and I don't think there are really major side effects. But they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity. It seems to be like treating alcoholism with disulfiram: it's a miracle in clinical trials but in the real world the patients just lower the doses or discontinue treatment after 1-2 years and go back to their old habits.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > they are ineffective outside clinical trial setting for treating obesity This is totally false. I know a number of people who took GLP-1 to treat their obesity and then stopped and have stayed not obese.
    - stouset 6mo ago
      If only there were a federal administration whose responsibility it was to collect data about food and drugs so we could rely on something more than anecdotes from random strangers on the Internet.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        Do you have a link to those data showing GLP-1 agonists are ineffective?
        rzmmm 6mo ago
        I emphasize it's like the drug disulfiram: Very effective as long as patients take the full dose, but the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment. This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829779 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > the lack of real-world efficacy stems from the difficulty in adhering to the treatment Do you have a source for this "lack of real-world efficacy"? > This study found that 84.4% non-diabetic patients stop taking GLP-1 drugs within two years "With a with a median on-treatment weight change of −2.9%" [1]. Of those who discontinued and experienced "weight gain since discontinuation," they were "associated with an increased likelihood of GLP-1 RA reinitiation." I'm genuinely struggling to see how this source shows real world inefficacy. In my friends, all of them stopped taking GLP-1 drugs within 2 years because all of them lost the weight they wanted to. Out of curiosity, what sources lead you to believe this? > it's like the drug disulfiram Have clinicians made this connection? [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2829779 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
- cthalupa 6mo ago
  We have no specific reason to believe there are concerns with GLP-1s for cancer or anything else, beyond the mildest signal in rodent studies around thyroids. We do not have robust clinical data for things like BPC-157 but we do have strong preclinical data and an understanding of the mechanisms in play. I use BPC-157/TB-500/Ghk-CU/KPV - so I'm certainly OK taking the risks. But those mechanisms mentioned before? The same things we're counting on for healing and inflammation reduction are the same things that we know can cause an increase in tumor growth rate and chance of metastasizing. VEGF/VEGFR2 expression are even suppression targets for some cancer therapies. Are there powerful and useful medications out there, available today, that we both don't have good scientific data on and are free enough of serious side effects? For sure! Is everything out there that, though? No. Some things that work will have too serious of a side effect profile to be feasible. Some things won't work at all, despite however much anecdata is out there. As for the general idea... I agree there's no law that says a medicine with a strong positive effect must also have strong side effects. And we have plenty that don't - statins, particularly the latest generation, like pitavastatin, are effectively side effect free for the hugely overwhelming majority of people and have great lipid lowering effects. Even older ones showed extremely minimal incidents of things like muscle pain - a vanishingly small number of people relative to the total amount on the medications report muscle pain, and when investigated, quite a lot of even that ends up being unrelated to the statins. Yet the narrative persists that make it sound like anyone on statins is going to have their muscles ache 24/7

diath 6mo ago

Have you ever looked at leaflets attached to any medicine prescribed by doctors?

dc396 6mo ago
You mean the ones that are the result of experience through controlled clinical trials with statistical analyses and error bars, yep, sure. I guess I have a bit more faith in those leaflets and the testing regimes that generates them than the word of some gymbro or influencer who injected themselves and didn't immediately fall over dead.