3 ms·

> Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work Perhaps. But knowing the mechanism of how they work sure seems fund

> Peptides are a revolution and you don't need to know how they work to know that they work Perhaps. But knowing the mechanism of how they work sure seems fundamental to ensuring that they are safe to use.

Amezarak 7mo ago
I agree with this, but we don't have a good understanding of the mechanisms of how most drugs work, and what else they do. That's why, generally speaking, we require actual observational safety data, and not just a thorough description of the mechanism(s) of a drug. And sometimes we find out years or even decades later we were badly wrong. "Safe" is a very qualified term when it comes to drugs. What actually distinguishes $randompeptide from $approveddrug is the safety data - there are papers all about the proposed mechanisms for most of them.
cjbgkagh 7mo ago
If a lot of people take the mediation and die is that evidence that the medication is unsafe? If they live is that evidence that the medication is safe? Either both are true or neither is true. The relative weight of evidence is dependent on priors but it is still evidence.
- dotancohen 7mo ago
  Your comment reads like someone with no experience in medical trials - neither pharmaceutical nor medical devices. Death is not the only negative outcome. Nor is a procedure that is commonly followed by death necessarily a bad procedure - many cancer treatments for example fall into this category.
  - cjbgkagh 7mo ago
    You’re not understanding the point of the hypothetical, it was to illustrate a scenario in that most people would consider evidential and point out that by definition the opposite outcome must also be evidential even if that outcome was far more likely. It’s to highlight an unintuitive aspect of probability formalized as the bayes ratio. The strength of the evidence is dependent on the priors but it exists. Anecdotal evidence is not zero evidence it is weak evidence and with care a lot of anecdotal evidence can be combined to create stronger forms of evidence. Rounding it down to zero or up to one are both incorrect.
    - dotancohen 7mo ago
      And yet neither of the sides are strong enough to term as evidence. I have no problem with self-experimentation. But citing a few anecdotes as evidence is a dangerous area that I discourage. Somedau we will understand why some people respond so favourably to the wolverine stack and others don't. And somebody will someday correlate what those hurt by BPC-157 all have in common. But until then, these peptides cannot be recommended to others in good conscious. But for self-use? Go right ahead.
      - aminocore 7mo ago
        [dead]

Amezarak 7mo ago

I agree with this, but we don't have a good understanding of the mechanisms of how most drugs work, and what else they do. That's why, generally speaking, we require actual observational safety data, and not just a thorough description of the mechanism(s) of a drug. And sometimes we find out years or even decades later we were badly wrong. "Safe" is a very qualified term when it comes to drugs. What actually distinguishes $randompeptide from $approveddrug is the safety data - there are papers all about the proposed mechanisms for most of them.

cjbgkagh 7mo ago

If a lot of people take the mediation and die is that evidence that the medication is unsafe? If they live is that evidence that the medication is safe? Either both are true or neither is true. The relative weight of evidence is dependent on priors but it is still evidence.

dotancohen 7mo ago
Your comment reads like someone with no experience in medical trials - neither pharmaceutical nor medical devices. Death is not the only negative outcome. Nor is a procedure that is commonly followed by death necessarily a bad procedure - many cancer treatments for example fall into this category.
- cjbgkagh 7mo ago
  You’re not understanding the point of the hypothetical, it was to illustrate a scenario in that most people would consider evidential and point out that by definition the opposite outcome must also be evidential even if that outcome was far more likely. It’s to highlight an unintuitive aspect of probability formalized as the bayes ratio. The strength of the evidence is dependent on the priors but it exists. Anecdotal evidence is not zero evidence it is weak evidence and with care a lot of anecdotal evidence can be combined to create stronger forms of evidence. Rounding it down to zero or up to one are both incorrect.
  - dotancohen 7mo ago
    And yet neither of the sides are strong enough to term as evidence. I have no problem with self-experimentation. But citing a few anecdotes as evidence is a dangerous area that I discourage. Somedau we will understand why some people respond so favourably to the wolverine stack and others don't. And somebody will someday correlate what those hurt by BPC-157 all have in common. But until then, these peptides cannot be recommended to others in good conscious. But for self-use? Go right ahead.
    - aminocore 7mo ago
      [dead]