Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
The problem with BPC 157 is it's really only been studied in rats in Croatia from a single research group. There's only one human study and it only included two people. TB500 is worse. There's zero human data for this one.
I would not use them chronically. If you have a major injury, you might consider cycling on and off of them, but these are not something that I think humans should be using chronically for regeneration, for healing from gym sessions or athletic endeavors.