Peptides that are often mentioned in the online “peptide community” (TB-4/TB-500, GHK-Cu, Tesamorelin, Ipamorelin, Tirzepatide, etc.) all have stronger evidence and “origin stories” than BPC-157. Until your post, I didn’t realize that BPC’s background was so shaky. Ironically, BPC is one of the most popular peptides in such communities, as far as I can tell.
Thinking through it I’ve come up with some possibilities for what might be going on
1. Complete Fabrication Predrag deliberately fabricated everything, with the amino sequence being entirely random and having no real therapeutic effect. His 30 years of research are fraudulent, with collaborators having varying levels of awareness/involvement.
Unresolved Questions:
How do we explain the independent researchers in Taiwan/China/Korea? Are they complicit or just publishing invalid results? What’s the motivation behind such an elaborate and long-running scam? Why establish a company and pursue patents if it’s entirely fraudulent? How has no one in the fitness/biohacking community noticed it’s completely bunk?
2. Partial Truth with Obscured Origins The origin story may be fabricated or obscured, but the peptide itself has genuine therapeutic benefits. His animal studies, while sometimes flawed in design, are fundamentally honest. Foreign research corroborates effectiveness.
Unresolved Questions:
What is the true source of the sequence? Is there any real connection to gastric juices? Why doesn’t it match known proteins? How plausible is the existence of an undiscovered stomach protein?
3. Sincere but Incompetent Predrag genuinely believes in his work but is mistaken. The peptide is random and ineffective, with positive results stemming from poor methodology. Foreign researchers’ results similarly flawed.
Unresolved Questions:
How could consistently positive results with large effect sizes persist for 30 years if the peptide is truly ineffective? How did multiple independent researchers reach similar conclusions through flawed methods? How has no one in the fitness/biohacking community noticed it’s completely bunk?
4. Alternative Explanations Other possibilities or complex combinations of the above scenarios not yet considered.
I’m at 10%, 25%, 50%, 15%. What about you @ChristianKl?
Correction: it’s examine.com not .org
Peptides that are often mentioned in the online “peptide community” (TB-4/TB-500, GHK-Cu, Tesamorelin, Ipamorelin, Tirzepatide, etc.) all have stronger evidence and “origin stories” than BPC-157. Until your post, I didn’t realize that BPC’s background was so shaky. Ironically, BPC is one of the most popular peptides in such communities, as far as I can tell.
Thinking through it I’ve come up with some possibilities for what might be going on
1. Complete Fabrication
Predrag deliberately fabricated everything, with the amino sequence being entirely random and having no real therapeutic effect. His 30 years of research are fraudulent, with collaborators having varying levels of awareness/involvement.
Unresolved Questions:
How do we explain the independent researchers in Taiwan/China/Korea? Are they complicit or just publishing invalid results?
What’s the motivation behind such an elaborate and long-running scam?
Why establish a company and pursue patents if it’s entirely fraudulent?
How has no one in the fitness/biohacking community noticed it’s completely bunk?
2. Partial Truth with Obscured Origins
The origin story may be fabricated or obscured, but the peptide itself has genuine therapeutic benefits. His animal studies, while sometimes flawed in design, are fundamentally honest. Foreign research corroborates effectiveness.
Unresolved Questions:
What is the true source of the sequence?
Is there any real connection to gastric juices?
Why doesn’t it match known proteins?
How plausible is the existence of an undiscovered stomach protein?
3. Sincere but Incompetent
Predrag genuinely believes in his work but is mistaken. The peptide is random and ineffective, with positive results stemming from poor methodology. Foreign researchers’ results similarly flawed.
Unresolved Questions:
How could consistently positive results with large effect sizes persist for 30 years if the peptide is truly ineffective?
How did multiple independent researchers reach similar conclusions through flawed methods?
How has no one in the fitness/biohacking community noticed it’s completely bunk?
4. Alternative Explanations
Other possibilities or complex combinations of the above scenarios not yet considered.
I’m at 10%, 25%, 50%, 15%. What about you @ChristianKl?