6 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 5mo 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.
- diath 5mo agoHave you ever looked at leaflets attached to any medicine prescribed by doctors?
- dc396 5mo agoYou 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.
- rzmmm 5mo agoMy total layman view is that powerful drugs often have powerful side effects.
- XorNot 5mo agoThat'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 5mo agoI'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 5mo 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 5mo agoIf 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 5mo agoDo you have a link to those data showing GLP-1 agonists are ineffective?
- rzmmm 5mo agoI 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...