430 replies to this topic

[adamh]

@Leni

>And indeed most (Pubmed)-studies will literaly state "Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC", was used.

 

Yes, bpc157 is known to be stable. That does not mean its the same stuff as in the patent or in the studies. Simply using the word "stable" does not mean its the patented form it means they consider it stable. If they simply use the term "Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC" It could mean something else entirely, the compound this thread is about is the version 157 not any random version.

 

I will admit I didn't see the link to the patent earlier in the thread. I merely asked if it was patented and it is. Simply saying yes its patented would have answered the question without any ranting or insults.

 

So we have an alternative form which is not the same as the original bpc 157 but claims to have the same effects and claims to be more stable. My other question was is the patented form what was used or bpc 157? You can't change the chemical makeup and call it the same thing, call it bpc 158 if you wish but not 157. The studies I've looked at and there are very few, mention that bpc 157 is stable. 

 

I believe the studies which said they used "bpc 157" were done on the original form and not this variation in the patent. If it was they should have and would have said something like 'a compound similar to bpc 157'  but they did not say that, they said bpc 157. From that I have to conclude it was not the patented compound but the original form used. 

 

What I'm digging for is what are the comparisons between the two? Have there been side by side studies comparing them? Is there a study just on the new bpc version and who funded it? I think those are reasonable questions to ask and I see no reason for anyone to simply assume the studies we have looked at or analyses of the study  were on the new form.

 

A patented compound can be and will be sold at a much higher price than the form which is in the public domain. I am skeptical of claims made in a patent, those are just marketing statements made by the patent holder who hopes to convince the public to buy his higher price version instead of the original.

 

Rather than tell people to search for themselves, if this info is available it could easily be posted. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a hard time keeping up with everything in this thread let alone all the mentions of bpc 157 that can be found on a duckduckgo search. 

[Leni]

Adamh,

In studies the peptide is referenced as “Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157” – so with the added 157. (I thought I had posted it this way, sorry if I had apparently accidentally left the last part blank in my post, but a quick Pubmed-search would have filled that in for you). As a quick Pubmed-search will instantly show the used peptide is referenced as “Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157” in the majority of the (more recent) BPC157 studies.

 

Indeed gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 is considered a stable peptide by itself. So in that sense: you're right that the addition of 'stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157' in studies does not mean perse that the patented version of Diagen was used.

As the recurrent authors of the better part of the recent BPC 157 studies are related to the university of Zagreb (or Osijek), Croatia (Sikirić, Predrag being one of them) and in some of these studies it is explicitly mentioned the BPC 157 was provided by Diagen (Slovenia), I assumed they were referring to the stable (patented) version Diagen provides. The latter is indeed not a given perse – I agree, my apologies if I may have sounded too presumptious. However: it seemed highly likely to me. Not in the least since the patent (of 2014) Aconita posted literally states that this new (patented) version of BPC 157 was used in research, and then lists some of the (well-discussed) conclusions/results of recent studies obtained with exactly this stable version of BPC. You could shoot an email to Predrag Sikirić if you still have your hesitations however. Here one of these more recent BPC 157 studies of authors (related to the university of Zagreb or Osijek, Croatia) that contributed to a good part of the more recent BPC 157 studies in which it is explicitly mentioned the BPC 157 was provided by Diagen: http://www.fasebj.or...upplement/666.2

 

I also agree it is good to be critical; also with regard to the patented version Diagen sells. However, I still think a good part of your questions with regard to the stability of the BPC 157 patented by Diagen were answered in Aconita's posts. But you'd have to be willing to accept those statements and conclusions as an answer I guess.

Edited by Leni, 30 September 2017 - 10:14 PM.

[adamh]

OK, we are finding some common ground. However, I do not see how the new patented compound alleged to be an improvement on 157 could be the same thing used in the trials that they call bpc 157. I don't think the patent calls it 157 and it would be wrong if they did. The original studies I looked at and others linked to seem to all say bpc157 and the fact they call it stable does not mean its the new version whatever the name is.

 

Does the new version have a shorthand name? Is it in the bpc line or something different? We seem to agree that the new form which has been touted a lot in this thread is not what what was called bpc157 so therefore we don't as yet have any studies to look at to see if its as good or better than the 157 original form. If the people who are enthused about the new compound can show trials and studies with the new one that would be helpful. 

 

(Leni)

>I still think a good part of your questions with regard to the stability of the BPC 157 patented by Diagen were answered in Aconita's posts.

 

Again I must point out that whatever the new stuff is, it is not bpc 157. No one has a patent on bpc157 that I know of. The new stuff must have a different name.

 

All we know about the stability of original bpc157 is that it breaks down when exposed to hcl acid, I'm not sure if the conditions were the same as found in the gut or not. But we know it works. We, or I, know nothing about the new compound except that the patent holder tells us its a better form. He claims its more stable but where is the evidence of that? Has anyone bought and used the new stuff? How did it work for you and what was the cost? 

[Leni]

 

 

 

Adamh,

As said: Diagen is mentioned as provider of the BPC 157 in several recent studies that have been discussed - as Aconita mentioned several times. He also specified details about the stability of the patented version that you asked for.

I do agree in general it is good to be critical. I'm not sure however why you would state that this patented stable version "is not BPC 157". 

 

I have a lot to do currently, however, I will just cite part of the 'Material Safety Data Sheet' that comes with the patented stable version of Diagen's BPC:

 

"General:

Body protecting compound BPC, Pentadecapeptide 157 for research"

Synonims: Bepecin, BPC-157, Pentadecapeptide, Collasan

Chemical composition: pentadecapeptide with the sequence:

GlyGluProProProGlyLysProAlaAspAspAlaGlyLeuVal

Formula: C62H98N16O22

Molecular Mass: 1419.5

 

Edited by Leni, 01 October 2017 - 12:00 AM.

[adamh]

Let me get this straight, are you saying that all bpc157 is the new formula or what?

 

>As said: Diagen is mentioned as provider of the BPC 157 in several recent studies

 

They may have provided some bpc 157 but if its not the original then its not bpc157. If its bpc 157 then its not the new version. You simply can't call it the same thing. This is a central point that you and others are ignoring or don't care about. The original bpc157 is a well defined sequence of 15 peptides. It is not a generic name for any old compound. If the new peptide is calling itself bpc157 that is wrong because according to all I've read, its a different formula with a different sequence.

 

This leads me to suspect they may be trying to cash in on the popularity of the 157 by associating with it and using the term. 

 

>He also specified details about the stability of the patented version that you asked for.

 

I saw a link to a study which talked about the breakdown time of regular 157 I have not seen any information about the new except for opinions. Since there seems to be confusion about which is which its hard to distinguish between the old and new formula. Someone claiming a study on "bpc157" is really the new formula because it came from a certain company does not convince me.

 

When has a new compound ever come out in which they used the exact same name for it as an existing different compound?

[APBT]

How To Use BPC-157: A Complete Dummies Guide To Healing The Body Like Wolverine:

https://bengreenfiel...to-use-bpc-157/

[APBT]

Did the group buy for Diagen stable BPC 157 (vials and capsules) occur?

[aconita]

Yes, peptide is under syntheses, new fresh batch for the participants.

[adamh]

Good link, APBT. This stuff is catching on. As the author says:

 

>BPC-157 is also known as a “stable gastric pentadecapeptide”, primarily because it is stable in human gastric juice

 

So I'm not too concerned about a more stable version. He also says:

 

>It will remain stable at room temperature for up to ten weeks, but for best storage and results, you should store in your refrigerator, in which case it will stay stable for up to six months. It will stay stable in a freezer for up to two years.

[ceridwen]

Unfortunately Nord does not deliver to UK

[adamh]

@Cerwiden have you looked into other sources? I plan to buy from the same places I bought before.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly is this new compound that was patented. From reading the patent it seems to be not one substance but a mixture of several. Why anyone would call this bpc157 is beyond me. Here is a quote from the patent

 

"The present invention relates to new application forms of synthetic BPC (Body Protection Compound) peptides comprising 8 to 15 amino acid residues with a molecular weight of 900 to 1,600 daltons"

[aconita]

That you are confused is already assessed beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Why don't you just give up?

 

There is really no way you'll ever be able to get a clue, never seen such a clumsy wandering bunch of neurons...

 

Now, that you aren't able to make it is something I can even understand, but that you stubbornly keep refusing to get any help makes you really dumb on top of being ignorant.

 

No offense, really, just acknowledging the evidence of facts.   

[tolerant]

(this is an x-post of my post in the Exercise section) 

 

Hi,

First time posting in this forum. About three weeks ago I suffered a strange problem. I have been strength training for over 17 years and have never experienced an injury of any kind. However, three weeks ago, I was doing chest/triceps (only six sets in total), and while doing my first exercise (chest press), I felt pain in my left elbow. This was highly unusual. I finished the workout despite feeling considerable pain on all the remaining exercises. What was even more strange is that about three days later, I was exercising my legs (also only about six sets in total) and afterwards felt noticeable pain in my knees. I have since tried to exercise a few more times to gauge the type and amount of the particular pain that was affecting me, but each time I felt I made it worse.

I have refrained from exercise for the last week-and-a-half, but the pain has persisted, for more than three weeks now. I now have pain in both my elbows, but particularly my left elbow, to the point where I can't even use that arm to pull off a t-shirt or lean on the elbow even on a soft surface. The epicentre of the pain seems to be the very pointy bony end. Similarly, with my knees, the give me pain when I walk and when I press on the kneecaps, which is where the pain seems to be located.

Does anyone have any idea what has happened to me? Two sets of joints being hurt within a few days of each other with the pain not easing even after ceasing to exercise, all after exercising for nearly 20 years without ever getting any joint pain?

Anyone has experience of treating it with BPC-157 or something similar?

Thanks,

tolerant

Edited by tolerant, 03 October 2017 - 12:21 AM.

[Moondancer]

@Aconita. Adamh jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts, and brings up his conclusions as if they are facts. You're right. But there is a validity in his concern, although he is ignorant in how he brings it up. How can we know if Diagens patented BPC-157 works in exactly the same ways the not patented BPC-157 works and has the same effects? The studies about BPC-157 also do not confirm to me that this new patented version of BPC-157 was used. And I don't know if these adjustments made to the compound to stabilize it further could perhaps in one way or another change some of the characteristics and thus the effectivity of the compound, as I'm no biochemist and Adamh evidently isn't one either. I ask as I'd like to know, but from reading the patent and studies: as an amateur I don't know it.

[aconita]

@ Tolerant

 

Take this with a grain of salt since I can't possibly have the presumption of being able to pull a diagnosis by your description (so far, at least).

 

I suggest to take an X ray to your elbows, I expect to see a triceps tendon calcification, that would be caused by repeated strain on those tendons, if that is the case (likely, according to my experience), BPC isn't going to fix it, it will certainly ameliorate the inflammation reducing the pain/discomfort but as soon as you'll put some stress on the tendons again (triceps work) you'll be back to square one.

 

Triceps work is more likely to be the cause, skull crushes in particular are nasty on the tendons, benching shouldn't be the cause of the issue, pay lot of attention to isolation triceps work, any slight discomfort has to be avoided or it will trigger a cascade of undesirable events, leave alone low reps with those, 15-25 should be your range, don't worry triceps thrive well on high reps.

 

The cure is focused shock waves, under ultrasound imaging preferably, 9 treatments, one treatment a week, intensity has to be as high as barely handled, if not under ultrasound imaging give directions during treatments in order to get on the tender spot/spots.

 

Results will start to show one month after treatments end, avoid BPC or antinflammatory drugs during treatments.

 

PRP could be an alternative but I would give shock waves a chance first (it would be cheaper, by the way).

 

Your knees are likely hurting because of patellar tendinitis, not a big deal usually, avoid to stress quads too much (front squats, sissy squats, LOUNGES,  Bulgarian one leg split squats, leg extensions, etc...), chose higher reps ranges for a while (15-25).

 

BPC will likely help to fix that.   

[tolerant]

@aconita

 

Wow, thanks for that thorough "diagnosis". I am scheduled to do a number of blood tests as well as x-rays and ultrasound of both elbows. The only thing that doesn't add up from what you've written is that I first felt the pain doing a chest press, not a triceps isolation exercise. So you reckon I should be fine doing compound exercises and high-rep triceps isolation exercises, as well as high-rep leg presses and leg curls? The thing you wrote about "slight discomfort" is scary, because I am guessing I would feel at least slight discomfort on all those exercises: like I said, even taking off a t-shirt hurts. Should I just avoid exercising altogether while it all hurts? I will look into shockwave therapy and PRP once the results are in.

Edited by tolerant, 03 October 2017 - 12:42 AM.

[aconita]

Discomfort on those kind of issues calls for complete avoidance of movement causing it, period.

 

You'll likely be able to find alternative exercises which are fine, even just slight variations can be enough to make it a whole different ballgame.

 

It is difficult to state which exercises alternatives will work for you, sometimes there seem to be no logic at all, only trying and experimenting will tell, no discomfort whatsoever, that has to be your only guideline, but yes, usually compound movements are better than isolation...but that doesn't necessarily makes any compound exercise a good one for you...high reps use less weight, less weight is less stressful on tendons and soft tissues in general.

 

Maybe triceps isolation caused the issue but for some reason the bench triggered it...or maybe not, give dumbells press a try or dips or even push ups.

 

It is possible that an acute inflammatory phase calls for rest...or a course of BPC, but usually after the acute phase you should be able to find what works for you while fixing the issue.

[tolerant]

Thanks, it's just that judging by your scale, my pain is extreme. I just tried doing one push-up and couldn't handle it. I regularly feel pain even without doing any movements at all. Judging by where my elbow and knee pain is emanating from, I am thinking bursitis. 

[StanG]

tolerant

 

Are you approaching middle age by any chance? Life will train you to start paying attention to what your body is telling you. Sounds like you did more injury to yourself by not stopping immediately. When you begin again take it very slowly. It's normal the first time this happens to think things haven't changed in your body but they probably have.

 

Good luck

[tolerant]

tolerant

 

Are you approaching middle age by any chance? Life will train you to start paying attention to what your body is telling you. Sounds like you did more injury to yourself by not stopping immediately. When you begin again take it very slowly. It's normal the first time this happens to think things haven't changed in your body but they probably have.

 

Good luck

 

Hi StanG,

 

No, I'm about 10 years away from approaching middle age. So it's all pretty strange to me for this to have happened all at once and so suddenly. You're probably right about doing more damage by not stopping and then occasionally trying things carefully again. It's just difficult giving up all your gains like that because of injury, so you try to find ways. I guess I will just have to stick to exercises which totally avoid extension of the knee and elbow joints, such as bicep curls, lateral raises, calf raises and upright rows until I get a diagnosis and effective treatment.

[adamh]

I have jumped to no conclusions, I have simply asked the questions that the rest of us should have been asking. Namely is this the same as bpc 157 original? Obviously not, according to the patent. The patent further states several peptides in the bpc family seem to be included in the new formula. I then asked if there are studies on this new formulation and is it as good as the original? No one seems to know the answer.

 

Do not feel afraid to ask questions like these. A few or a certain member likes to attack anyone who has a different view but do not be intimidated. Do not attack those who ask questions just to be spared the same treatment. He also diagnoses illnesses with only the sketchiest of symptoms. This member also pushes the new product very hard and knocks the old product. Ask yourself what is the motive for doing that since there is very little or no info out on the new product? No one here has said they used it, people conclude that the old trials must have been done on the new formula because it used the term "stable", which bpc157 is. But that is doubtful and unlikely.

 

In short, I have no conclusions about the value of the new product but it seems not to be bpc 157 but something else. I for one will wait until it has proven itself as bpc157 already has. I do not jump onto bandwagons no matter who is promoting it. I look for evidence of efficacity and safety. Where is the evidence of that for the new stuff? 

[aconita]

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about BPC157 therefore lets try to make it clear once for all.

 

Because of several reasons this compound is studied only by relatively small groups of researchers likely on a quite low budget, we all whish to see all kind of possible researches and data but unfortunately that's not the reality we have to face, therefore just don't expect to get ALL the answers you wish for.

 

In the late '80s a group of researchers from now ex-Yugoslavia discovered BPC as a gastric juice component.

 

"Until now the gastrointestinal tract, especially stomach, was considered only as a target organ for stress. There was never discussed the possibility that gastrointestinal tract, preferably the stomach, may be the organ which can initiate the defensive response of the whole organism. This response, actually directed against stress, must be realized in the formation and release of a new endogenous agent. Our attempt was directed to isolate this agent from stomach juice. Finally we isolated the expected substance from the stomach juice of 542 patients. This substance was nominated with abbreviation BPC which means: Body Protection Compound.

The structure of this substance is very complex and after our investigation until now can be characterized as folded protein with partial sequence from N-terminus:

H2 N-Gly-Glu-Pro-Pro-Pro-Gly-Lys-Pro-Ala-Asp-Asp-Ala-Gly-Leu-Val- . . . --COOH"

https://www.google.c...tents/US5288708

 

In the following years the same researchers worked on a synthetic BPC form which was more stable and in '98 found that just a portion of the peptides chain was enough to retain the healing and protective proprieties.

 

"Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 or bepecin (abbr. for: Body Protecting Compound) has the following peptide sequence: Gly Glu Pro Pro Pro Gly Lys Pro Ala Asp Asp Ala Gly Leu Val and represents the N-terminal part of a natural BPC protein which is actually present in the gastric juice of mammals. The natural BPC protein is obtained from human or animal gastric juice by means of complicated biochemical methods (U. S. Patent No. 5,288,708). Irrespective of demanding work this way of obtaining is inappropriate also with regard to an uncertain source of raw material and a possible contamination with viruses. Therefore, by chemical synthesis (P. Sikiric, . Rucman, B. Rucman, M. Petek, Peptides 1998, Proceed, of 25th EPS, Budapest 1998, p. 814; Z. Pflaum and R. Rucman, Acta Chim. Slov., 2005, 52, 34-39) only the N-terminal part with the above stated sequence has been prepared. Surprisingly, it has been found that this fragment retained practically all effects of the natural BPC protein (EP 0572688 and U. S. Patent No. 6,268,346). The N-terminal part with a sequence of 15 amino acids seems to be the most responsible for the biological activity of the entire protein. The compound is very interesting from a medical point of view, as it has effect to almost all organs at extremely low concentrations (in a range from ng to mg and more per a kilogram of body weight) and without any toxic or side effects."

 

https://www.google.c...4142764A1?cl=en

 

In other words BPC as we know it was born, a sequence of 15 peptides.

 

Now, what is stable or not might cause confusion, peptides stability vary according to their structure.

 

http://www.sigmaaldr...-stability.html

 

Stability doesn't have a measure unit, there are several parameters to keep in consideration, itself the word "stable" means very little, it would be like stating I am tall, how tall?

 

At 1,70m I would be really tall compared to a dwarf but a Lilliputian compared to a NBL basket player, woudn't I?

 

Therefore when talking about how stable a peptide is we are referring at its stability compared to.

 

Synthetic pentadecapeptide (which means made of 15 peptides) BPC157 is more stable than its organic counterpart from gastric juice.

 

The salt form of it is more stable than the acetate form.

 

"Table 1. Pentadecapeptide content decrement in standing at 50 °C and relat. humidity 65 %:

Substance: 0 day 10 davs 30 davs 60 davs 90 davs

BPC acetate 99.65 % 95.97 % 91.98 % 85.49 % 85.90 %

BPC Na salt 99.20 % 97.22 % 96,46 % 97.38 % 97.14 %

 

Table 2. Pentadecapeptide content decrement in water at 50 °C / time (hours):

Substance: pH start/0 20 65 148 388

BPC acetate 3.88 98.89 % 71.17 % 55.25 % 52.55 % ^' 21.30 %

BPC Na-salt 8.42 99.01 % 98.36 % 97.47 % N.D. 96.74 %

 

Table 3. Pentadecapeptide content decrement in water at 100 °C - 1 hour:

Substance: start after 1 hour

BPC acetate 98.89 % 56.80 %

BPC Na-salt 99.01 % 98.56 %

 

Table 4. Pentadecapeptide content decrement (rel. %) in gastric juice at pH = 2.0

Substance: Time (hours):

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

BPC acetate 100 21.4 8.2 4.75 2.46 2.1

BPC Na-salt 100 21.6 6.7 4.4 4.2 2.7

 

Table 5. Pentadecapeptide content decrement (rel. %) in gastric juice at pH = 3.0

Substance: Time (hours):

0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

BPC acetate 100 41.7 26.1 7.8 2.5 1.1 0.08

BPC Na-salt 100 81.9 71.6 56.0 40.2 29.7 10.1

 

Table 6. Pentadecapeptide content decrement (rel. %) in gastric juice at pH = 4.0

Substance: Time (hours):

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BPC acetate 100 89.7 81.3 72.5 60.9 56.4 48.8 44.6 38.0

BPC Na-salt 100 99.0 98.9 94.6 89.7 78.3 76.3 68.2 60.9"

 

https://www.google.c...4142764A1?cl=en

 

As you can see different parameters have been analyzed in order to determine stability differences, not all the possible conceivable parameters but those relevant to our scope and anyway very well indicative of an overall trend.

 

The BPC157 you buy on the market is usually the acetate form.

 

Nevertheless even the salt form isn't optimally stable for our scope, especially when it comes to the oral route.

 

"Until now, this peptide has always been used either in a free form or in an acetate form or as a salt with bases such as sodium salt. All these forms have been characterized by still not adequate stability in gastric juice, which particularly limits oral use of these compounds and simultaneously decreases their therapeutic value. It has therefore been necessary to manufacture this pentadecapeptide in a form which is substantially more stable both in gastric juice and at raised ambient temperature. Such form of the preparation could be used more successfully particularly in oral delivery into an organism. Due to higher stability an overall better effectiveness would be expected as well "

 

https://www.google.c...4142764A1?cl=en

 

Most researches about BPC on pubmed are quite recent and refer to "stable BPC", this leads to think that BPC is stable by definition, it is not.

 

How many other peptides comes with the word "stable", common, tell me!

 

None, period.

 

Have you ever heard of stable epitalon?

 

No.

 

And epitalon is just 4 aminoacids, not 15 as BPC (usually the more aminoacids the more unstable and tricky).

 

Why is that?

 

Because stable epitalon makes no sense, stable compared to what?

 

There is basically just one epitalon, no other version to be compared to.

 

Stable BPC is a different formulation than "normal" BPC, not only is a salt (not an acetate as usually sold) but there is an added arginine peptide at end of the chain which makes it far more stable COMPARED to "ordinary" BPC salts or acetates where acetates are the worst in that regard.

 

The smart observer already noticed that most of the BPC studies on pubmed are done by the same group of researchers and anyway almost exclusively by ex Yugoslavians (just check their names), all get their BPC from Diagen, which is based in Slovenia...

 

Those researches are about STABLE BPC, not ordinary BPC, it's called STABLE in order to differentiate from ordinary, they don't call it stable because BPC is stable, it is called stable because is more stable compared to ordinary BPC..

 

All those studies do place emphasis on the fact that the oral route showed the same effectiveness as peritoneal injections, why is that?

 

Because the aim was to confirm the stable BPC to be as effective by oral route as by injection, all those studies are about the superiority of stable BPC.

 

Than one goes on pubmed, see most studies titled "stable BPC" and assumes the BPC you buy from China is stable by definition, IT IS NOT!

 

By the way a patent isn't a commercial advertisement as someone here suggested, educate yourself about what a patent is, actually even better just try to patent something and then come back here to report.

 

And if you still have got doubts about the above be smart and check out the researchers names from the discovery from the latest stable BPC patent...oh, really, what a surprise, they are the same guys!

 

But they shouldn't call it BPC157 since it is a different compound.... sure, in facts they called it fucking STABLE BPC157!!!

 

Got it now?

 

Leave alone to play childish games interchanging stability data about when in solid form (powder) with liquid form (reconstituted).

 

Up to 2 years against max 15 days....

 

This doesn't work with me, try with someone else, you might be luckier.

 

And leave alone the silly idea to store in the FREEZER a reconstituted peptide too....what do you think it will happen to the fragile peptides chains upon freezing?

 

Never heard about water changing its volume and structure when frozen? 

 

Never heard about that being the main obstacle to successful hibernation? 

 

[adamh]

I see that those tests were carried out at 50c which is about 122f and extremely warm even hot. I don't know anyone who keeps their bpc at that temperature. What is the evidence that storing it in the freezer will ruin it? Another assumption.

 

>Stable BPC is a different formulation than "normal" BPC

 

Sounds like an opinion. 

 

Here is the quote I copied from the patent and yes often patents are written with statements in them to drum up interest. The quote seems to suggest the compound is a mix of several forms. 

 

"The present invention relates to new application forms of synthetic BPC (Body Protection Compound) peptides comprising 8 to 15 amino acid residues with a molecular weight of 900 to 1,600 daltons"

 

This suggests something totally different than bpc 157. There has been a lot of speculation backed up by guesswork to say all the tests were on the new form. If the researchers did not use the traditional 157 why did they call it that and not say this is different? Using the word stable is feeble evidence. If the new compound is the same as the old but slightly different why would you call it the same name? Why do they say "8 to 15 amino acid residues" with a weight of 900 to 1600 daltons in the patent? Look for yourself if you don't believe it. This strongly suggests or says outright that its a totally different compound.

 

I read somewhere that the new form was only produced since a year ago, not sure if that is true or if the person who wrote it knows the facts. Those studies were well before that which is another problem for believing its the same thing. If something is glucosamine chloride you don't call it glucosamine sulphate, they are different things though have a similar effect. A layman might call both glucosamine but scientists tend to be more exact. If it was a different form I believe they would have spelled out the difference so others would not be mislead. I want facts not opinions and guesswork. I don't know all the facts which is why I ask questions.

[normalizing]

so how is the group buy going

[aconita]

See post 158

[Nate-2004]

Up to 2 years against max 15 days....

 

This doesn't work with me, try with someone else, you might be luckier.

*What* doesn't work with you?

 

Also

 

When is a good time to take BPC-157? Only after injury?

 

The story about its discovery was interesting, though I don't understand what their motive was or what they were ultimately trying to achieve or what it protects.

Edited by Nate-2004, 04 October 2017 - 09:15 PM.

[aconita]

It doesn't work with me the trick to bring reference to a claimed shelf life of two years to justify the sick choice of storing a reconstituted peptide for months.

 

In powder form BPC (even the acetate) can be stored for up to 2 years in the FREEZER (one year in the fridge) but once reconstituted 15 days is the max shelf life in the FRIDGE and freezing will destroy it. 

 

And I am sick and tired to keep arguing about this, that's how it is, period, if someone has scientific evidence of the contrary show it clearly or shut up.

 

When is a good time to take BPC-157? Only after injury?

 

It depends, after an injury an intense treatment of 10 days cycles at 1mg/day is likely the best protocol but since it works as a body protector the oral use as a supplement at 0.1mg/day is certainly extremely interesting (read the patent for details).

 

I don't understand what their motive was or what they were ultimately trying to achieve or what it protects

 

Sincerely I don't understand your question, are you asking why researchers do research?

 

If you take the time to read the patent you should find the answer to what it protects since it is explained there much more clearly than I could ever do.

[Rocket]

Patents are not worth the paper they are filed on with the patent office. Go onto google and search and you will find very well written science fiction posing as science fact.

Just because something is patented, does not mean a single thing about the patent actually works.

[aconita]

Therefore who knows the ultimate truth?

 

The world main authority on BPC, its discoverer, more than 20 years of research on it, several patents holder and university Dr. isn't worth the paper he writes on....

 

Bodybuilding forums maybe?

 

I am really wasting my time here, everybody is an ultimate expert, so arrogant to not even care about reading a paper, ready to spell gospels based on nothing but ignorance at its worst...

 

Once upon a time this was a forum with knowledgeable people talking about things on scientific sound bases, know it reminds of a clowns show.

 

No wonder the best minds left for good...

 

Are you guys joking, trolling or what?

[normalizing]

this new fresh batch for the participants, is it powder form or what? i dont wanna inject it, i hope i can just do oral :s