“This is the problem in a nutshell. You choose to believe certain things that someone said that have not been verified with facts or studies.”
That would have been the case if I would have believed your claims, Adam. Since, be fair: where in this topic have you posted any decent information supported by scientific research? Did you ever? If so: please show me. I'm not claiming I did, but the other persons that you are heavily criticizing constantly, surely did.
You are using a double standard for one reason or the other. Take Greenfield's article that you were so enthusiastic about. Just a few random examples. Header: “A Complete Dummies Guide To Healing The Body Like Wolverine.” Sounds a lot more trustworthy than any study and info posted here, I have to give you that. “Before and after reconstitution, keep your BPC-157 away from UV rays, sunlight and heat. 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.” Sources don't seem as important to you when it comes to anything Greenfield states, versus any information stated that you don't like by anyone over here. As you simply voice your enthusiasm about such an article full of claims not supported by scientific research without questioning it. You are using a double standard.
It's great to question. But you don't question: you make new claims. And what is absurd: whereas others have to back up every minor statement with evidence, you yourself can make claims about using, preparing, storing BPC-157 without providing any evidence. Again: double standard. So yes, indeed: you need to provide evidence if you make claims – and you do make claims. I've already stated clinical trials and scientific evidence concerning BPC-157 used in humans is/are sparse, and that not all info we may wish to have, is readily available. That is also why I stated I felt following a more cautious approach (also given non-sterile conditions at home) is wiser than not, as you seem to advocate.
As you are not satisfied with the info others gave: you have been given the names of those scientists you could contact – but you have not done so. So if you say “I only want to question”, then why on earth have you not been willing to ask those scientists that have been so involved in most of the available BPC-157 research? Why just keep stating how 'uninformed' anyone here is, stating you 'just want to question', but you refuse to actually ask any question to the source of most available research.
“I have done no such bashing, you are lying now. I have asked over and over where is the evidence to support certain statements. Your hero is the one who has been insulting and rude.”
You certainly did bash. In fact in almost every new post you made there was a sneaky reference to those persons claiming things and those believing claims while according to you being uninformed. For weeks with each of your responses rolling in my mailbox with such a sneaky reference I've bitten my tongue, but now I was done with it. That last part of your statement is a bit pathetic, don't you think. For all I know this is a forum where members are interested in scientific research. And for all I know in this topic you have posted veeeery sparse scientific info, yet constantly criticized those persons that did post a decent amount of scientific info. It was getting tiresome. Anyone that cares about a decent discussion with scientific facts, would side with those persons that actually contributed to that flow of scientific info.
“I have said no such thing, once again you make things up. I did say that statements in a patent are not evidence of anything and are often said to help market the product. I never attacked any scientists as you allege.” Come on Adam, you have painted a picture of the patent on the stable version of BPC-157 and with that of those persons involved in the research and production of this peptide, that was poor at best. I don't feel like reading back all your posts to quote you as I have better things to do. But with a bit of self-reflection you should know what I am referring to.
“I notice you have a new account and seem to be determined to attack anyone who questions things said. I wonder what your other account is?” And your suggestion is? I would have hoped you have a lot more interesting things to do than to search the forum for my 'introduction post'. You could have emailed those scientists I just mentioned in the time you spent reading my useless 'introduction post' – to receive an answer to the important questions you said you have. Indeed, if you would have read well you would have understood I had an account a few years back of which I don't remember the name neither the password. Thus I asked if I could open a new account a few years thereafter. If it is of interest to you: I mostly used that first account years back to read up on info, and perhaps posted with it a one or two times about a supplement. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
“Oh I was asked where I got my supply, I already stated it was from blue sky peptides. There are dozens of sources for it.” So, did you ask them to provide you with all necessary test results to confirm the purity of what you bought, where it came from, how it was stored? Or again, are you just “critical” as you said when it comes to a specific source and person? Double standard?
You're right that I'm done communicating with you – as you are with me. You are not 'just asking questions'. You are selective in whom and what you question, for one reason or the other maintaining a double standard without contributing to the flow of scientific info yourself yet publicly bashing those that do. However: let's stop this discussion here as it is just polluting the topic.
Edited by Leni, 08 October 2017 - 01:02 AM.
? Is that since most persons in this thread share Aconita's viewpoint as he actually contributed to this thread with a decent amount of scientific info - and your opinion is not too popular?
