True. I've stuck to the ones with beat research results on the boards.AndyPanda said:
Tirzepatide, MOTS-C, and Glutathione are my favorites. NAD+ seems to vary depending on where I’ve bought it.Peloma said:
AndyPanda said:
Dammit, Panda!AndyPanda said:
There's a reason most peptides we see the vendors selling, aren't commercially available. It's not due to some big pharma conspiracy to keep people sick, it's because the peptides don't do much if anything.AndyPanda said:
many of them (selank, semax, bpc, tb4, pt141, CJC, melanotan, and others) are not patentable in the US for a variety of reasons and therefore there is no profit to be had in investing in the clinical trials required to bring them to market. selank and semax im a little iffy about, but the rest of that list are plenty effective.geoguy78 said:
Other than Semax and Selank (personal experience with Selank was a bust for me) the others you mentioned have pretty strong bodies of evidence backing their therapeutic effects or they are actually marketed or were marketed (I'm pretty sure melanotan 1 is available with scrip, melanotan 2 was modified into a drug that's on market). I'm thinking more about certain others...... cough...... like AOD...... cough as just one example. The creators of AOD9604 specifically stopped research because it was ineffective, yet people continue to throw money at it for its "miraculous" fat burning abilityexploitedworkerbee said:
I have high hopes for the selank and semax I have coming in. I hope this isn't the case for me.geoguy78 said:
TirzPeloma said:
I know Reta and BPC together were a game changer. I’m getting my father started on it who is quite obese, has disc issues and a fatty liver. I haven’t considered hgh with it though. Do you take all 3? How many pokes?exploitedworkerbee said:
I’ve been using sry hgh and the results are amazing. Don’t waste your money on pharma, Chinese stuff definitely will get the job done.AndyPanda said:
quoted said:There's some emerging evidence and theoretical support suggesting that cycling SS-31 (Elamipretide) can enhance the efficacy of future peptide therapies.
How SS-31 May Enhance Future Peptide Effectiveness:
1.
SS-31 targets and stabilizes cardiolipin in mitochondrial membranes, reducing oxidative stress and improving ATP production. This can "prime" cells to respond better to other peptides that depend on mitochondrial health (like MOTS-c, NAD+, GH-releasing peptides, etc.).
2.
By enhancing mitochondrial function, SS-31 boosts cellular energy availability — potentially making it easier for other peptides to do their work (e.g., fat metabolism, muscle repair, cognitive effects).
3.
Lower systemic inflammation can increase the receptor sensitivity and bioavailability of subsequent peptide treatments.
4.
Some people use SS-31 as a way to recover between cycles of heavier peptides or stacks — helping to reduce systemic stress and maintain overall metabolic function.
Example Synergy:
SS-31 first cycle → improved mitochondrial resilience
Followed by MOTS-c or NAD+ → better uptake, energy efficiency, and fat metabolism
Stacking with Lipo-C or CoQ10 → further supports cell energy and detox pathways
Summary:
Cycling SS-31 may enhance the body's baseline function , setting the stage for more effective and efficient use of future peptides — especially those related to energy metabolism , longevity , and fat loss .
quoted said:BPC and tumor history: use with caution
BPC-157 is a synthetic peptide known for its regenerative effects on tissue, gut healing, joint repair, and inflammation reduction. However, because of its powerful angiogenic (blood vessel forming) and growth-promoting properties, there is concern regarding its use in people with a history of tumors or cancer .
Potential Concerns:
Angiogenesis (blood vessel growth):
Tumors rely on blood vessel growth to feed themselves.
BPC-157 promotes angiogenesis — helpful for healing, but theoretically could feed tumor growth if any dormant cells remain.
Cell Proliferation:
BPC-157 may upregulate certain growth pathways.
That could be a risk in individuals with a cancer history , especially hormone-sensitive or vascular tumors.
Lack of Human Studies in Cancer Patients:
There are no long-term human studies confirming safety in people with a history of tumors or cancer.
Most data comes from animal studies — encouraging for healing, but not definitive on safety in post-tumor conditions .
Avoid use unless cleared by an oncologist or integrative medicine specialist.
If used, limit to short-term cycles and monitor markers (inflammatory, tumor markers, etc.).
Consider alternatives with less growth signaling (like curcumin , omega-3s , NAC , or red light therapy ) for healing if tumor history is present.
Taurine
Glutamine (for gut healing)
Collagen peptides
Red light therapy
Mitochondrial support peptides like SS-31 (less proliferative risk)
quoted said:GHK-Cu is less risky than BPC-157 in this context, but still not 100% without concern. Here's why:
What GHK-Cu Does:
Promotes wound healing
Supports collagen production
Improves skin, hair, and tissue regeneration
Has antioxidant & anti-inflammatory effects
Modulates gene expression (can upregulate or downregulate many genes)
Tumor Concerns:
GHK-Cu is not directly pro-cancer , and it has actually shown anti-cancer properties in some studies — including:
DNA repair
Inhibition of some cancer-related gene expression
Copper regulation (important in cancer metabolism)
But copper can be a double-edged sword :
Copper is essential for healing — but also plays a role in angiogenesis , which tumors can use.
If copper levels are already high, GHK-Cu could theoretically contribute to unwanted growth in certain environments.
Most of this data is cellular and animal-based — so in humans, especially post-cancer, we don’t have enough long-term studies to be definitive.
i'm also not trained on it but i find the logic behind potentially accelerating existing tumor growth to be compelling. i wouldn't touch BPC if i had any significant risk factors for any cancer.Skidude said:
Not necessarily cancer or anything negative. only increase possibility of tumor growth. (from what I have read).Peloma said:
