logoalt Hacker News

malfistyesterday at 3:53 PM2 repliesview on HN

You should note that your study is not controlled.

There are two groups, those with oral administration those with sub-q administration. There is not group without administration.

This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all. You can't tease out the effect size because you don't know if any or all of the MCL ligament healing was done via normal pathways


Replies

A_D_E_P_Tyesterday at 7:20 PM

You just read the abstract and didn't read the full paper.

There were control groups.

> Methods:

> [administration] as follows: (i) BPC 157 10 mg or 10 ng/kg or saline 5.0 ml/kg (controls), intraperitoneally, or (ii) BPC 157 in neutral cream (1.0 mg dissolved in distilled water/g commercial neutral cream) or commercial neutral cream (controls), as a thin layer, locally, at the site of injury, administered once daily with the first application 30 min after surgery and the final application 24 h before sacrifice; (iii) BPC 157 0.16 mg/ml or nothing (controls) in the drinking water (12 ml/day/rat) until sacrifice.

There was a big difference vs. the control groups.

staticassertionyesterday at 5:43 PM

> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all

Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quantifying an effect. It could be the case that both are equal in that neither has an effect, which this would validate. Then you can just point to other studies to claim effectiveness of injected.