A fair amount of anecdotal data though, it has helped me and others that I know. While the effect is pretty mild it is positive. Having a lifelong chronic condition I’m very sensitive to changes and have no discernible placebo effect. I’ve tried so many things that my prior belief when trying something new is that it wont work, so it’s a nice unexpected surprise when it does.
I am aware of survivorship bias but for that to apply BPC157 would have to be killing people, this peptide is widely used so if it was killing people we would know due to investigations into their deaths.
People usually hear about this stuff peer to peer and they report back to their peers if it helped or not, so there is a before and after, and for those people there isn’t a selection criteria biased on success. If people don’t report back then others become very interested in why.
I don't think "ghosts" was meant to imply the compound is killing people, just give an example of something people believe in without scientific evidence.
Fair point, I did misread the comment as a selection bias as opposed to a 'Reductio ad absurdum' argument.
Insulin and Ozempic are both bioactive peptides, which is not to say BPC157 is anywhere as strong as either of them, but it's not easily dismissed either. Nowhere near the absurdities of ghosts and homeopathy.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6WLUUia6qZjVredWBuOlr6