[cjbgkagh]

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.

[BobaFloutist]

Ok, fine, compare it instead to misleading anecdotal evidence surrounding dietary supplements. We know vitamins(/minerals/whatever) are compounds that are strictly necessary for life. We know that some health outcomes are tied to deficiencies or surpluses of these molecules. We know that in some, very specific cases, a disease is most effectively treated with OTC supplements.

We also know that, despite the vast quantities of anecdotal evidence readily available, taking 500% of your recommended daily value of Vitamin C will not actually effect the duration of your upper-respiratory tract infection. In fact, even ignoring the quality control issues in many commercial supplements, sometimes you can't even treat the deficiency of a specific nutrient with oral supplementation. And yet, again, many people will happily attest to the lifechanging benefits of supplementation to counteract a deficiency they likely never had.

[cjbgkagh]

Ok, some people are crazy therefore all anecdotal data is useless? Seems like a bit of a stretch. Someone tells you the weather is nice outside do you demand to see a peer reviewed study to that effect?