I did the reading. The answers are contradictory, and murky.

[jason370]

Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

(I apologize in advance for the lack of humility. I simply wish to paint a picture that even the most qualified among us struggle to find clarity in this crazy world of peptides)

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.
The entirety of the internet
This forum
Peppys
STG
Myriad TG and Discord groups
My Endocrinologist
My GP
My friends who are doctors
My friends who just use a ton of peptides
I've posted a lot in the last couple months
I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well
And more.

For example:

My best understanding is there are four metabolic lanes for peptide use. I wonder how many people even know this most fundamentally important piece of information. Since there are four lanes, if one wishes to address concerns/issues/interests in said lanes, it is my best understanding one should only use one peptide per lane (per day, if it is a daily usage pep? this part becomes unclear to me).

Reta/Cagri: do they occupy the same lane? are they different lanes? if same then what protocol would ensure the best results? No need to directly answer this scenario, it is an example of a more complicated protocol to figure out>

Tesa/CJC-IPA: similar situation, except these are daily pins occupying the same lane. Should one alternate tesa MWF and CP10 TuTh Sat? Would that be the ideal solution or is this combination simply a bad idea.

Klow in am, Wolverine at night: seems redundant in some ways, but if you have a specific injury perhaps one might want to c=double up a bit to address that. It's complicated.

These scenarios are endless, yet perhaps a lane tool could be build, or perhaps it exists already, which might help narrow down these decisions, rather than just relying on 31 posts that describe unique scenrios.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[diplomat]

people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

This should be interesting.....

 

[jason370]

This should be interesting.....

you know, I figured some would pick at teh prefeace and think I'm pumping myself up with all sorts of self compliments, but the point here is:

1. I'm nobody. No one knows me, I'm effectively anaonymous.
2. The contrast I tried to make is that this is a very complicated sea to navigate, no matter how skilled one might be at complex navigation.
3. I know there's a truth souce(s), likely hiding in plain sight, but it is so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff due to the incredible amount of contradictory information.

Yes you can zoom in where you wish, but that helps no one, and this is unquestionably a topic which can help many, perhaps most.

 

[eidos]

You won't find any source of absolute truth in biology, nor in physics, chemistry, the social sciences, etc. It is only in mathematics that we find theorems, and even there we are limited by Gödel's theorem.
Aspirin has been prescribed for over 5,000 years, and its mechanism of action was elucidated in the 1970s.
In January 2023, biologists “celebrated” a milestone: they estimate that they now know half of what is in a human cell.
Look at what happened with GLP-1 agonists. Clinical trials showed promising results, they were brought to market, and once they were widely used, it was discovered that they didn’t work for 20-25% of people. And in recent months, studies have been published on the genetics of patients for whom the treatment is not effective.

We are far from knowing everything about biology, especially when it comes to experimental peptides that have only been known for a few years.

One advantage of this forum is that it features user testimonials. When I see that there are tens of thousands of visitors here and hundreds of thousands on some subreddits, I realize that there is a vast amount of information to explore regarding the results obtained through innovative research methods.
Human biology tends to treat patients the same way rats or cells are treated. Sociology, for example, has addressed the issue of reflexivity (the subjects are thinking human beings) through research methods such as action research. I think there is something to explore in this direction to validate the information you are seeking. If you have any ideas for a method, they would be welcome.

 

[jason370]

You won't find any source of absolute truth in biology, nor in physics, chemistry, the social sciences, etc. It is only in mathematics that we find theorems, and even there we are limited by Gödel's theorem.
Aspirin has been prescribed for over 5,000 years, and its mechanism of action was elucidated in the 1970s.
In January 2023, biologists “celebrated” a milestone: they estimate that they now know half of what is in a human cell.
Look at what happened with GLP-1 agonists. Clinical trials showed promising results, they were brought to market, and once they were widely used, it was discovered that they didn’t work for 20-25% of people. And in recent months, studies have been published on the genetics of patients for whom the treatment is not effective.

We are far from knowing everything about biology, especially when it comes to experimental peptides that have only been known for a few years.

One advantage of this forum is that it features user testimonials. When I see that there are tens of thousands of visitors here and hundreds of thousands on some subreddits, I realize that there is a vast amount of information to explore regarding the results obtained through innovative research methods.
Human biology tends to treat patients the same way rats or cells are treated. Sociology, for example, has addressed the issue of reflexivity (the subjects are thinking human beings) through research methods such as action research. I think there is something to explore in this direction to validate the information you are seeking. If you have any ideas for a method, they would be welcome.

There's always a way. It might not be exact, or perfection but there's always noise which can be reduced, variables which can be minimized or even eliminated altogether, a clearer and cleaner path towards the destination; that is essentially what I'm looking for. Any noise reduction tool which works would be immensely helpful. I generally hate anecdotal evidence, as is is very often subjective, unreliable, and unreproducible, but I must say I am so impressed by the compelling anecdotal testimonies here, that i simply cannot ignore them.

 

[CNCCurrency]

Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.
The entirety of the internet
This forum
Peppys
STG
Myriad TG and Discord groups
My Endocrinologist
My GP
My friends who are doctors
My friends who just use a ton of peptides
I've posted a lot in the last couple months
I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well
And more.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Full of yourself much?

 

[jason370]

Full of yourself much?

see above. I already addressed this. I'm nobody and the fact that you need to waste your time negatively on what could be a very helpful post for many who find themselves as overwhelmed as I am with the mass contradictory information, says more about you than you want to say about me.

 

[Meritocrat]

that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

I think you have answered your own question. I guess the problem might stem from the premise that peptide usage is a straightforward conundrum. To me, it is not so. The human body can be so diverse with the slightest change in molecules and quantity of those molecules. It stands to reason that while a certain peptide might work in a particular way for most people, the variation in the cellular makeup of people might make the peptide work differently in a few.

As such, in my opinion, one can only be reasonably sure of what would work for "YOU" after rigorous testing and experimentation. But there is a caveat here too. As time passes and the body changes, even the same peptide might end up working differently in the same person. There is nothing we can do about that.

I, too, have had the same issue you are talking about. But I know this is the scenario for most contexts. A good starting point would be to look at sources such as pep-pedia. They let us know what stacks could be theoretically possible. I use it to learn at a very generic level, how peptides work for the majority of people.

As an example, I looked at the Wolverine stack, and then the GLOW, and Klow compounds. To me, the healing process pattern for all the compounds in them is all about controlling/signaling. But there is no fuel in there. As in, these peptides are all architects, but there are no supervisors, foremen etc to directly cause building, which is necessary for healing. This made me look up Cartalax, IGF, MGF, etc.

 

[78monk]

I'm a an idiot from Australia. People refer to me as, 'potential head trauma patient' 'lukewarm IQ' 'He's not to bright but he can lift heavy things'. I wear slip-ons instead lace-ups because it's quicker when I have to count over 10.
People aren't leggo, they don't even taste like leggo.

There's not one perfect protocol that will work for everyone, we're simply, not that simple.

That, my savant friend, is why we research.

On ourselves first maybe, then share and read others experiences then compare and compile to get vague ballpark protocols to then, try again, on ourselves. And the cycle continues forever spinning around and around and.... so on.

You know what I'm saying...

 

[BBA1969]

Lots of anecdotal sources without many hard facts, endless opinions, true believers, skeptics, gurus, and agnostics... this is starting to look a lot like religion 😇

 

[jason370]

I'm a an idiot from Australia. People refer to me as, 'potential head trauma patient' 'lukewarm IQ' 'He's not to bright but he can lift heavy things'. I wear slip-ons instead lace-ups because it's quicker when I have to count over 10.
People aren't leggo, they don't even taste like leggo.

There's not one perfect protocol that will work for everyone, we're simply, not that simple.

That, my savant friend, is why we research.

On ourselves first maybe, then share and read others experiences then compare and compile to get vague ballpark protocols to then, try again, on ourselves. And the cycle continues forever spinning around and around and.... so on.

You know what I'm saying...

I do indeed know what you're saying and if you search my posts, you'll see one of my very fist posts was "how much is too much", because I choose to do precisely what you've suggested and experiment on myself - caution to the wind. I've had great success, i think, and I've learned a ton both from self experiment as well as from the good people of this site (which I really love, truly).

However, I'm certain that I'm quite inefficient in my peptide protocol because I'm still just winging it, and learning as i go, and I know there's a better methodology to be had - i just don't quite know exactly what that is yet. I promise you, one way or another, i will and when i do i will gladly share it will all. The fist thing i did was to build a peptide tracking app which i immediately shared, but for some reason which i cannot quite understand, the mods determined I was acting in bad faith and banned both me and the app from being shared. They allowed bme back after the ban, but not the app. My goal is to help and share....and rase good questions which help move the needle (pun intended).

 

[FarmgirlRebel]

You know, I just try and keep it simple...because I like simple.

I do everything I can not to double up hitting the same receptors and duplicating pathways.

There that is it...then I try it out and see how it goes.

I am not a rocket scientist, therefore I approach it by keeping it easy to understand and follow. 🙂

 

[Youarewhen]

see above. I already addressed this. I'm nobody and the fact that you need to waste your time negatively on what could be a very helpful post for many who find themselves as overwhelmed as I am with the mass contradictory information, says more about you than you want to say about me.

You shoulda just taken your lumps like a man. 🤣

 

[jason370]

You shoulda just taken your lumps like a man. 🤣

I knew and know that the lumps will be taken repeatedly in this thread. I wrote it in a way to be slightly provocative, but to also contrast my point. Any pushback I give will be overwhelmed regardless I've seen the mob at work here, and it aint pretty. Lest we forget the guy that wanted to badmouth a vendor that he thought scammed him. That Aussie got wrecked. I'm full prepared to take my beatdown like a man, but I get to hit back a little.

 

[jason370]

You know, I just try and keep it simple...because I like simple.

I do everything I can not to double up hitting the same receptors and duplicating pathways.

There that is it...then I try it out and see how it goes.

I am not a rocket scientist, therefore I approach it by keeping it easy to understand and follow.

I think that's great. Do you think it is possible you could do better, or be more efficient? Would you want to be. That's where I am. I'm doing exactly what you are doing, but I know it could be better.

 

[Youarewhen]

Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.
The entirety of the internet
This forum
Peppys
STG
Myriad TG and Discord groups
My Endocrinologist
My GP
My friends who are doctors
My friends who just use a ton of peptides
I've posted a lot in the last couple months
I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well
And more.

For example:

My best understanding is there are four metabolic lanes for peptide use. I wonder how many people even know this most fundamentally important piece of information. Since there are four lanes, if one wishes to address concerns/issues/interests in said lanes, it is my best understanding one should only use one peptide per lane (per day, if it is a daily usage pep? this part becomes unclear to me).

Reta/Cagri: do they occupy the same lane? are they different lanes? if same then what protocol would ensure the best results? No need to directly answer this scenario, it is an example of a more complicated protocol to figure out>

Tesa/CJC-IPA: similar situation, except these are daily pins occupying the same lane. Should one alternate tesa MWF and CP10 TuTh Sat? Would that be the ideal solution or is this combination simply a bad idea.

Klow in am, Wolverine at night: seems redundant in some ways, but if you have a specific injury perhaps one might want to c=double up a bit to address that. It's complicated.

These scenarios are endless, yet perhaps a lane tool could be build, or perhaps it exists already, which might help narrow down these decisions, rather than just relying on 31 posts that describe unique scenrios.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

This would be a trivial task for claude code or any AI coding tool. You could have it classify and identify peptides based on publicly available information. Just ask it to develop an application to check your proposed stack against your database. You can also have the most popular stacks as presets. This should be pretty basic for a data scientist.

One example of a conflict I know off the top, TESA and CJC. That would be a competing stack.

It goes without saying that you should manually verify the data in the database. Also, if you don’t have clear data for a particular peptide then obviously you can have it throw up a flag to the user.

You will have a new product if you develop this into a web/phone app. Not sure how profitable it would be, but you’d at least solve your own problem. 👍 Good luck

 

[jason370]

This would be a trivial task for claude code or any AI coding tool. You could have it classify and identify peptides based on publicly available information. Just ask it to develop an application to check your proposed stack against your database. You can also have the most popular stacks as presets. This should be pretty basic for a data scientist.

You will have a new product if you develop this into a web/phone app. Not sure how profitable it would be, but you’d at least solve your own problem. 👍 Good luck

so i actually did this, and offered it for free to all members of this site, but the mods apparently are twice shy after having been bitten previously and banned it. My goal was to incorporate user feedback to build it as good as possible.

I've found A.I. entirely frustrating and unreliable on this front. Different answers, different days, from different (and the same) engines. I've utilized it extensively, and it is in many ways worse than anecdotal evidence.

 

[lastresort]

I am not sure if I understand the post. Oogah boogah

 

[jason370]

I am not sure if I understand the post. Oogah boogah

well played.

 

[Habibibi]

Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.
The entirety of the internet
This forum
Peppys
STG
Myriad TG and Discord groups
My Endocrinologist
My GP
My friends who are doctors
My friends who just use a ton of peptides
I've posted a lot in the last couple months
I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well
And more.

For example:

My best understanding is there are four metabolic lanes for peptide use. I wonder how many people even know this most fundamentally important piece of information. Since there are four lanes, if one wishes to address concerns/issues/interests in said lanes, it is my best understanding one should only use one peptide per lane (per day, if it is a daily usage pep? this part becomes unclear to me).

Reta/Cagri: do they occupy the same lane? are they different lanes? if same then what protocol would ensure the best results? No need to directly answer this scenario, it is an example of a more complicated protocol to figure out>

Tesa/CJC-IPA: similar situation, except these are daily pins occupying the same lane. Should one alternate tesa MWF and CP10 TuTh Sat? Would that be the ideal solution or is this combination simply a bad idea.

Klow in am, Wolverine at night: seems redundant in some ways, but if you have a specific injury perhaps one might want to c=double up a bit to address that. It's complicated.

These scenarios are endless, yet perhaps a lane tool could be build, or perhaps it exists already, which might help narrow down these decisions, rather than just relying on 31 posts that describe unique scenrios.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Use a GLP1, and add resistance exercise. It's simple, but simple doesn't mean easy.

You're having trouble doing this because there is no solid clinical data on 90% of those peptides. So you can ignore those, or make up your own, which is what 90% of people do, using their own set of unreliable data.

 

[Youarewhen]

so i actually did this, and offered it for free to all members of this site, but the mods apparently are twice shy after having been bitten previously and banned it. My goal was to incorporate user feedback to build it as good as possible.

I've found A.I. entirely frustrating and unreliable on this front. Different answers, different days, from different (and the same) engines. I've utilized it extensively, and it is in many ways worse than anecdotal evidence.

A.I. is a tool and like any tool it is only as good as the person wielding it. Using it effectively is a skill and art.

 

[FarmgirlRebel]

I think that's great. Do you think it is possible you could do better, or be more efficient? Would you want to be. That's where I am. I'm doing exactly what you are doing, but I know it could be better.

Nahhh, I try not to overthink it or I'll just get lost in the weeds. Seriously, it's like missing the trees for the forest and it becomes overwhelming...so I just break it down into it's simplest forms and double check my dosages and pin away.

 

[jason370]

at the ris

A.I. is a tool and like any tool it is only as good as the person wielding it. Using it effectively is a skill and art.

At the risk of further adding to the "jason is a self aggrandizing, full of himself jerk" pile on, I'm quite skilled at both the skill and art of A.I. usage. I did not just casually ask a few questions and then throw up my hands in defeat.

 

[tendency]

Does anyone have what they believe to be one solid source of truth resource for how to thoughtfully build a peptide stack? Preferably one which considers the metabolic lanes, so one doesn't overcrowd any given lane?

I am a data scientist. I'm a highly skilled researcher. I run risk management via quantitative analysis for the top 100 hedge funds in the world, and i regularly tell the smartest MIT educated PHd. mathematicians how and why they are wrong about their math, research, and work approach, in front of their bosses - that's what i do all day. The smartest and most successful (those two things do not necessarily go together) people on Wall st refer to guys like me as the really smart guys.

And yet still...

I have no clear answers on what or how to stack peptides in any manner which gives me real confidence. Yes i have a ton of information, yes I've read it all. I've referred to:

Every A.I.
The entirety of the internet
This forum
Peppys
STG
Myriad TG and Discord groups
My Endocrinologist
My GP
My friends who are doctors
My friends who just use a ton of peptides
I've posted a lot in the last couple months
I built a peptide tacker management tool/app as well
And more.

For example:

My best understanding is there are four metabolic lanes for peptide use. I wonder how many people even know this most fundamentally important piece of information. Since there are four lanes, if one wishes to address concerns/issues/interests in said lanes, it is my best understanding one should only use one peptide per lane (per day, if it is a daily usage pep? this part becomes unclear to me).

Reta/Cagri: do they occupy the same lane? are they different lanes? if same then what protocol would ensure the best results? No need to directly answer this scenario, it is an example of a more complicated protocol to figure out>

Tesa/CJC-IPA: similar situation, except these are daily pins occupying the same lane. Should one alternate tesa MWF and CP10 TuTh Sat? Would that be the ideal solution or is this combination simply a bad idea.

Klow in am, Wolverine at night: seems redundant in some ways, but if you have a specific injury perhaps one might want to c=double up a bit to address that. It's complicated.

These scenarios are endless, yet perhaps a lane tool could be build, or perhaps it exists already, which might help narrow down these decisions, rather than just relying on 31 posts that describe unique scenrios.

I'm all but certain I speak for many (maybe most) here. I've been running my stack for a few months, it's going well, i feel great but I also know I'm just experimenting here. I happen to have an extremely high risk tolerance so I don't exactly mind, but It's bothering me that there is no reliable source of truth for something which seems quite straightforward.

Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.

It sounds like what you're lacking is real-world multi-year 1000s of patients clinical experience/expertise.

Dr. William Seeds comes to mind however you'll find opinions on him decidedly mixed. YMMV. There are others.

 

[jason370]

It sounds like what you're lacking is real-world multi-year 1000s of patients clinical experience/expertise.

Dr. William Seeds comes to mind however you'll find opinions on him decidedly mixed. YMMV. There are others.

Indeed I am!

 

[jason370]

This would be a trivial task for claude code or any AI coding tool. You could have it classify and identify peptides based on publicly available information. Just ask it to develop an application to check your proposed stack against your database. You can also have the most popular stacks as presets. This should be pretty basic for a data scientist.

One example of a conflict I know off the top, TESA and CJC. That would be a competing stack.

It goes without saying that you should manually verify the data in the database. Also, if you don’t have clear data for a particular peptide then obviously you can have it throw up a flag to the user.

You will have a new product if you develop this into a web/phone app. Not sure how profitable it would be, but you’d at least solve your own problem. 👍 Good luck

but is tesa cjc competing if you use each every other day? Same day, absolutely, Tesa MWF / CJC Tu Th Sat..im not so sure about that. Sounds complementary like that, each filling the lane daily, no overlap.

 

[Youarewhen]

at the ris

At the risk of further adding to the "jason is a self aggrandizing, full of himself jerk" pile on, I'm quite skilled at both the skill and art of A.I. usage. I did not just casually ask a few questions and then throw up my hands in defeat.

So which paid models/agents did you fail with?

 

[lastresort]

Use a GLP1, and add resistance exercise. It's simple, but simple doesn't mean easy.

You're having trouble doing this because there is no solid clinical data on 90% of those peptides. So you can ignore those, or make up your own, which is what 90% of people do, using their own set of unreliable data.

Exactly.

Quite frankly, the vast majority of peptides that circulate online including here don't have solid clinical studies or if they do, they are on the "wrong" populations. For all we know a lot of us could be fooling ourselves with desperate hopes.

 

[jason370]

So which paid models/agents did you fail with?

I have max subscriptions to GPT Claude and Cursor, those are the main three i use, and I use them against each other as well. I force each to check each others work, check for drift, efficiency, etc. I wouldn't say I failed with them, I would say they are frustrating to use because they are consistently inconsistent. Todays information can be the exact opposite tomorrow, and they are clever about how they change information with sleight of hand, hallucinations, and flat out lying.

Of course I account for all of this, I just find it particularly annoying when dealing with a non -human. Yes they are 50X better than a junior programmer, or a team of junior programmers for that matter and they are certainly more cost effective. I find myself still doing quite a bit of the coding despite their presence, because I have to check code regardless and when i do it, it is near perfect, no ulterior motives.

 

[jason370]

Exactly.

Quite frankly, the vast majority of peptides that circulate online including here don't have solid clinical studies or if they do, they are on the "wrong" populations. For all we know a lot of us could be fooling ourselves with desperate hopes.

Agreed but that is not my concern, nor the point of my post. I accept that as a given, what I'm concerned about is how to best deploy them based on what we think and wish to believe. Just because half or more might be a sham doesn't mean we need to give up on doing the best we can wit the information we have. Unquestionably, some peptides work miracles.