BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this still hold?

The question in the title: BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

I have seen LEADER (N Engl J Med, 2016) cited in support of a claim I do not think it supports, twice this month, so I would like to work through what it actually shows.

My reading is that the trial is sound for its own question and is being stretched to answer a different one. I might be wrong about that, which is why this is a topic rather than a correction.

What I would like from this discussion: someone who disagrees with me to say why, with the section of the paper they are relying on.

The distinction between "no evidence it works" and "evidence it does not work": we have the first for these compounds. That is genuinely different from the second and the distinction matters, but it also means treatment plans based on these compounds are being built on theoretical grounds, not empirical ones.

For anyone arriving from search engines: this subcategory discusses published preclinical work and the absence of published clinical work. It does not endorse or recommend these compounds.

post #3 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

What would change the position on repair peptides: adequately powered, published, peer-reviewed randomised controlled human trials with pre-specified outcomes. That is the standard applied to every other therapeutic claim on this site and it is the standard applied here.

I read post #3 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Why plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect: a mechanism that is chemically or biologically plausible can fail in practice for dozens of reasons — bioavailability, off-target effects, metabolism, clearance, or simply that the mechanism does not do what the theory predicts in a living system. Plausibility is necessary for hope but not sufficient for evidence.

Publication patterns in the BPC-157 literature: a large proportion of the evidence comes from one research group. That is not necessarily wrong — one group can do excellent work — but it is worth noting when evaluating the breadth of support for a claim.

Picking up post #7: that is the part I would want checked first.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Stability of BPC-157 in solution: what has been measured in published work covers specific formulations under specific conditions. Extrapolating to a reconstituted preparation in a different diluent at a different concentration is an extrapolation, acknowledged as one.