Why animal data is not a small version of human data

I would say if you cannot find a published human study, that is itself the finding rather than a gap to fill with reasoning.

Grateful you posted rather than kept it to yourself.

My approach now is to ask what would have to be true for a claim to hold, and then to look for whether anybody has checked.

What surprised me was how much of what circulates traces back to a single small study repeated in a hundred summaries.

Something practical: I keep a note of what I have actually read on each of these, because otherwise I mistake familiarity for knowledge.

What helped me was asking, for each compound, what the best single piece of human evidence actually is. Often the answer is very little.

Nothing useful, just that I have been exactly here.

What I keep coming back to is that a compound having a plausible mechanism and a compound having human outcome data are very different situations.

Everything discussed here is research-use-only material. That is not a formality: it was never manufactured, released or documented for use in a person.

My position is that I read about these with interest and I do not take them, and I want that to be a legitimate position in this circle.

The reading group format works well for this. We took one compound, found everything published, and concluded it was thinner than the discussion suggested.

I found that separating the mechanism claims from the outcome claims made the whole subject much easier to think about.

Coming back to what Nev wrote further up, because it is the bit I keep thinking about.

The interaction question is almost entirely unstudied for most of this, and that is worth stating on every thread.

I would gently push back on any post that presents a protocol as established. Almost none of them are.

Nothing in this circle is medical advice and none of us is in a position to tell you what is safe for you.