Khavinson Peptide Bioregulators: Independent Validation Assessment

[Chili777]

Dos-Dox said:

For Ovagen, I came across a single study, and Pancragen has several that don't come only from Khavinson (monkeys, additional monkeys, plus rats.)

My checking was limited to a handful, done through Neemio.com. That site ranks among my top resources because it provides every compound detail, pharmacokinetics, research study links, and so on.

That site is one I genuinely appreciate, and it's saved in my bookmarks.

 

[yeddie]

Neemio.com strikes me as a resource that could prove very useful.

What the OP's table covers is the Khavinson "Cytogens" — that is, short synthetic peptides. A number of the earliest and most encouraging trials, however, used the animal-derived "Cytomax" precursors, and those contain more than the short sequence alone. Take Epithalamin and Prostatilen from the Cytomaxes line, set against their Cytomax counterparts Epithalon and Prostamax. On Neemio, the pages for these compounds reveal both the overlap and certain distinctions.

 

[trojanpeptide]

Dos-Dox said:

For Ovagen, I came across a single study, and Pancragen has several that don't come only from Khavinson (monkeys, additional monkeys, plus rats.)

My checking was limited to a handful, done through Neemio.com. That site ranks among my top resources because it provides every compound detail, pharmacokinetics, research study links, and so on.

Both of the initial studies in your links originate from Khavinson's laboratory, while the remaining link is a Russian study as well, though it does not come from Khavinson.

 

[Researcher6076]

yeddie said:

Neemio.com strikes me as a resource that could prove very useful.

What the OP's table covers is the Khavinson "Cytogens" — that is, short synthetic peptides. A number of the earliest and most encouraging trials, however, used the animal-derived "Cytomax" precursors, and those contain more than the short sequence alone. Take Epithalamin and Prostatilen from the Cytomaxes line, set against their Cytomax counterparts Epithalon and Prostamax. On Neemio, the pages for these compounds reveal both the overlap and certain distinctions.

100% fair: none of it would pass current Western standards, not remotely. Plenty has never been repeated either, though that often seems to be because nobody ever tried.

As a roadmap for future work it still has value. And a few of them carry enough safety data that a private "researcher" might feel tempted to give one a go. Lol.

I would love a way to pull usable data out of the hundreds or thousands of people experimenting with this. Could a research protocol along those lines even be put together?

 

[yrrdead]

Researcher6076 said:

yeddie said:

Neemio.com strikes me as a resource that could prove very useful.

What the OP's table covers is the Khavinson "Cytogens" — that is, short synthetic peptides. A number of the earliest and most encouraging trials, however, used the animal-derived "Cytomax" precursors, and those contain more than the short sequence alone. Take Epithalamin and Prostatilen from the Cytomaxes line, set against their Cytomax counterparts Epithalon and Prostamax. On Neemio, the pages for these compounds reveal both the overlap and certain distinctions.

100% fair: none of it would pass current Western standards, not remotely. Plenty has never been repeated either, though that often seems to be because nobody ever tried.

As a roadmap for future work it still has value. And a few of them carry enough safety data that a private "researcher" might feel tempted to give one a go. Lol.

I would love a way to pull usable data out of the hundreds or thousands of people experimenting with this. Could a research protocol along those lines even be put together?

Doing this is impossible — it's fundamentally a task for AI. It would be scattered across many people, with no shared protocol, no dosage controls at all, and fully blinded in the sense that you have no real idea what substance each person is actually using.

One possibility: somebody might vibecode a set of clawbots into a research effort along the lines of SETI@home. The data and the processing power would come from us. I doubt much usable would come out of it. Still, it's hard to say.

 

[Researcher6076]

yrrdead said:

Researcher6076 said:

yeddie said:

Neemio.com strikes me as a resource that could prove very useful.

What the OP's table covers is the Khavinson "Cytogens" — that is, short synthetic peptides. A number of the earliest and most encouraging trials, however, used the animal-derived "Cytomax" precursors, and those contain more than the short sequence alone. Take Epithalamin and Prostatilen from the Cytomaxes line, set against their Cytomax counterparts Epithalon and Prostamax. On Neemio, the pages for these compounds reveal both the overlap and certain distinctions.

100% fair: none of it would pass current Western standards, not remotely. Plenty has never been repeated either, though that often seems to be because nobody ever tried.

As a roadmap for future work it still has value. And a few of them carry enough safety data that a private "researcher" might feel tempted to give one a go. Lol.

I would love a way to pull usable data out of the hundreds or thousands of people experimenting with this. Could a research protocol along those lines even be put together?

Doing this is impossible — it's fundamentally a task for AI. It would be scattered across many people, with no shared protocol, no dosage controls at all, and fully blinded in the sense that you have no real idea what substance each person is actually using.

One possibility: somebody might vibecode a set of clawbots into a research effort along the lines of SETI@home. The data and the processing power would come from us. I doubt much usable would come out of it. Still, it's hard to say.

Building the AI isn't the difficult piece. What I picture is a Peptide Tracker app for phones. We'd design it to be convenient enough that people would actually want to open it. We'd state that everything collected gets anonymized. Some folks, naturally, would still be put off by that. Into it we'd log what compound they use, the route, the quantity, and so on. We could even hard-code the arithmetic for vial mg and dilution volume, so that shaky user math doesn't pollute the dataset. Lol. Now and then (a handful of prompts about effects, side effects, and similar) we'd need to keep it friendly enough that people can bail out of the questions whenever they don't feel like it. Possibly just a single prompt about adverse side effects

yrrdead said:

Researcher6076 said:

yeddie said:

Neemio.com strikes me as a resource that could prove very useful.

What the OP's table covers is the Khavinson "Cytogens" — that is, short synthetic peptides. A number of the earliest and most encouraging trials, however, used the animal-derived "Cytomax" precursors, and those contain more than the short sequence alone. Take Epithalamin and Prostatilen from the Cytomaxes line, set against their Cytomax counterparts Epithalon and Prostamax. On Neemio, the pages for these compounds reveal both the overlap and certain distinctions.

100% fair: none of it would pass current Western standards, not remotely. Plenty has never been repeated either, though that often seems to be because nobody ever tried.

As a roadmap for future work it still has value. And a few of them carry enough safety data that a private "researcher" might feel tempted to give one a go. Lol.

I would love a way to pull usable data out of the hundreds or thousands of people experimenting with this. Could a research protocol along those lines even be put together?

Doing this is impossible — it's fundamentally a task for AI. It would be scattered across many people, with no shared protocol, no dosage controls at all, and fully blinded in the sense that you have no real idea what substance each person is actually using.

One possibility: somebody might vibecode a set of clawbots into a research effort along the lines of SETI@home. The data and the processing power would come from us. I doubt much usable would come out of it. Still, it's hard to say.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that I built a phone app for tracking peptides. It could be polished enough that people would voluntarily use it just to keep their own records straight. We'd promise any stored data was properly anonymized. Naturally, some portion of users would be uneasy about that and steer clear. But say plenty of people did use it, and say we baked in the math for how many milligrams a vial holds and how much water was added, so correctness wouldn't hinge on the user's own arithmetic. That could double as a dose-calculation feature. And every so often we'd ask how things were going, which side effects showed up, which effects were good or bad. Questions would have to stay brief so people would actually bother answering. But we could customize the prompts for each peptide.

Now suppose all of that existed and the data flowed into the cloud. If anyone reading this thread genuinely runs legitimate peptide research, I get that from an FDA standpoint none of this data would carry weight. (I've actually drafted some of the FDA test plans for medical device approvals. Yeah, none of this would pass muster for that.)

Still, would any of it hold value for people trying to design studies? If you learned that a bunch of people took certain doses and reported no side effects, or took certain doses and reported many side effects, or used something and reported positive or negative effects, would that steer you toward designing the right studies that still need doing? Would it be worth anything?

By the way, I fully realize the biases here would be enormous. We'd likely attract exactly the type who hang around forums like this one, doing their own odd experiments with peptides. I doubt many Med Spa customers would show up. I doubt many compounding pharmacy customers would either.

Anyway, just an interesting discussion to have.

 

[bare_essentials]

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

 

[CNCCurrency]

bare_essentials said:

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

From what I've observed, the majority of people in the USA are using the synthetic version. Getting the original form is somewhat difficult.

 

[trojanpeptide]

CNCCurrency said:

bare_essentials said:

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

From what I've observed, the majority of people in the USA are using the synthetic version. Getting the original form is somewhat difficult.

that only holds up if you actually read the papers. lol

oral and nasal peptides are a big business, and plenty of them come out of the US.

largely true if your sources are the secondary write-ups (not the primary work, but the commercial ones, the junk ones, you know). That crowd is what's driving the hard push behind Khavinson's peptides. Want me to dig up some examples, or you can just ask an AI.

Anyway, FWIW, they're available here.

 

[CNCCurrency]

trojanpeptide said:

CNCCurrency said:

bare_essentials said:

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

From what I've observed, the majority of people in the USA are using the synthetic version. Getting the original form is somewhat difficult.

that only holds up if you actually read the papers. lol

oral and nasal peptides are a big business, and plenty of them come out of the US.

View attachment 10216

largely true if your sources are the secondary write-ups (not the primary work, but the commercial ones, the junk ones, you know). That crowd is what's driving the hard push behind Khavinson's peptides. Want me to dig up some examples, or you can just ask an AI.

Anyway, FWIW, they're available here.

Is that Jay Campbell's website?

 

[trojanpeptide]

CNCCurrency said:

trojanpeptide said:

CNCCurrency said:

bare_essentials said:

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

From what I've observed, the majority of people in the USA are using the synthetic version. Getting the original form is somewhat difficult.

that only holds up if you actually read the papers. lol

oral and nasal peptides are a big business, and plenty of them come out of the US.

View attachment 10216

largely true if your sources are the secondary write-ups (not the primary work, but the commercial ones, the junk ones, you know). That crowd is what's driving the hard push behind Khavinson's peptides. Want me to dig up some examples, or you can just ask an AI.

Anyway, FWIW, they're available here.

Is that Jay Campbell's website?

actually I had a different person in mind

same crowd, same conflict-of-interest papers. the video is here.

and this other channel also pushes them.

yea plenty of folks skip injecting and instead swallow them or snort them.

or this guy is another one you can listen to. lol

 

[AlexSilver]

trojanpeptide said:

CNCCurrency said:

bare_essentials said:

Has anyone here who's experimenting with Khavinson's peptides stuck with the oral form as it was originally made, or has somebody out there also run a side-by-side against the synthetic injectable variants?

From what I've observed, the majority of people in the USA are using the synthetic version. Getting the original form is somewhat difficult.

that only holds up if you actually read the papers. lol

oral and nasal peptides are a big business, and plenty of them come out of the US.

View attachment 10216

largely true if your sources are the secondary write-ups (not the primary work, but the commercial ones, the junk ones, you know). That crowd is what's driving the hard push behind Khavinson's peptides. Want me to dig up some examples, or you can just ask an AI.

Anyway, FWIW, they're available here.

Alright. Setting that to one side, nearly all of them—maybe every single one—are available at this source....

Peptides – NootropicsBase.com

nootropicsbase.com

 

[toologic]

what about vesilute?

 

[AlexSilver]

toologic said:

what about vesilute?

In my opinion, Vesilute is not good. I later found out that it increases the inflammasome NF-kB. That's really bad. It caused me to urinate 5-6 times each night. My advice is to avoid it. Your experience may differ.