Dosage and protocol evidence
Each card states what the quantities are based on. A third-party or animal schedule is not a validated human dose.
50 mg/kg intraperitoneally twice daily was used in repeated mouse experiments; a separate acute exercise test used a single 50 mg/kg exposure
This is a murine experimental exposure, not a human-equivalent dose. No human administration study supports conversion of the quantity or route.
View sourceHuman anecdotes mention 250 mcg per meal or 3 mg orally twice weekly
These two incompatible schedules are isolated community claims with no human pharmacokinetic or clinical basis. The archive's expert discussion characterises the compound as preclinical hype; raw/discussions/disc-stalls-and-plateaus.md:708-714 and raw/incretin-mimetics/im-general-discussion.md:5763-5769.
View sourceOral reports span more than three orders of magnitude, from 200 mcg to 500 mg daily, with directly contradictory outcomes at similar quantities - one subject reports profound glucose effects at 200 mcg while others report nothing at 600 mcg, 100 mg or 500 mg
Forum provenance from an authenticated archive with usernames omitted. There is no reproducible schedule or expert guidance; contributors split into microgram and milligram camps, a large non-responder fraction is repeatedly invoked, and the route stays oral throughout. Figures are logged as an evidence gap, not a protocol.
View sourceEvidence summary
A synthetic oestrogen-related receptor agonist often grouped with research peptides despite being a small molecule. Evidence remains preclinical.
Protocol basis
Only laboratory and animal study designs are available, so the evidence page does not invent a human schedule.
Community provenance (Peppys)
An authenticated research-forum archive contains heavy discussion but no reproducible schedule: oral reports range from 200 mcg to 500 mg per day, with directly conflicting outcomes at similar quantities and a large self-described non-responder fraction. Contributors split into microgram and milligram camps, and much of the enthusiasm is attributed to commercial influencers. Usernames and post numbers are omitted, and the archive is recorded as an evidence gap rather than a validated protocol. No planner is derived from these irreconcilable anecdotes.
What remains uncertain
Human pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, formulation and effectiveness are unknown.