Reply To: Recovery from an injury with peptides
Written by SCANAST on . Posted in
Hello there Harold, from as much as I can understand, you shared that, mostly in response to my earlier post out there, or at least that’s what I understood by reading the last part of your post, to be more specific, this one:
I personally am not a very huge peptide fan to be honest, however the anti inflammatory properties that the TB 500 has, does seemed to be working extremely well, at least for me personally. Either is that a placebo effect only or something that has actually worked I am not sure, but what I know is that it did has worked in my anecdotal experience. Then again, that’s just only me, not sure how well it works/ worked for other people. I also guess that it might depend on your injury type as well as your own body chemistry. But then again, for me it did worked. That’s a response to the person who said that there are no evidence that it actually works (and I still don’t have it except my experience) and maybe to make you better know TB 500.
Very well, look, there are a lot of therapies that are diminishing the symptoms and I have not tried to say that there are no, however they must not be equated with an accelerated healing process because those are 2 different things we are talking about and I was talking about specifically the healing process.
As an example, you can search for the information on the NSAIDs with respect to the MS injuries due to the fact while they are usually doing a good job in diminishing the pains, typically, such kind of a therapy is actually not speeding up the healing process but it works the other way around of actually DELAYING the healing process! And that’s especially if you have used for more than a few days that NSAID. I’m sure you know what I am trying to say here.
In addition to that, I am also being interested to note that nearly all of the PEPs on todays market, are wo comparisons to the conventional therapy, use a reduction of the inflammatory mediators as being the ‘evidence or proof’ of the effect, or involving rodents with some pretty varied MS functional relationships compared to humans… in the end you might ask… can these compounds be of some help, of any help at all? so well… I personally do suspect that it might be, HOWEVER from a cost based perspective, I one am unaware of any evidence that they provide more bang for the ones buck compared to the traditional and old ‘rice’ therapy. Just in case there are ANY of you who has ANY evidence proving that, I BEG you to share it here with us, or write me privately. I did searched for the info, and I couldn’t find any, to me that is talking about that there simply is not such an evidence, meaning it is not more effective, again, all my opinion.