Compound reference

People take more than any study gave

The convention sits above every scaled figure and has no published derivation. It is also exactly one twentieth and one tenth of a 5 mg vial.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. Every mg/kg figure in circulation belongs to thymosin beta-4, which FDA states is not the same substance.

Matches an amount a study gave

The risk moved off the molecule and into the vial. Three tested vials were far less pure than claimed and simultaneously over label, so careful dosing meant overdosing.

People take less than studies gave

Microdosing was tested once. At the smallest dose people lost under a kilogram in six months.

People take less than studies gave

Trial results describe a molecule, not a vial. No approved version exists at any price, so there is no reference article to hold yours against.

People take less than studies gave

Five to twenty one times smaller, and by a route I found no human study of. The smaller number is smaller in a unit no one has converted.

People take less than studies gave

A quarter to a half of one studied injection. Lower, not higher, and still a dose no trial administered.

Matches an amount a study gave

The convention matches a studied dose, but one chosen for being the largest tried in 32 elderly people. Children in the active Phase 3 are dosed per kilogram. Nobody re-derived it for adults.

People take less than studies gave

Below the label range and by a different route. Almost everything sold here is injected; every published study went intranasally.

Matches an amount a study gave

The number matches the dose in every published trial, and the product it was approved for is gone. What is sold as medicine now is 1.4 mg a day, and 1.28 mg in the version that replaced it, in formulations both labels call not substitutable. Every trial dosed continuously, and no published evaluation of the weeks on, weeks off cycling turned up.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. None of the three trials reports a dose or a treatment length, so both circulating numbers came from somewhere other than a study: 900 mcg per day is a derivation from assuming 20 drops to a millilitre of the Russian nasal drops, and the 1,350 mcg per day that vendors attribute to the 2008 trial is absent from every primary source.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I could not find a published study injecting it into a person by any route. The human evidence that does exist is a cream on a wound, and even the 2 percent strength quoted for it on vendor pages is not in the paper. The circulating numbers do match the syringe: at 25 mg/mL, 1 mg is 4 units, 2 mg is 8, 3 mg is 12.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. Every dose in the record was given to a mouse, into the abdominal cavity, and the one completed human trial used CB4211, a modified version rather than MOTS-c itself. Vendors say they reached the number by scaling the mouse doses by body surface area, and running that conversion on the 15 mg per kg dose does not land at 5 to 10 mg.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. Scaling that mouse figure the standard way lands near 90 mcg a day for an adult, which puts the oral convention five to ten times above the only number the literature can carry, and that number came from a mouse getting nanoparticles down a feeding tube. The injected convention sits above nothing at all, because I found no published injection of KPV in any species.

People take more than any study gave

Twenty times the only dose the four unit chain has been given a person, and by a route no published study was found using. Trace the 10 mg and it lands on the 2003 extract paper, whose St Petersburg cohort gave 10 mg into muscle daily for 10 days, 100 mg a course, digit for digit the circulating schedule. The agent in that trial was Epithalamin, a bovine pineal extract that FDA states is a different substance, and no vendor or clinic page was found deriving the 10 mg from any study of the chain itself.

People take more than any study gave

The 500 to 1500 mg the wellness industry infuses is fifty to a hundred and fifty times the 10 mg a day of the one adequately sized randomised trial, and above the 100 mg that is the highest registered intravenous human dose those searches found. I found no published human dose-finding or dose-response study of injected NAD+ by any route, and no published human study at all of the under the skin form. That convention traces to a 2014 conference poster with no peer-reviewed publication I could find.

People take less than studies gave

The convention sits at about one seventh to one tenth of both figures it could be held against: the pediatric label dose of 30 mcg/kg scales to roughly 2,100 mcg in a 70 kg adult, and the one adult study used a flat 2 mg. Grey market doses normally drift upward. This one drifted down, and there is no approved adult labelling and no adult dose finding study behind it.

People take less than studies gave

The convention sits below the tested amount rather than above it. The three later trials used 0.025 mg/kg, about 1.75 mg for a 70 kg adult, and the 1996 phase I ran 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg, roughly 0.7 to 2.1 mg at that weight, so what circulates is between a seventh and a third of what anybody was given. I could not trace it to a derivation: one says the figures are extrapolated from the published research range and then names no publication, and another concedes the loading and maintenance models are community-derived.

Matches an amount a study gave

The number matches, and unusually for this reference it is traceable. The 1.75 mg was lifted off the Vyleesi label, where it is the approved dose for premenopausal women and the top of a phase 2b trial that compared 0.75, 1.25 and 1.75 mg in 327 of them. That same label's Limitations of Use name men as a group the drug is not indicated for. No male dose-finding study supports the number, I could not find a published trial of any design giving a man the 1.75 mg subcutaneous dose, and against the only published male subcutaneous efficacy doses, 4 mg and 6 mg, the convention runs at roughly a third to a half.

People take more than any study gave

The approval covers a single administration as a test, one slow injection into a vein given fasting, and it says nothing about the second dose. What circulates is up to three injections a day under the skin, run in cycles. The bottom of that range is the same 100 mcg as the Japanese diagnostic dose and the Nijland protocol, and I could not establish any derivation for it, beyond noting that nobody appears to have reasoned from either. Across those five days of daily injections the peak growth hormone fell from a mean of 83 mcg/L to 51, and mean serum IGF-1 did not move at all. It moved under a 30 day pump and under a drip into a vein, not under an injection.

Matches an amount a study gave

The number matches, and unusually for this reference it is traceable. Bowers 1990 set 1 mcg/kg into a vein as its top rung, Borges 1997, Pandya 1998, Muller 2001, Micic 2002 and Alaioubi 2010 all reused that dose and that route exactly, and for an 80 to 100 kg man that is 80 to 100 mcg, which lands on the flat 100 mcg the community uses. Above that bottom rung the convention keeps going, to 300 mcg an injection and 200 to 900 mcg a day. The transfer is the part I found no validation of: the published dose is a single bolus into a vein for acute provocation, the convention is repeated injection under the skin for weeks, and I found no human study measuring blood levels after an injection under the skin, no dose response by that route, and no study of repeated daily dosing under the skin of GHRP-6 alone. The one exposure under the skin on record put GHRP-6, GHRP-2 and sermorelin in at once.

Matches an amount a study gave

The convention lands on a dose that was actually given, by the same route. 1.5 mcg/kg twice daily works out at about 105 mcg per injection and 210 mcg per day for a 70 kg adult, or 120 mcg and 240 mcg per day at 80 kg. What that study found at 16 weeks was a fall of roughly 45 percent in the growth hormone response, while across the same 20 weeks insulin like growth factor 1, the blood marker growth hormone normally drives up, did not change significantly, and neither did the protein that carries it, P = 0.24 and P = 0.74, and total body fat, lean body mass and bone mineral density had not changed at week 16 either. I could not establish any published derivation for the 100 mcg figure, and the cycles of about 6 to 8 weeks with a 4 to 8 week break are framed explicitly as managing the fading response.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I found no published study in which it was given to a human being and no registered trial. Per kilogram the convention is small rather than large: about 0.25 to 1.25 micrograms/kg/day for an 80 kg adult, and every published dose sits above it, from about 28 micrograms/kg/day in growth restricted fetal sheep, which is 22 to 112 times higher, up to about 2,133 to 2,667 in steroid treated rats. The pig bolus doses that produced measurable hypoglycaemia were 20 to 50 micrograms/kg in one injection, 16 to 200 times the convention. I found no derivation for the 20 to 100 mcg anywhere: no allometric scaling from a named animal study, no dose ranging work, no pharmacokinetic anchor. Sitting under the animal doses is not a safety finding, because I could not find a measurement in a person at any dose.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. Six searches across four databases found no human study of the unmodified fragment, and the author could not establish where the 200 to 500 mcg convention came from and would not invent a lineage for it. Every human dose on record in this family belongs to AOD-9604, a modified copy sixteen daltons and two CAS numbers away: 25 to 400 mcg/kg into a vein and 0.25 mg to 54 mg by mouth, an oral range spanning a factor of 216 from bottom to top, and nothing in that spread produces 250 to 500 mcg a day under the skin of a person. FDA reported it did not identify human exposure even to AOD-9604 by the subcutaneous or transdermal route. The 250 to 500 mcg tabulated in a 2026 journal review is self-reported forum protocols, and a forum number reprinted in a journal table is still a forum number.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I could not find a published human study of this compound by any route. Every efficacy result came out of a needle in a rodent, dosed per kilogram of animal, one experiment at three injections a day, and the retail item is a capsule swallowed once. The circulating number is convention rather than evidence and I found no derivation for it. Under the same name, retail listings sell capsules at 500 micrograms, one hundredth to one three hundredth of the protocol dose.

Matches an amount a study gave

The circulating band lands on the two smallest arms of the phase 2b, 0.25 and 0.5 mg, and those were swallowed rather than injected. I could not establish a stated derivation for the injectable numbers, only a coincidence of magnitude, since the same 1 mg ceiling appears in the self-affirmed food status. Every human dose in the published record went into a vein, 25 to 400 mcg/kg as single doses, or was swallowed, 0.25 mg to 54 mg daily, and I could not find one published human study using the route it is sold by. The trial those numbers echo did not beat placebo, and the sponsor closed the obesity programme in February 2007.

Matches an amount a study gave

2.4 mg is a dose the single agent really was given, and it is also semaglutide's share of the fixed pen, which is where the convention came from. The one dose finding trial in the single agent found 4.5 mg did better, minus 10.8 against minus 9.7 percent. The monotherapy trials that would settle it started in November 2025 and I could not find their dose in either registration.

Matches an amount a study gave

The most copied chart starts at 2.5 mg and settles at 5 mg, and no published mazdutide trial used either number as a maintenance target in obesity. Both came off the vial rather than a paper, 10 mg reconstituted with 3.0 mL of bacteriostatic water. There is an approved human ladder sitting right there to compare against, 2 mg then 4 mg then up to 6 mg, which almost never happens in this reference, and the grey market went to vial arithmetic anyway. A second guide ends on 6 or 9 mg, which at least ends on a dose trials have used, though it skips the label's 2 mg start, and it cites for its titration speed a 2025 phase 2b trial in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology that I could not find.

Matches an amount a study gave

The convention is the trial dose, which is rare here. What does not travel with it is the rest of the trial: every obesity trial paired the drug with an energy restricted diet, so I could not find a published result for the drug alone, and they all ran 24 weeks and stopped. The 1.0 mg arm behind the 10.6 percent was dropped at the FDA meeting before the large trial meant to settle the heart rate question, and that trial was never run. The paper the numbers come from carries a Lancet Expression of Concern from 2013 about unrecorded adverse events, and I found it still standing.

People take less than studies gave

The headline number is real for once. Forty milligrams a day under the skin is the dose in five published trials and on the approved label, and every one of those was in people with a diagnosed disease. Where the convention departs, it departs downward. I could find no human trial reporting a clinical result at 2, 5 or 10 mg a day, and the label mentions that lower range only as a span over which blood levels were measured, so somebody has given 2 mg a day and published nothing but the blood levels. I looked for a study in any species testing the three times weekly schedule several pages give, and could not find one.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. I could find no published study, and no registered one, giving humanin or any version of it to a person by any route, so every schedule in circulation sits beside an animal number rather than a human one. Most of those animal numbers belong to S14G, the one letter mutant, while the vial holds the other molecule. Two of the three sites quoting doses say themselves that their figures are extrapolation from rodent work, and the spread between the three is a hundredfold for the same two molecules.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. Every published dose I found was given to a mouse, by injection into the abdominal cavity, and the scientists who made the compound wrote that it lacks oral bioavailability, meaning it does not get from the gut into the blood. Most of what is sold is a capsule. The 400 to 800 mg oral band that circulates is about where a body surface area conversion of the mouse dose lands, roughly 570 mg a day for a 70 kilogram adult, which is arithmetic applied to a route its own inventors say does not work.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. The 200 mg per kilogram mouse figure quoted as proof of a wide margin is where dosing stopped because the compound would not dissolve any further, not a toxic dose anybody reached. Scaling the 85 mg per kilogram mouse dose by body surface area lands near 480 mg a day for a 70 kg adult, which is arithmetic rather than a studied dose and does not make 480 mg safe or sensible, and it sits above every circulating number, the 50 mg capsule at about a tenth of it. None of the circulating numbers shows a derivation, and the smallest and largest are six thousand times apart.

People take less than studies gave

The convention sits far below everything that was tested. A whole 50 milligram vial is about one fifty-ninth of the single infusion RED-CABG gave, and that trial found the bad outcome on 5.1 percent of the drug group against 5.0 percent on the dummy infusion. Scaling the mouse dose by body surface area, which is arithmetic done here rather than a published derivation, gives about 2,840 milligrams a day at 70 kilograms, roughly 110 times the larger dosing page's 25 milligrams and between about 950 and about 2,800 times the smaller page's 1 to 3. Every human dose I found went into a vein or an artery, and I could find no study of any design at the milligram doses that circulate, given under the skin.

People take less than studies gave

The numbers that circulate sit below every injected dose in the published trial record, and they are also a different route: the vendor figures go into muscle, and every injected dose in that trial record went into a vein. At the top of the range they run into the label's own dialysis dose, which is 700 to 1,400 mg per session in a 70 kilogram adult. Neither clinic page in the entry publishes a milligram figure at all, and one low-quality vendor-facing aggregator states that no peer reviewed randomised trials evaluate that range, attributing it to protocols passed around on forums. What the numbers do line up with is the syringe. The compounded product is 500 mg per millilitre, so 250, 500 and 1,000 mg are half a millilitre, one and two, which the entry reads as packaging and labels inference rather than derivation.

People take less than studies gave

The circulating amount runs at or below the bottom of every row of that table, its upper end of 10 mL landing exactly on the bottom of the dementia row. The reason it stops there looks mechanical rather than clinical, and that is a reading rather than something the label states: 5 mL is the most the label allows into a muscle, 10 mL the most allowed as a straight injection into a vein, and from 10 mL the label recommends a drip. There is a second gap in the route. Injection under the skin appears nowhere on the label, which lists muscle, vein and drip only, and a PubMed search for cerebrolysin and subcutaneous returned seven records, every one a rodent study or one that does not name a human population.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because P-21 has not been given to a person in any published record I could find. The doses that exist are rodent doses by routes the market does not use: 25 nanomoles a day leaking from a pellet under the skin, 60 nanomoles per gram of feed in chow, 500 nanomoles per kilogram down a stomach tube, and 750 nanomoles a day into the abdominal cavity, that last one in the study where most motor measures did not move. One seller shows its working, and its own scaling of the animal figures lands about six times and about fifty times above the 500 micrograms the same market runs. I found no bioavailability figure published for any route in any species, so no arithmetic gets you from the pellet to the syringe.

People take less than studies gave

The circulating figure is roughly 5 to 15 times smaller per kilogram than the trial dose, and it goes in by a route neither FDA's reviewers nor I found a human trial for. Every human administration whose route I could establish went into a vein, apart from one study up the nose that carries no abstract. I could find no published derivation for the 100 to 300 mcg number, and the dosing page I opened describes those figures as coming from research write ups rather than clinical trials. Against the two cat experiments, both near 100 mcg/kg under the skin, it is 24 to 71 times smaller.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because no human oral dose of dihexa has been established in anything I could find. Every human figure belongs to fosgonimeton, the same molecule with a phosphate group on it so it can be injected, given at 40 mg or 70 mg a day under the skin rather than swallowed. None of the vendor or community pages I opened carrying an oral figure showed its working. Converting the rat oral dose of 2 mg/kg by body surface area lands near 22.6 mg for a seventy kilogram adult, but that is arithmetic worked here rather than a derivation I found anybody publishing, and the published method divides the result by a further ten before anyone is dosed, which puts it at 2.26 mg.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I could find no published or registered study giving PE-22-28, spadin or any analogue of either to a person. Every published dose is in a mouse, and the two routes the market runs on, up the nose and under the skin, returned nothing when I paired either name with them on PubMed. Scaling the mouse dose by the standard body surface area conversion gives about 17 to 23 micrograms for a 70 kilogram adult, which puts the low end of the convention roughly four to six times above that and the high end ninety to a hundred and twenty times. That arithmetic is a check on the method, not a dose.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I found no published study giving follistatin protein to a person on its own by any route. Every human result I found under this name came from delivering the gene, carried in by a virus or given as a plasmid, which is a loop of bare DNA, and a gene keeps expressing inside a muscle fibre for months in a way an injection does not. The doses in the gene therapy record are counts of gene carrying virus particles per kilogram of body weight, and those do not convert into micrograms of protein. The two masses in the record run the other way: ACE-083, an engineered follistatin fusion, used 50 to 200 mg into one muscle, 250 to 2,000 times the daily microgram convention, and the dosage page carrying the convention concedes that no published human dose-response studies exist.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. I found no published study giving PEG-MGF to a person and none giving it to a live animal of any species, and the regulator says the same about the human half. The nearest published figure per kilogram I found belongs to the unpegylated 24 amino acid peptide, injected into a surgical bone defect in 27 rabbits at 28.5 and 57 micrograms per kilogram, where only the higher dose separated from no treatment. Against that dose the circulating amount is 11 to 23 times smaller per kilogram, and it went into bone rather than muscle or fat.

People take more than any study gave

The swallowed convention is a hundred times the one human amount I found in a published paper, on the same route: 200 micrograms a day against a vendor top end of 20 milligrams. The injected convention matches one published human figure only, and it is the 5 milligram arm reserved for the most severely injured in a ten day study I found inside a patent, whose mildest arm got 1 microgram. I found no page tracing its milligram figure to any study, and one says outright that the number was shaped by the product format and community habit rather than by a dose response trial.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because I found no study in which a person received it. The 25 mg figure does have a derivation, which is rare: a 2018 blog post took the mouse dose and scaled it to a 60 kg adult. The daily microgram ladder is not a scaling of anything I could find, being roughly a fiftieth of the intravenous figure given about thirty seven times as many times, by a route I found no published animal study using. Under both sits one number, 5 mg per kilogram in mice, and in nine years I found no living animal given more or less.

Matches an amount a study gave

Both ends of the circulating range are real doses from real studies, and both studies are Parkinson's disease in patients rather than skin or energy in healthy people. The number travelled without its schedule: Sechi gave 600 mg twice a day for thirty days, about 8,400 mg a week against the 1,200 to 1,800 a clinic schedule comes to in a week, and three times a week is Hauser's schedule from the trial that missed at P = 0.32. I found no study behind the twice weekly end. For skin lightening the figure came from the sellers instead, and the single trial FDA and I both found either search found used the top of the marketing range.

Matches an amount a study gave

The number is right and the reason for it is not what sellers say. 1.6 mg is not a chosen dose: the Italian label sets 900 micrograms per square metre of body surface area and prints a height and weight table, and every row of that table is that figure times the patient's surface area, to the nearest 10 micrograms. An average adult lands at 1.6 mg, which is a vial size. The drift is indication and population. The label covers adjuvanting influenza vaccination in immunocompromised patients, the trials people cite are hepatitis and sepsis, and every completed trial I found that measured whether people got better enrolled patients rather than healthy adults.

Matches an amount a study gave

Nothing drifted on quantity and everything drifted on route. Ten milligrams sits inside the label's own 5 to 20 mg range, is one whole vial, and is the dose in all five published human uses I could open, with the course arithmetic landing inside the label's 30 to 100 mg range too. The label lists injection into a muscle and no other route, every human dose I found in a paper went that way, and I found no published human study giving thymalin under the skin. One vendor protocol page prints 30 units and calls it about 30 micrograms; thirty units is 0.3 mL, and a 10 mg vial made up in the 1 to 2 mL the label specifies holds 3 mg or 1.5 mg in that volume.

Nothing to compare against

There is a human dosing record and none of it is the route being sold. Every randomised trial put LL-37 on a wound bed; the injection trial I found put it into melanoma deposits in the skin, not under it. Two of the pages carrying the circulating figures say where they came from, and neither says a study: one calls them anecdotal and unsupported by scientific data, the other credits supplier and community sources. What they look like instead is vial arithmetic, and that reading is mine: two millilitres into a five milligram vial gives 2.5 mg per mL, which makes 100 micrograms a round 0.04 mL and 250 a round 0.10 mL.

Matches an amount a study gave

The number matches digit for digit and was never re-derived for the new route. 200 micrograms a day in four doses was an inhaled dose in eight patients in 2003, reappeared as an inhaled dose in sarcoidosis in 2010, and was carried to the nose in 2013 with the paper's stated reason being the 2010 study. I found no study establishing what 50 micrograms into a nostril delivers against the same amount misted into a pair of lungs, and no human study of how much of a nasal dose reaches the blood. It then drifted up three ways, to 400 micrograms a day on a pharmacy's own directions and 600 in the protocol document.

Matches an amount a study gave

The dose is correct and vendors quote it accurately, which is rare enough here to say plainly. A crossover in 10 healthy volunteers matched 4 mg under the skin to the 2 mg into a vein that produced the first result, 59 nanogram-minutes per millilitre against 65, so the subcutaneous number reproduces the exposure of the injection that worked. The drift is population, duration and route. Every efficacy trial enrolled patients with a diagnosed condition, four of the six studies ran 28 days, and the longest exposure I found anywhere was 12 weeks in nine people. More than one guide states that under the skin is the only route in the trial literature, and the intravenous pilot is why that is wrong.

Matches an amount a study gave

The monthly rate matches and nothing else does. A vendor page shows its working: the trials used a 16 mg implant every 60 days, which it converts to 8 mg a month, and 2 mg a week is the same monthly figure. On a four week month those agree; across a calendar year it is 104 mg against about 97 mg. What does not carry across is the delivery. The rod releases most of its content in the first two days, is absorbed over 50 to 60 days, and is placed by a trained physician three or four times a year in Europe. A weekly injection of a peptide with a half life measured in hours produces the opposite shape. The loading figure has no study behind it either: it sits at a fifth to a tenth of the daily amounts the injected trials used, and the page that prints it says experts encourage erring on the side of safety.

People take more than any study gave

The gap here is route rather than indication, and the under the skin figures are the ones to look at twice. Converting at the international standard's 1.68 micrograms per unit, which is my arithmetic, 100 to 500 micrograms a day is roughly 60 to 300 units. A single dose vial of the approved American injection holds 10 units. I could not find a human trial of oxytocin under the skin at those amounts. The nasal convention is a different matter: 24 units is not a calculation but a physical object, six squirts of a commercial spray metered at 4 units each, and I could not find the study that chose it.

People take more than any study gave

Five to twenty times the commonest studied amount, and by a route that is not the studied one. FDA tabulated 24 human studies and roughly 300 subjects, footnoting that the total may be too high because subjects could overlap, and 23 of those 24 rows are intravenous only. The whole under the skin record FDA identified is one 2011 study in healthy women, at up to 32 nanomoles per kilogram, roughly 29 times what circulates, in which no reproductive hormone moved. Neither dosing page I read traces its figures to a study, and one says so in its own words.

Matches an amount a study gave

The quantity is right and the route is right, which is rare here, and the schedule is the whole problem. 100 micrograms is the live British diagnostic dose, given once, and it was the strength of the smallest discontinued American vial. Every therapeutic human use I found runs a wearable pump around the clock: the Canadian licence and the fertility studies fire every 90 minutes, which is 112 doses a week, and the 1989 mechanism experiment ran every two hours. The circulating protocol delivers two or three. That arithmetic is mine, from the documents named. The drug also clears in about 4 minutes on the British label, so Monday's injection is long gone before Thursday's.

People take less than studies gave

This one runs the opposite way to the rest of the shelf: what circulates sits below what was studied rather than above it. The completed trial gave 50 mg a day to six patients, 100 mg to thirteen and 150 mg to three, and set the maximum tolerated dose at 100 mg. The page publishing the 20 to 30 mg figure cites no human study for it. Sitting under a studied dose is not a safety finding, because that trial was in women with metastatic breast cancer taking it under supervision, and it raised one liver enzyme in 59.1 percent of them.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. The molecule is drawn and registered, CAS 1208070-53-4, and the arithmetic of the ester claim closes exactly at 393.8 plus 104.1 equals 497.9. Everything after the drawing is missing: no paper under its name or CAS number, no registered trial, and no published analysis of what is sold under it. That is an empty file rather than a clean one, and the difference matters. Nothing published says it is harmful, because nothing published says anything about it.

People take more than any study gave

Five to fifteen times the top dose of either trial. The 21 day phase 1 randomised 76 healthy men to a dummy or to 0.1, 0.3 or 1.0 mg, and the 12 week phase 2 in people recovering from a hip fracture topped out at 2.0 mg. The guide page carrying the 10 to 15 mg figures also tells readers that clinical trials support up to 222 mg a day for 14 days; its citation list has two entries, and the only trial among them is the 21 day study whose highest dose was 1.0 mg. The one published case report that gives a daily amount describes severe liver injury at 10 mg.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, and the name is the whole problem. A PubMed search returns zero records under either spelling, and the only database entry the name produces is PubChem's record for LGD-3303, one digit away, where LGD-3033 sits among depositor supplied synonyms. LGD-3303 is a different chemotype, it is the earlier compound in the literature rather than a successor, and the papers on it are in rats. A European laboratory network lists both spellings in one scope line; the American watch list and a 2019 Senate bill carry only LGD-3303.

People take more than any study gave

Three to eight times the phase 3 dose, and the trials are worth reading before the dose. Both carried two co-primary endpoints, a body scan measure and a stair climb measure, both scored as responder counts on advice the design paper attributes to the American regulator. At day 84 the scan showed more responders on the drug in both trials. The stair climb showed a smaller gap in the same direction in the first and went the wrong way in the second. Those registry records post percentages and confidence intervals and no statistical test of any kind, so nothing sourced to them says an endpoint passed.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, because nothing has been given to a person in any published study the searches found. The myostatin claim that the selling rests on comes from a 2013 experiment in which YK-11 induced follistatin, the protein that binds myostatin, in mouse muscle cells in a dish. One animal study exists, in bacterial sepsis. The identity is genuinely contested rather than settled: anti-doping files it among the SARMs, while its founding paper opens with the words a novel steroid compound and its chemical name carries the steroid nucleus.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against. The claim that defines this compound in the market, that it disturbs vision, is one I could not trace to a primary report. Three searches returned nothing, and the single published human case pairing andarine with a visual symptom is a man taking three compounds who arrived with blurred vision, a blood glucose of 558 and an HbA1c of 13.9 percent, whose eye examination excluded retinopathy. That is newly diagnosed diabetes rather than an andarine effect. A blindness report does sit in an adverse event database, filed under the generic keyword rather than under andarine.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, and the headline finding does not transfer the way the selling implies. The contraceptive result people cite gave S-23 to rats by injection under the skin together with estradiol benzoate, with four of six rendered azoospermic, no pregnancies, and full reversal at 100 days. Every efficacy figure this compound has comes from that kind of experiment. The searches behind this page found no study giving it by mouth, which is how it is sold.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, and the size of the absence is the finding. PubMed returns four records in total, three of them methods for detecting the compound in urine, and ClinicalTrials.gov returns none. The only work in a living animal since 2008 that the searches found is in two Thoroughbred horses. The 2026 anti-doping Prohibited List does not name it, though WADA's 2023 testing figures record one finding for it among the anabolic agents.

Nothing to compare against

The gap is not quantity, it is whether a swallowed dose arrives at all. In the 2013 paper that measured it, oral availability came out at 2.2 percent in mice at 1 mg per kilogram, against 23.4 percent for one of the improved compounds in the same table, and the terminal half life on the intravenous side was about 33 minutes. Those authors wrote that these compounds would suit dosing by injection. Both famous mouse results obeyed that, giving 100 mg per kilogram into the abdominal cavity for 30 days. The vendor instruction to redose every two to four hours is the one place a sales page and a pharmacology paper agree.

Nothing to compare against

There is nothing to compare against, and the thing to watch is what gets carried across rather than what gets scaled up. This is cardarine with one hydrogen swapped for a fluorine, acting on the same receptor, and the two year cancer studies people cite belong to cardarine: oral gavage in rats and mice over 104 weeks, with neoplastic findings in multiple tissues at all doses. No equivalent study of GW-0742 turned up in the searches, and one conference abstract has it reducing skin tumours in mice. The 2026 anti-doping list names cardarine and never names this one.