BPC-157 cancer pathway concern is a bit dramatic tbh
Posted by humbleomar229 in Healing & Recovery - 5 points, 4 comments.
Ortho site drops a deep dive on BPC-157 and flags the FAK/paxillin thing, basically saying because it helps cells migrate and heal, in theory that could help cancer cells do the same. Fair point on paper but the way they frame it reads like a warning label when the actual evidence is preclinical and speculative.
I reckon this is one of those cases where people see "promotes healing" and jump straight to "oh so it promotes cancer." The body is wildly more complicated than that. Still want citations before I bin it though, anyone seen a proper mechanism study on this rather than blog speculation?
How worried are you lot actually about this or is it just the usual internet scaremongering?
Comments
- quiet_longevity568: Honestly I think you are reading the site the right way. The FAK/paxillin pathway is real and it does play a role in cell migration, that part is not made up. But going from "involved in healing" to "promotes cancer" is a big leap, specially when the data is mostly cell culture and rodent work. Healing and tumour growth share some of the same machinery, sure, but the body has dozens of checks on that, no? One upregulated pathway does not equal cancer risk in a living person. For me the bigger r
- humbleomar229: Yeah exactly that, the leap from "same pathway" to "causes cancer" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in these articles. The body has multiple checkpoints for a reason, one upregulated bit of cell machinery isn't the whole picture. The family history point is fair though, hadn't really thought about it from that angle. Reckon most people on here aren't stacking with that in mind either...
- sasha_climbs: Yeah exactly, the pathway is legit but the leap to "so its a cancer risk" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Whole cascades get turned on during normal healing and the body sorts it out. Im more curious about dose response data than these theoretical flag pieces, like does it actually shift FAK meaningfully at typical human doses or is that just cell culture concentrations talking. That would tell us way more than another speculative blog post.
- humbleomar229: This is exactly the right question mate. Cell culture is basically a petri dish playground where you can dump whatever concentration you want and watch things happen. Translate that to a subQ injection in a human and the dose reaching tissue is a completely different equation. The FAK modulation might be real at some dose but we have basically nothing on where the threshold is. Thats the actual question worth answering not whether theoretically it could do something. = effect at relevant doses.
Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.