Source comparison
The comparison that puts it in perspective
It is instructive to hold CJC-1295 next to a GHRH analogue that did finish the job. Tesamorelin — a different GRF analogue — is FDA-approved (2010, marketed as Egrifta) for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in HIV-infected patients with lipodystrophy. Note
This comparison does not assign a generated winner or score.
- It is instructive to hold CJC-1295 next to a GHRH analogue that did finish the job. Tesamorelin — a different GRF analogue — is FDA-approved (2010, marketed as Egrifta) for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in HIV-infected patients with lipodystrophy. Note the precision of that indication: one population, one endpoint, not “anti-aging.” And note what it took to get there — 410 patients randomised (273 tesamorelin, 137 placebo) for an initial 26 weeks, then a 26-week extension phase into which 315 patients were re-randomised, showing visceral adipose tissue reduction sustained at −18% over 52 weeks of treatment (p<0.001 versus baseline), plus the honest finding that VAT reaccumulated on discontinuation and the effects did not last beyond the duration of treatment[10].
- That is what an evidence base looks like for a GHRH analogue: hundreds of randomised patients, a year of treatment, a hard endpoint, a regulator’s review, and an honest negative finding about durability. CJC-1295’s entire human record is 63 healthy volunteers across three papers, none longer than 49 days, none measuring an outcome, plus one terminated patient trial whose data were never published. Anyone presenting CJC-1295 as a validated intervention is asking you to treat those two things as equivalent. They are not in the same category.