This sample
One trial reported a weight change. One reported more retinopathy complications. One review had almost no human evidence.
Watch pipeline
- 1Weekly snapshot
- 2segment match
- 3send or skipsendskip
Skip is the default when nothing matches. Enrolled watches are checked weekly; no match produces no email.
Date rule
first seen
publisher epub dateWilding et al., STEP 1
Senzu does not treat the day a row was ingested as the publication date.
Published comparisons
senzulife.io/sample · published comparisons
STEP 1
−14.9% vs −2.4%
Mean weight change at 68 weeks
SUSTAIN-6
3.0% vs 1.8%
Retinopathy complications
BPC-157 review
1 / 36
Human paper among the included studies
This sample
3
Records on this page
On record
- 350 vendors
- 117 certificates
- 12 peptides
- No shop on this page
How it works
- 01
Read the published record
Open sample — Read the published recordEach card names the paper, the publisher’s date, what it reported, and a link to the original page.
- 02
See the limits beside it
Open sample — See the limits beside itWho was studied, how, and against what sit with the outcome; missing numbers are labelled, not filled in.
- 03
See current Pro access
Open sample — See current Pro accessThis preview does not sell a general brief; Pro is the existing vendor bundle, with opt-in weekly watches and a profile-matched email only when approved blocks match.
- 04
Public sample
Open sample — Public sampleThree papers you can read without an account.
What these three papers actually said.
Three papers from 2016–2025, chosen to show a trial that reported a large weight change, a trial that reported more retinopathy complications than placebo, and a review with almost no human evidence — not every paper from those years.
Semaglutide: the trial reported more weight loss than placebo
More from this paper
In this published trial, people on the study medicine lost more weight after 68 weeks than people on placebo (−14.9% vs −2.4%). That is the contrast the paper reported for the adults it enrolled, not a claim about other products sold as semaglutide.
−14.9% vs −2.4% mean body-weight change at week 68 (ETD −12.4 pp; 95% CI −13.4 to −11.5; P<0.001). Absolute: −15.3 kg vs −2.6 kg. ≥5% / ≥10% / ≥15% weight reduction: 86.4% / 69.1% / 50.5% vs 31.5% / 12.0% / 4.9%. GI events were the most common adverse events; 59 (4.5%) vs 5 (0.8%) discontinued because of them.
Who: 1,961 adults with overweight or obesity, without diabetes.
Setup: A 68-week randomized trial. Neither the people nor the doctors knew who got the medicine.
Compared with: Placebo plus the same diet-and-exercise program.- Industry funded by Novo Nordisk.
- Both arms received lifestyle intervention. The contrast is drug-plus-lifestyle versus placebo-plus-lifestyle.
- The trial excluded diabetes (screening HbA1c ≥6.5% on the registry record).
- The result does not describe compounded, research-labelled, or other non-trial semaglutide products.
- NEJM full text was not retrieved here (publisher HTTP 403). Numbers are from the MEDLINE abstract (PMID 33567185), cross-checked to NCT03548935 posted results.
- This finding is a published contrast. It is not a safety rating, a dosing instruction, or advice to obtain or use any product.
Semaglutide: the trial reported more retinopathy complications
More from this paper
This published trial in people with type 2 diabetes reported more Event Adjudication Committee–confirmed diabetic retinopathy complications with semaglutide than with placebo: 50 (3.0%) versus 29 (1.8%). The published component counts were vitreous haemorrhage 16 (1%) versus 7 (0.4%) and diabetes-related blindness 5 (0.3%) versus 1 (0.1%).
EAC-confirmed diabetic retinopathy complications: 50 (3.0%) vs 29 (1.8%); HR 1.76; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02. Published component counts: vitreous haemorrhage 16 (1%) vs 7 (0.4%); diabetes-related blindness 5 (0.3%) vs 1 (0.1%).
Who: 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes on a standard-care regimen. 2,735 (83.0%) had established cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both.
Setup: A 104-week randomized cardiovascular-outcomes trial. People received once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo. Diabetic retinopathy complications were a secondary endpoint confirmed by an external Event Adjudication Committee.
Compared with: Placebo on the same once-weekly schedule, plus standard care.- This is a published trial contrast in people with type 2 diabetes, not advice to use or avoid any product.
- SUSTAIN 1–5 did not show the same imbalance in diabetic-retinopathy adverse events (Vilsbøll et al., 2018 open full text).
- Authors later discussed the SUSTAIN-6 contrast in relation to a rapid HbA1c drop in the first 16 weeks and pre-existing diabetic retinopathy (same 2018 paper). That is their post-hoc reading, not a new trial result.
- Industry funded by Novo Nordisk. The trial was designed for cardiovascular outcomes; diabetic retinopathy complications were a secondary microvascular endpoint.
- NEJM full text was not retrieved here (publisher HTTP 403). The MEDLINE abstract (PMID 27633186) reports the HR 1.76 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.78; P=0.02). The EAC-confirmed counts 50 (3.0%) vs 29 (1.8%) and diabetes-related blindness 5 (0.3%) vs 1 (0.1%) are in the 2018 open full text. Vitreous haemorrhage 16 (1%) vs 7 (0.4%) is as later restated in Sharma et al. 2021, citing the 2016 trial.
- The result does not describe compounded, research-labelled, or other non-trial semaglutide products.
- Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (Marso et al., N Engl J Med)
- Semaglutide, reduction in glycated haemoglobin and the risk of diabetic retinopathy (Vilsbøll et al.) — PMC full text
- Semaglutide and the risk of diabetic retinopathy—current perspective (Sharma et al.) — PMC full text
BPC-157: this review had almost no human evidence
More from this paper
This 2025 review looked at 36 studies: 35 in animals or lab dishes, and one human report of 12 people. The papers in this review do not establish a human clinical conclusion for BPC-157.
36 included studies (35 preclinical, 1 clinical). Human musculoskeletal outcome as reported: 7 of 12 in one retrospective intra-articular series described relief for more than 6 months. No included study assessed BPC-157 safety in humans.
Who: Mostly animal and lab studies. One human report of 12 people with knee pain.
Setup: A review of papers through June 2024, not a new trial.
Compared with: No single comparison group. The human report had no control group.- Authors grade the included evidence as level IV and level V.
- The only human series is retrospective, n = 12, uncontrolled, with a subjective endpoint. 7 of 12 is not a trial result.
- No clinical safety data were found. Absence of reported animal acute toxicity is not evidence of human safety.
- The review’s language that BPC-157 “shows promise” is the authors’ reading of mostly animal work. This sample reports the counts and the human gap; it does not adopt that reading.
- Search ended 3 June 2024. Later trials, if any, are outside this record.
What this sample is not
- Three selected published records. Not a complete literature search, not a weekly product, and not a scan of Senzu’s vendor table.
- Publication dates are the earliest publisher-stated electronic dates, not Senzu first-seen stamps. firstRecordedOn is null on every source.
- NEJM full text was not retrieved here. Missing statistics are labelled, not inferred.
- This sample reports published numbers. It does not score, rank, endorse, or advise.
Inside Pro
Vendor reports
Certificates, listed prices, and publishing cadence for one vendor and compound — not a safety rating.
Watch alerts
Opt-in weekly checks of enrolled price and certificate records; no match means no email.
Weekly research digest
Sent only when a completed research profile matches an approved block; this sample is not that email.
Offer limits
- Subscriptions are not available from this preview yet.
- A general editorial brief that skips medical profiling is not shipped, and new-flow acquisition stays off until that adapter exists.
- This is not a report-only membership; Pro is the existing vendor and price bundle.
- Do not treat /homepage-test, the /intel/report placeholder, or a Prescriber Sheet as delivered features.
- No weekly-send guarantee, no timed private-report promise, no personal timeline from an unrecorded start date, and no guaranteed notice of every regulatory action.
- Not medical advice. Not a safety, purity, or legality rating. Not an endorsement of any vendor or compound.
- Senzu currently records no vendor revenue on the monetization disclosure; that page is the source for funding claims and still contains a contact-address placeholder.
Plans
When checkout is enabled, the plans on this flow are the existing Senzu Pro subscription, not a separate report-only product. Pro includes the vendor directory and prices, vendor reports, opt-in watches, the research assistant, and a profile-matched email when approved blocks exist — not a general brief for readers who skip that profile.
Subscriptions are not available from this preview yet.
The listed amount includes tax.
Renews at the same interval until cancelled. Existing members cancel through the Stripe billing portal from the account page. Access continues through the current paid period. Buying, signing in, or revisiting a page does not reactivate a suppressed email status.
Questions
What is this sample?
Three papers you can read without an account. They show a large change, a null trial, and a review with almost no human evidence.
What would a paid subscription actually include?
Senzu Pro is the existing bundle: vendor directory and prices, vendor reports, opt-in watches, the research assistant, and a profile-matched email when approved blocks match. It is not a report-only membership, and a general brief, Prescriber Sheet, and /intel/report are not shipped products.
When would I receive updates?
This public sample is not on a schedule. Existing Pro watches and the profile-matched email run on weekly crons and send nothing when nothing matches.
Do I have to answer health questions?
Not to read this sample. A research profile is required today only for the matched email, and this page does not collect one.
What does this sample not show?
It is not medical advice, a dosing protocol, a vendor endorsement, or a safety rating, and Senzu does not score, rank, or advise. Dates are the publisher’s dates, not when Senzu first saw a row, and a quiet window is not proof a compound is safe.
Can I subscribe from this preview?
Subscriptions are not available from this preview yet. The sample remains readable; there is no waiting-list form and no fake checkout.
How do I cancel if I already have Pro?
Existing members cancel through the Stripe billing portal from the account page. Access continues through the current paid period; signing in or revisiting a page does not reactivate a suppressed email status.
How do I contact Senzu?
Use the legal pages linked in the footer, including Corrections and Disclosure. Senzu has not published a support phone number or street address, and this offer does not invent one.
Public sample
Read the papers. Then decide.
Sources stay on the page.
Subscriptions are not available from this preview yet.