9 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
David's avatar

Three possible answers: 1. research shows that cycling Semax is necessary; 2. research shows that cycling Semax is unnecessary; 3. we don't know yet because we don't have enough research.

Which is correct?

Expand full comment
BowTied Biohacker's avatar

"3 possible answers" lol no.

Already told you, there's different benefits to cycling vs acute usage & off days

Research does not show cycling is necessary, so looks like you've done none

It's prescribed for longterm use in Russia

Expand full comment
David's avatar

I'm not stating anything! I'm simply asking you whether there is research showing that cycling is necessary to prevent some kind of downregulation? Or, can we just take it indefinitely?

Expand full comment