Pgb has dropped prices! Nice find
I wonder who told you about pgb. 
4 Likes
I would price match for that volume.
@AgentSmith 
I was on the DL by calling myself grasshopper
I might pull the trigger on this because a researcher using it on herself gives me confidence about safety.
I see she uses it orally. Can we buy any ol’ peptide and use it sub q or orally? What do we mix it with if we want to use it in an oral spray as she does
Rapadmin said
“I just asked Hazel about sources and dosing. She looks to be in her mid 60s, and she does 5mg daily sublingually via a little spray bottle. She recommended that approach
Yes, you’re very stealthy and I’m truly borderline senile. Haha
I have never bothered to investigate sublingual dosing so I’ll leave that discussion to someone more knowledgeable. I know injecting works and I have never wanted to gamble on bioavailability.
1 Like
I’m guessing sublingual will bypass the digestive track. With a molecular weight of 720 Da, you can probably also use the spray nasally too.
2 Likes
@qBx123Yk What would you mix the peptide with for oral.
And @AgentSmith that makes sense… but I guess I wonder about oral for no other reason than thinking the researcher knows something I don’t? Ha, maybe she is simply afraid of needles
And maybe, just a guess, you can use less if injecting it because all of it gets absorbed? Maybe cost of the this peptide is of no concern to her… thoughts?
I assume saline if a nasal spray (I realize the stuff is tested, but out of an abundance of caution, do I have to worry about the sterility for peptides in my nose… brain connection and all?) I doubt I’d do this but am curious.
My best guess is saline. Bac water would also work technically, but maybe with an unpleasant taste. Frankly, I would stick with injections.
Thankfully, you can sterilize your solution (or greatly reduce bacterial burden) using a PES filter, 0.22um. Very easy to do, and you can get 100 filters for about 0.75$ a piece.
3 Likes
I did a Google Gemini Deep Research prompt on the issue of comparing the bioavailability of sublingual vs. injection use of SS31. It doesn’t sound too good:
Conclusion and Strategic Outlook
This exhaustive analysis of the bioavailability of SS-31 (elamipretide) leads to three definitive conclusions regarding the comparison between sublingual and injectable administration:
- Subcutaneous Injection is the Uncontested Clinical Standard:With an absolute bioavailability of 92%, subcutaneous administration ensures that the entire dose is available to therapeutic targets. It provides the high peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) necessary to drive the peptide into the mitochondrial matrix against concentration gradients. The linearity and predictability of SC dosing are non-negotiable for treating serious mitochondrial cardiomyopathies and myopathies.
- Sublingual Delivery is Currently Ineffective and Economically Viable:There is no evidence in the public domain—clinical or preclinical—to support the efficacy of simple sublingual formulations of SS-31. The peptide’s physicochemical properties (hydrophilicity, cationic charge, molecular weight) create a “permeability mismatch” with the sublingual mucosa, likely resulting in bioavailability of <1-5%. Achieving therapeutic equivalence via this route would require massive, cost-prohibitive doses (e.g., >700 mg), and even then, variability would be high.
- The “Next-Generation” Confirmation:The development trajectory of SBT-272 (bevemipretide) serves as a powerful confirmation of SS-31’s limitations. The fact that a molecule specifically engineered for better membrane permeability and oral absorption still faced challenges in human oral trials (necessitating a pivot to SC) strongly suggests that “naked” peptide delivery via mucosal routes is a failed strategy for this chemical class.
Future Outlook:
For patients seeking non-invasive alternatives, the future lies not in “biohacking” with sublingual drops of generic peptides, but in advanced pharmaceutical engineering. Mucoadhesive chitosan nanoparticles, permeation-enhanced liposomes, and microneedle patches represent the only scientifically plausible pathways to render non-invasive SS-31 therapy a clinical reality. Until such technologies are validated in Phase 1 trials, subcutaneous injection remains the only route capable of delivering the promise of mitochondrial restoration.
Full analysis here: https://gemini.google.com/share/1f953caf870f
5 Likes
Well, my personal rule is to try to stay as close as possible to administration methods that are used in studies. They aren’t giving mice tiny little mouth sprays and telling Stewart Little to hold it under his tounge.
I’d ask her what data give her confidence in her approach.
4 Likes
I’m in email contact with Hazel Szeto. I’ll ask her about this. My gut feeling is that she’s not too predisposed to needles and feels that taking 5mg sublingually “might” be effective, and the cost is not an issue as its a research expense (she’s probably accumulated lots of samples as part of the lab testing process). It’s a different calculus for people buying it at retail prices.
Anyway - I’ll get back to you when I hear more.
2 Likes
I used PGB’s SS31 for my trials. No complaints, good service. A bit of a funky web shop but easy once you get the hang of it.
2 Likes
Given the cost of SS-31, finding the dose that gives the best benefit to cost ratio is going to be important for most of us. Could you ask her, how she arrived at a 5mg dose? Other than the initial dose escalation study that went up to 0.25mg/kg, all of the studies using sub-q administration have used a fixed dose of 40mg/day. Another question would be dose vs age - should dose vary with age? Since SS-31 is more effective the older you are, does that mean the dose could be lower as you get older, or does that mean you could effectively take advantage of a higher dose? Does baseline mitochondrial function (for a given age) affect the effectiveness of SS-31? For example, consider the difference in muscle mitochondria in a 60 year old type-II diabetic vs the 60 year masters endurance athlete. Would SS-31 be equally effective in both of these cases?
In the clinical trials SS 31 was administered by IV drip over 2 to 4 hours. So the 0.25mg people see is NOT the dose, it’s 0.25 mg/kg/hour
NOTE per hour…
At 4 hours that’s 1mg per kg of body weight, for me that would be 64mg. NOT 16mg
When I see a successful trail I ask 2 questions,
- what is the dose that worked
- how was it administered
Those are the 2 most important things to take away if one is going to do an N-1 experiment.
SS 31 is NOT orally bioavailable and I seriously doubt you could pump enough up ones nose to make it work in that manner either.
It is used at a relatively HIGH dose compared to many of the other peptides used by “researchers”. Anyone doing less that the clinically proven dose is probably wasting their money.
I compromised when I used it, was not gong to do an IV, so I broke my compromised daily dose of 20mg into 2x subQ doses of 10mg
Over a 5 day period I used 100mg (20mg x 5) - nexpah price for that = $425 / 3 = $142 same as what I charge. I charge by the mg and people can buy as much or as little as they want, from 1mg or 500mg, same price $4.25 per mg.
Again, anyone using less than the clinically proven effective dose is most likely experiencing the placebo effect. And wasting their money.
The placebo effect is very powerful and one of the reasons it takes so long to determine if a drug actually works.
In Phase 1 and 2 trials the objectives are to determine tolerability and safe dosing as well as a result. There is a lot of placebo effect in the early Phases, typically over 70%.and this effect drives the drug candidate forward, the researchers know this.
To reduce this effect then we see the results of RCT’s with double blind trials in large groups. Even then the placebo effect is strong as the participants know they are in a trail, they just don’t know if they are getting the real thing or the fake.
About 1% of drug candidates get approval. I feel that the placebo effect is costing us time and money in the process but how can that be eliminated?
For example, this is why AOD 9604 failed to make it to the approved drug stage. It showed “promise” in the early phases and failed in the Phase 3 trials. Abd yet I sell a fair bit of this to people who believe it’s the best weight loss product on the market. I provide them with the evidence it’s not and yet they swear by it.
Same goes for NAD - it is not used by the body the way it’s promoted on the 'net, it just cannot work, the biology and science completely dispels that myth and yet I still have clients who swear by it even after reading the evidence I give them. This one I attribute to “confirmation bias”. - I get this back, “clinics are charging $500 for a 2 hour IV drip, it must be working or people would not go back for more, so it works for me”
That particular bias is based on - “I spent $500 on this (anything) and it really works” few people want to admit they are getting fleeced.
SS 31 was administered by IV drip over 2 hours. (1).pdf (295.3 KB)
4 Likes
This is helpful info Steve, thanks.
So, the higher doses make sense, especially because you’ve done it and are still alive to type about it
How often-ish do you do these 5 day rounds?
Do you know if each round is helping things improve… additive
Or is it that things then go back to your baseline and future rounds are just to start over and make improvements again.
My initial interest was the potential cardio benefit as various CVD’s existed in my parents and myself. I didn’t expect much else as I’m pretty OK in most things or so I thought.
I’ve only done 2 cycles so far and I noticed a difference in a couple days on the 2’nd cycle.
- Sept 14 - first cycle (10mg per day for 10 days = 100mg) a low dose test run to evaluate my response no side effects
- Oct 1. - second cycle (10mg x 2 per day for 10 days = 200mg)
Did not notice much the first cycle.
For the second cycle it was an increase in overall physical energy, and more importantly mental acuity and mental energy. With a very welcome effect on longer focus time on deep work. Deep work for me is probably pretty shallow for some in this group but I had really lost that over the past 4 or 5 years.
Because these 2 cycles were close together there was probably a bit of an priming and increase in blood plasma levels? as the gap was 2 weeks.
Any lasting benefit? I think it has faded. That’s about 8 weeks post cycle 2.
Next week will be cycle 3 and I’ll shorten the time to cycle 4 from 8 weeks to 6 weeks.
Interestingly studies show no benefit for young healthy people. But for older folks it does provide benefits, I guess you can’t fix what is not broken and you cannot improve an already functional thing with this peptide.
This cycle will include my wife so we will go through 400mg in 10 days.
This is half the dose approved for Barth syndrome, and over a much shorter period, where they used 40mg per day for 12 to 24 weeks which would cost a lot !!
1 Like
This is a rare instance that being a tiny person is in my favor $$$$!!!
And yes, CVD is most of my interest as well… and then it’s apoe4 stuff (I figure my odds of dropping dead before apoe4 hits me is greater … champagne problem?
Thank you!!!
1 Like
I’m also considering a maintenance dose between the 20mg x 5 day cycles.
In between the 20 mg cycles I’d consider going for 2mg per day dose after this 3rd cycle, that would then be 2mg x 2 people = 4mg per day for 40 days = 160mg
I really did like the effect LoL! I’m my own best customer 
1 Like
#1 rule of being a profitable drug dealer is ‘don’t get high on your own supply’
do I have to teach you EVERYTHING?
3 Likes
I disagree here. The 40mg dose was chosen because they are treating a very sick population (Barth syndrome) with severe mitochondrial dysfunction. The pharma company chooses a high dose with sick patients in order to maximize the chances of seeing as large an effect as possible over as short of a time period as possible. Using it for anti-aging purposes and/or for other disorders with less severe mitochondrial dysfunction and for a longer time period could very well have significant benefits. We won’t know for sure without studies, but it’s certainly plausible.
4 Likes