Compound reference

Prostamax (KEDP): the evidence, and the thousandfold gap

By the Decadewise team Education only Last updated 4 August 2026 15 cited sources

Short answer

The molecule: Prostamax is the tetrapeptide lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-proline, written Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro or KEDP, filed by the National Library of Medicine as supplementary concept C500342 and by PubChem as CID 9848296.

The head-to-head, which is why this page exists: one rat experiment ran the synthetic tetrapeptide against the animal prostate extract it was built to replace, and against a saw palmetto product, in the same animals.

The gap in the middle of the file: one Tomsk institute published 20 microgram/kg intramuscularly in 2013 and 20 mg/kg in 2014, same species, same route. The later paper cites the earlier one and never mentions the difference.

Where the human numbers are: inside patent EP1353939B1, as Examples 6 and 7, and nowhere else. No journal, no trial registry.

Everything else is cells and rodents: the five PubMed records that name this peptide in their own text are all cell culture or tissue explant work.

On this page

Short answer The head-to-head The thousandfold gap Where the human numbers live What is Prostamax? Is it approved anywhere? Has it been in a trial? What did the cell work measure? How much research is there? Same name, other product? What is unsettled The safety picture How this is sourced Related pages The disclaimer

Animal research, rat prostate models

The head-to-head nobody repeated

What was put against what: a 2013 rat study of chronic aseptic prostatitis gave the synthetic tetrapeptide at 20 microgram/kg intramuscularly for 15 days, starting 30 days after the operation, and ran two comparator arms in the same experiment. One was Prostamol Uno, a Serenoa repens extract from Berlin-Chemie, at 50 mg/kg intragastrically in a 2.5 percent ethanol solution. The other was Samprost, which the paper describes as, like Prostamax, a bioregulatory peptide created on the basis of an extract of prostate, at the same 20 microgram/kg by the same route.

Why the second comparator is the one that matters: the patent behind this molecule names that extract class as the thing it improves on. Its background section criticizes the prototype preparation for a small outcome of active substances, high variability of its physico-chemical properties and possible allergenic effects. So the 2013 experiment sets a four-amino-acid synthetic against the same category of preparation it was invented to displace, in the same rats, at the same amount, by the same route. That comparison belongs to this compound, and we have not found it anywhere for the rest of the family.

The animals and the model: 60 male Wistar rats, 330 to 500 g, 4 months old, with 20 assigned to the control group and 10 to a baseline group. Prostatitis was produced by through-suturing the ventral lobe of the prostate with silk thread. The outcomes are histological: less swelling, hyperemia and lymphoid infiltration, and a collagen fiber area that rose 3.9-fold in the control group against baseline and fell by more than 2.5-fold under the tetrapeptide against that control.

What the abstract claims, and what the results section says: the abstract states that the efficiency of the preparation surpasses that among widespread prostatotropic agents derived from the extract of Serenoa repens and prostate of animals. The results section is narrower. On body weight, prostate weight and prostate volume it reports that the differences between the tetrapeptide group, the Samprost group and the Prostamol Uno group were not statistically significant against either the baseline or the control. The separation that paper demonstrates is in tissue structure, not in organ size.

The second model, one year later: a 2014 paper from the Goldberg Research Institute of Pharmacology in Tomsk induced benign prostatic hyperplasia in 40 male Wistar rats, 450 to 660 g and 10 months old, with sulpiride at 40 mg/kg daily for 60 days, and ran the tetrapeptide against a Serenoa repens extract at 50 mg/kg by mouth. Against the sulpiride control it reports lateral prostate mass down 24 percent, weight coefficient down 25 percent, prostate volume down 40 percent and acinar epithelium area down 22.4 percent. The saw palmetto arm matched the epithelium effect and, in that paper's reading, did not separate from the control on mass, coefficient or volume.

The number that moved by a factor of a thousand

The two strings, as the papers print them: the 2013 paper writes that the agents Prostamax and Samprost were given in a dose of 20 microgram/kg, intramuscularly. The 2014 paper writes that the tetrapeptide was given daily, with intramuscular dose of 20 mg/kg for 60 days. Same molecule, same species, same route, 1,000 times apart. It is a clean illustration of why the distance between a microgram and a milligram is worth holding in mind before reading any research figure.

The detail that rules out a simple oversight: the 2014 paper cites the 2013 paper. It sits in the reference list as entry 7, under the 2013 title, in the same journal. So the later authors had the earlier figure in front of them, six names appear on both author lists, and neither paper acknowledges that the two numbers differ at all.

What we do with that, and what we will not do: we report it. We do not average the two, we do not pick the one that looks more plausible, and we do not convert either into anything a reader could act on. A discrepancy of this size inside one institute's two-paper output on one molecule is itself the finding, and it belongs alongside the ordinary reasons two published figures for the same compound end up different.

And there is a third number, which is not a dose at all: the patent's own claim language reads 0.01 to 100 microgram/kg of the body weight, at least once a day. That is a four-order-of-magnitude range written into a patent claim to keep the claim broad. It is a drafting device, not a protocol, and it should never be read as one.

Two papers, one institute, two doses

What was set	2013 paper	2014 paper
Model	chronic aseptic prostatitis, produced by through-suturing the ventral lobe with silk thread	benign prostatic hyperplasia, produced with sulpiride at 40 mg/kg daily for 60 days
Animals	60 male Wistar rats, 330 to 500 g, 4 months old	40 male Wistar rats, 450 to 660 g, 10 months old
Amount printed	20 microgram/kg	20 mg/kg
Route and length	intramuscular, 15 days from day 30 after the operation	intramuscular, 60 days
Comparators	Serenoa repens extract at 50 mg/kg intragastrically, and a prostate extract at 20 microgram/kg intramuscularly	Serenoa repens extract at 50 mg/kg by mouth
Reported result	less swelling, hyperemia and lymphoid infiltration; no significant separation on weight or prostate volume	lateral prostate mass down 24 percent, weight coefficient down 25 percent, volume down 40 percent against the sulpiride control
Where it is indexed	not indexed in PubMed; one citation on record	not indexed in PubMed; one citation on record

Both columns read from the papers themselves at their publisher on 4 August 2026, with the dose sentences taken word for word. Indexing status checked the same day by searching PubMed for each paper's DOI in the [doi] field, which returned no record for either, against a control search that returned one record for the 2004 Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine paper cited below. Citation counts from OpenAlex, same day.

amino acids, Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro, per the synthesis example in the patent

1,000x

the distance between the two intramuscular rat doses published by one institute, one year apart

people in the entire human record, 35 with prostatitis and 19 with adenoma, all of them inside a patent

peer-reviewed papers we could find carrying those human numbers, in any language we could search

PubMed records for the quoted phrase prostamax, across all fields, on 4 August 2026; one never uses the name in its own text

citation collected by each of the two rat prostate papers since publication

Amino acid count and synthesis figures from patent EP1353939B1, Example 1. Patient counts from Examples 6 and 7 of the same document, summed by us. The PubMed figure comes from searching for the quoted phrase prostamax across all fields on 4 August 2026, which returned six records; the same search restricted with [tiab] returned five, and PMID 28948547 is the record that drops out, because the name reaches it only through indexing concept C500342. Citation counts from OpenAlex, retrieved 4 August 2026.

Patent examples, not trial results

Where the human numbers actually live

There are human numbers, and this is the part most write-ups get wrong: they sit inside the granted European patent, EP1353939B1, as Examples 6 and 7. Example 6 describes 35 men aged 23 to 45 with chronic prostatitis, against a control group of 14 treated by conventional methods. Example 7 describes 19 men aged 51 to 67 with stage I to II prostate adenoma, against a control group of 17. Both examples give the same administration string: intramuscularly, at 0.01 to 100 microgram/kg of the body weight, once a day for 10 to 40 days depending on the severity of the disease.

What the two tables report: in the adenoma example, mean urination rate moves from 11.3 plus or minus 1.2 to 17.5 plus or minus 1.6 ml per second, and the time to reach the maximal rate moves from 6.6 plus or minus 0.2 to 4.5 plus or minus 0.1, both marked P less than 0.05. In the prostatitis example, mean urination rate moves from 17.3 plus or minus 1.2 to 23.5 plus or minus 2.4 ml per second. The two tables carry the same row labels, they are easy to confuse, and their figures belong to different groups of patients.

The structural problem with all of it: the control groups are described in the text and then never appear in either table. The asterisk on each significant row is defined in the document itself as a comparison with the indices before treatment, not with the control. So even taken at face value, these are before-and-after numbers inside the treated group, in an unrandomized, unblinded, unregistered case series, written by the applicant, in the document making the commercial claim. That is not a clinical trial, it must never be summarized as one, and no figure in it settles what this molecule does.

The proof that this is the whole human record, and it comes from the originating group: the laboratory's own 2022 review in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences carries a table of its peptides. The row reads Prostomax (KEDP), with a docking score of minus 13.58 and the function given as regulation of prostatic functions. The citation hung on that row, reference 177 in the paper's own list, resolves to Khavinson, Malinin and Grigoriev, EP1353939, European Patent, 2004. When the institute that made this molecule needs a source for what it does, it cites its own patent.

One more thing the patent does not give: anything about administration beyond the route and the length of the course. There is no technique, no site, no volume and no concentration in either example, which is a different kind of silence from the one a fully reported study leaves about how its injections were given.

What is Prostamax?

A four-amino-acid peptide, lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-proline, described and sold under a trade name. Three independent records agree on the identity. The National Library of Medicine files Prostamax as supplementary concept C500342, with the entry terms Prostamax, lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-proline and H-Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro-OH. PubChem holds it as CID 9848296, molecular formula C20H33N5O9, molecular weight 487.5, CAS number 473578-47-1. And the 2013 rat paper states plainly that the new tetrapeptide consists of lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-proline, citing Russian patent RU 2177802 C1 for it, which is the priority document behind the European grant.

What the patent specifies for the material itself: molecular weight 487.51 without the ion pair, acetate as the ion pair, a white amorphous powder, peptide content 98.56 percent by HPLC at 220 nm, moisture content 6 percent, and an amino acid analysis of Lys 0.98, Glu 1.01, Asp 1.01, Pro 1.00. Those are specification figures for one synthesis in one laboratory around 2001. They say nothing about material sold under the name today, and a purity number of that kind is a narrower statement than it appears to be.

A spelling that matters for searching: the originating group writes it Prostomax, with an o, in its own 2022 and 2023 papers. Searching PubMed for prostomax on 4 August 2026, as a quoted phrase across all fields, returns nothing at all, so a search on the group's own spelling finds none of the literature filed under the other one.

Is Prostamax approved as a medicine anywhere?

We could not find an approval, and the honest version of that sentence names what we checked. On 4 August 2026 the openFDA drug label and drug NDC endpoints both returned NOT_FOUND for prostamax, against a control query on the generic name finasteride that returned 75 label records from the same endpoint. The NIH dietary supplement label database returned zero hits for prostamax the same day, against 2,637 for saw palmetto. So it is neither a US drug nor a labeled US supplement ingredient in the databases that would hold one.

What we could not check, stated as a gap rather than an absence: the Russian state medicines register serves no queryable endpoint we could reach, and the European Medicines Agency search returned an authorization error to us. The widely circulated claim that this compound is registered in Russia is therefore something we can neither confirm nor contradict, and this page does not print it as fact in either direction.

What does exist is a patent, and the two are not the same thing: EP1353939B1 claims priority from 25 January 2001 through Russian application 2001102099, was published as an application on 22 October 2003, and was granted with the mention published on 25 August 2004. The proprietor is the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology and the named inventors are Khavinson, Malinin and Grigoriev. A granted patent means an examiner accepted a claim as novel. It is not a marketing authorization, it carries no regulator's review of efficacy or safety, and nothing on this page should let the two blur together.

Has Prostamax been tested in a clinical trial?

Not in anything we can find that meets the definition. Searching PubMed on 4 August 2026 for the quoted phrase prostamax across all fields, combined with the clinical trial term, returns nothing. The ClinicalTrials.gov version 2 interface returns a total count of zero for the same word.

That registry zero is worth almost nothing, and saying so is the point: the same interface, queried the same day, returns zero for epitalon and zero for prostatilen, while returning 757 studies for semaglutide. A registry that carries none of this literature cannot tell anyone whether a study happened. It can only report that it holds no record, which is a much smaller statement, and treating it as evidence of absence would be a mistake we would rather flag than make.

So the only human data remains the two patent examples above. An uncontrolled before-and-after series inside a commercial filing is not a trial by any definition a reader would recognize, and the distance between the two is the whole gap between what is known about this compound in people and what is claimed for it.

What did the chromatin experiments actually measure?

Human cells in a dish, not human beings, and that distinction carries this section. Four of the five PubMed papers that name this peptide work with lymphocytes or leukocytes drawn from elderly donors and treated in culture. Phrases such as in senile subjects and from old individuals appear in the abstracts, and they describe where the cells came from, not who was treated.

The single-compound result: lymphocytes from donors aged 75 to 86, exposed in culture, showed sister chromatid exchange frequency at 12.0 plus or minus 0.28 per cell against 5.9 plus or minus 0.2 in intact cells, silver-positive nucleolar organizer regions at 2.5 per cell against 0.95, and a reduced frequency of large pericentromeric heterochromatin segments on chromosomes 1 and 9 (Dzhokhadze, 2012). A separate biophysical paper measured two denaturation stages in human lymphocyte chromatin and reported that the peptide redistributes heat between two endotherms and shifts both to lower temperature, by 2.9 and 1.0 degrees (Meskhi, 2004).

Why none of that belongs to this compound alone: the 2004 paper in the Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine tested five short peptides side by side in leukocytes from subjects aged 75 to 88. Vilon, Epithalon, Livagen, Prostamax and Cortagen all activated ribosomal genes and decondensed densely packed chromatin. Epithalon, Livagen and Prostamax also decondensed pericentromeric structural chromatin on chromosome 1, and Epithalon and Livagen went further and changed chromosome 9. The chromatin effect is therefore a property reported across the family, and a page that presents it as a Prostamax finding is quietly borrowing four other compounds' results.

The one paper that supports nothing here: a 2009 microcalorimetry study co-exposed aged-donor lymphocyte culture to copper and cadmium ions alongside the peptide. Its abstract reports conclusions about the two metal ions, that copper condensed heterochromatin and cadmium decondensed it, and states no result specific to the peptide. It is listed below because it exists and names the compound, not because a claim rests on it.

And one animal experiment, which is tissue rather than a living animal: organotypic explant cultures from 3-week-old and 18-month-old rats, in which cardiogen, bronchogen, prostamax and pancragen each stimulated explants of their own matching organ at a concentration of 0.05 ng per ml (Zakutskii, 2006). Prostate tissue in a dish, from rats.

How much published research exists in total?

Small enough to list on one screen, which is itself the most useful thing on this page. Searching PubMed for the quoted phrase prostamax across all fields on 4 August 2026 returns six records. Restricting the same search to title and abstract with the [tiab] tag returns five, and the record that drops out is PMID 28948547, which carries the name only as an assigned indexing concept and never uses it in its own text. Add the two prostate papers PubMed does not index, and the patent, and that is the whole retrievable file.

The computational work is separate and should be counted separately: the originating group's 2023 modeling paper scores this peptide against transporter proteins and reports an ICM score of minus 22.79 for LAT1, ranking it 22nd of the 26 peptides tested, minus 11.68 for LAT2, last of 26, and minus 33.42 for PEPT1, second of 26. Those are docking numbers from software. The paper reports no wet-lab confirmation of them, and a molecule that scores well against a transporter in a model has not thereby been shown to reach any tissue.

What we could not search, said plainly: the two main Russian-language repositories were unreachable to us. Cyrillic queries against the international databases return near-zero results for every compound in this family, including ones holding hundreds of Latin-spelled records, so those zeros measure the databases rather than the literature. This page can report what PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref and OpenAlex hold. It cannot claim that no Russian-language work exists, and it does not.

Is the Prostamax on an American shelf the same thing?

The record cannot settle it, and that is the one point on this page with a real-world safety edge. Searching the FDA adverse event database for prostamax as a medicinal product returns exactly one report, safety report 16868019, received on 30 September 2019 in the United States and flagged serious. The product named in it is EXTRA MEGA PROSTAMAX, listed as a concomitant medication alongside saw palmetto, tamsulosin and eleven other entries.

What that record does not say: it codes no active substance at all for that entry, and the saw palmetto beside it is a separate medication line in the same list rather than a statement of what the capsule held. We could not trace that product's composition to any document that was not a seller's own listing, so this page prints no ingredient list for it and does not tell anyone what was in the bottle. What the databases do settle is the other half of the question: the tetrapeptide holds no US drug label, no NDC entry and no dietary supplement label record under this name, so the one report the adverse event system returns cannot be read as evidence about the peptide. Anyone comparing what they read about a Russian tetrapeptide against a bottle on a shelf is comparing a name rather than a substance, and any safety statement that does not separate the two is wrong before it starts.

What the record does not settle

The open items, and they are most of the file:

Which rat dose was real. One institute, one molecule, two published intramuscular figures a thousandfold apart, and no correction or acknowledgement from either paper. It cannot be resolved from outside, and this page does not try.
Whether anything happens in a living human. The only human numbers are patent examples with no control column, no randomization, no blinding, no registration and no independent publication.
Whether it reaches any tissue. The transport work is molecular modeling. The originating group's own 2022 paper notes that this peptide does not show high binding to LAT1, despite that transporter being expressed in the prostate.
What is in a vial sold today. The only specification anyone can point at is one synthesis in a 2001 patent example. Nothing links it to current material, which is a question a certificate of analysis is supposed to answer and a trade name never does.
The Russian-language literature. Not searched, because the repositories were not reachable to us. Recorded here as an open gap, not as a negative result.

The safety picture, from what exists

What has been measured, and how far it reaches: the toxicology behind this compound is animal work inside the patent. Acute toxicity was assessed in 78 male mice given a single intramuscular dose between 1 and 5 mg/kg, with no deaths at 72 hours or at 14 days. Repeat dosing ran in 48 rats for 90 days and in 56 rats for six months, and the document reports no pathological changes. That is the whole safety file, it is rodent, it was produced by the applicant, and no independent laboratory has repeated it in anything we could retrieve. The human examples record no adverse events at all, which in an uncontrolled case series written by the patent applicant is not the same as none having occurred. Whether any material is appropriate for a person is a question for a clinician with access to their history, and nothing on this page is guidance for taking anything.

How this page is sourced

Documents we opened ourselves: the granted text of patent EP1353939B1, served by the European Patent Office publication server and read in full rather than summarized, including the synthesis specification, the four animal and explant examples, and the two clinical examples with their tables. Then both rat prostate papers in full text at their publisher, with the dose sentences taken word for word. Then every PubMed record that names the compound, pulled through the NCBI programmatic interface, because the web pages return a bot interstitial to scripted requests.

What was checked and did not resolve: the European Medicines Agency search endpoint and the Russian state medicines register were both unreachable to us on 4 August 2026, so no claim about registration in either jurisdiction appears above. The Russian-language repositories eLibrary and CyberLeninka were also unreachable, which is why this page reports what four international databases return and stops there.

One figure on this page is arithmetic rather than a citation: the count of 54 people is the sum of the 35 and the 19 patients described in Examples 6 and 7 of the patent. Nobody published that total. We added it.

Fifteen sources: one granted patent, nine journal papers, two database identity records, two regulator data queries and one regulator case report, every one of them retrieved rather than recalled.

The standard: the full sourcing and citation-verification standard for this site, including who checks a page before it ships, lives on the methodology page.

Last reviewed: 4 August 2026.

1
Khavinson VKh, Malinin VV, Grigoriev EI, for the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology. Tetrapeptide regulating prostate functions and its compositions and uses. European patent EP1353939B1. Priority RU 2001102099, 25 January 2001; application published 22 October 2003; grant published 25 August 2004. Granted specification read in full from the European Patent Office publication server on 4 August 2026, Examples 1 to 7 with Tables 1, 3 and 4. Patent record accessed the same day at Europe PMC, EP1353939.
2
Borovskaya TG, Pakhomova AV, Vychuzhanina AV, Poluektova ME, Fomina TI, Ermolaeva LA, Schemerova JA, Granstrem OK, Neplochov EA. Experimental studying of the drug efficiency Prostamax in the therapy of chronic aseptic prostatitis and its complications. Modern Research in Inflammation. 2013;2(3):54-58. Publisher Scientific Research Publishing. Animal study, rat model; not indexed in PubMed. doi:10.4236/mri.2013.23007.
3
Borovskaya TG, Fomina TI, Shchemerova JA, Poluektova ME, Vychuzhanina AV, Kamalova SI, Ermolaeva LA. Experimental Study of Efficiency of Tertapeptide Lysil-Glutamyl-Aspartyl-Proline Using the Model of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. Modern Research in Inflammation. 2014;3(3):108-112. Goldberg Research Institute of Pharmacology, Tomsk. Title printed as published, including the publisher's spelling of the first word. Animal study, rat model; not indexed in PubMed. doi:10.4236/mri.2014.33013.
4
Dzhokhadze TA, Buadze TZh, Gaiozishvili MN, Baratashvili NA, Lezhava TA. [Deheterochromatinization of the chromatin in old age induced by oligopeptide bioregulator (Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro)]. Georgian Med News. 2012;(212):76-82. In vitro; lymphocytes from donors aged 75 to 86, treated in culture. PMID 23221144.
5
Khavinson VKh, Lezhava TA, Malinin VV. Effects of short peptides on lymphocyte chromatin in senile subjects. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2004;137(1):78-81. In vitro; human leukocytes, five short peptides tested side by side. doi:10.1023/B:BEBM.0000024393.40560.05. PMID 15085253.
6
Meskhi T, Khachidze D, Barbakadze Sh, Madzhagaladze G, Gorgoshidze M, Monaselidze D, Lezhava T, Tadumadze N. [The influence of the peptide bioregulator prostamax on heterochromatin of human lymphocytes in situ]. Biofizika. 2004;49(6):1091-3. In vitro biophysics; differential scanning calorimetry of human lymphocyte chromatin. PMID 15612551.
7
Kiladze M, Gorgoshidze M, Monaselidze J, Jokhadze T, Lezhava T. Microcalorimetric study of human blood lymphocytes culture at presence of copper, cadmium and prostamax. Georgian Med News. 2009;(168):104-7. In vitro; aged-donor lymphocyte culture. The abstract reports its findings for the metal ions and none specific to the peptide. PMID 19359734.
8
Zakutskii AN, Chalisova NI, Ryzhak GA, Aniskina AI, Filippov SV, Zeziulin PN. [The tissue-specific effect of synthetic peptides-biologic regulators in organotypic tissues culture in young and old rats]. Adv Gerontol. 2006;19:93-6. Ex vivo animal work; rat organotypic explant culture. PMID 17152728.
9
Khavinson V, Linkova N, Kozhevnikova E, Dyatlova A, Petukhov M. Transport of Biologically Active Ultrashort Peptides Using POT and LAT Carriers. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(14):7733. Review with in silico docking; the peptide table row and its reference 177 are quoted above. doi:10.3390/ijms23147733. PMID 35887081.
10
Khavinson VK, Linkova NS, Rudskoy AI, Petukhov MG. Feasibility of Transport of 26 Biologically Active Ultrashort Peptides via LAT and PEPT Family Transporters. Biomolecules. 2023;13(3):552. In silico molecular docking only; no wet-lab confirmation reported in the paper. doi:10.3390/biom13030552. PMID 36979488.
11
National Library of Medicine. MeSH supplementary concept record C500342, Prostamax, unique identifier 67500342, mapped to Oligopeptides, entry terms Prostamax, lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-proline and H-Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro-OH. Retrieved 4 August 2026. NCBI MeSH record 67500342.
12
PubChem Compound Summary CID 9848296, Prostamax. Molecular formula C20H33N5O9, molecular weight 487.5, InChIKey WUCUNGRTSFLCLI-XUXIUFHCSA-N, CAS 473578-47-1. Retrieved 4 August 2026. PubChem CID 9848296.
13
US Food and Drug Administration, openFDA drug label and drug NDC endpoints, queried for prostamax on 4 August 2026: both returned NOT_FOUND. A control query on the generic name finasteride, run against the same label endpoint the same day, returned 75 records. openFDA drug label query for prostamax.
14
US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, individual case safety report 16868019, received 30 September 2019, United States, flagged serious, naming EXTRA MEGA PROSTAMAX as a concomitant medication alongside saw palmetto and tamsulosin. Retrieved 4 August 2026; it is the only report the system returns for the name. openFDA adverse event report 16868019.
15
Khavinson VK, Kormilets DY, Mar'yanovich AT. Peptides (Epigenetic Regulators) in the Structure of Rodents with a Long and Short Lifespan. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2017;163(5):671-676. Cited here only because the National Library of Medicine indexed it under concept C500342, which is why it answers a search for the name while never using the name in its own text. doi:10.1007/s10517-017-3876-x. PMID 28948547.

Around this page: five neighboring pages on the arithmetic and the paperwork that decide whether a research figure means anything.

Micrograms against milligrams: the unit gap that separates the two published rat doses above, and where it usually enters.
Why charts disagree: the ordinary reasons two sourced figures for one compound end up different, and how to tell the kinds apart.
How to read a certificate of analysis: what purity, peptide content and water content each measure, and which of them a trade name never covers.
What HPLC purity does not tell you: why a high percentage on a certificate is a narrower claim than it looks.
How injections are administered in the research: what a study normally specifies about route and technique, and what the patent examples here leave out.

The compound series: each new reference page appears first in The Decadewise briefing.

The disclaimer

Every page is reviewed by medical professionals before it ships, and written with longtime biohackers who were doing this before it was a trend. Reviewed still does not mean prescribed: nothing here is medical advice. It is research, trial data, and reported use, with the numbers intact so you can check them. For decisions about your body, see a doctor who can look at your labs.