That's not a good data point. If you want to provide anecdotal data, it would be good to provide more of the observations. How long did he have a shoulder issue before taking BPC-157? How fast did it get away afterward?
What dose do you believe to be good for that?
It's not just a question of whether people agree but whether they actually comply with it. People agree to all sorts of things but then do something else.
When it comes to blind spots, we do have areas like medicine where we don't pay as a result of outcomes of medical treatment. That leads to silly things that when surgeons say that having 4k monitors will obviously improve the way they do surgery because it allows them to see details that they otherwise wouldn't, without anyone running a clinical trial that shows 4k monitors to be superior, they don't get adopted.
Evidence-based medicine is a strong dogma that prevents market economies from making the medical provider that creates the best outcomes win.
What does it add to the debate?
That sounds like you believe that morality is something that exists in some platonic sense. And that you know what the platonic entity is in a way where you can be confident that slaves have a lower moral weight.
Otherwise you are simply choosing to use your own definition for morality that's quite different from what other people mean with the term
By that reasoning unwilling human slaves shouldn't get moral consideration either. Is that what you actually believe?
There are mechanisms where fluoride goes directly from the mouth onto the surface of the teeth. There are also mechanisms where fluoride goes from the bloodstream into teeth.
The fluoride that goes directly from the mouth to the surface of the teeth seems clearly good for caries prevention at low side effects.
When it comes to the fluoride that goes through the stomach and blood supply, it's unclear to me whether that provides a benefit for caries prevention when you already have sufficient fluoride through toothpaste in the mouth. The side effects also seem unclear to me.
Given that people eat shrimp, their contribution to human society is not zero.
Having with Cerebrolysin and BPC-157 the two top-rated peptides to be bogus, does suggest that the whole field is untrustworthy. It also makes me more skeptical about self-reporting.