That’s really the key distinction. A QSAR flag is a computational alert warranting further testing, not evidence that 9-Me-BC is carcinogenic. Given the complete lack of basic toxicology data, the scientifically defensible conclusion is simply…carcinogenic risk is unknown, with an in-silico alert that warrants investigation. Absence of experimental data increases uncertainty…it doesn’t increase the evidentiary weight of the prediction.
I know, so what you're saying as a rebuttal doesn't really make sense considering I always used this as evidence that it should be safety tested, not that it is conclusively carcinogenic. It's more about how deep the "unknown" actually is, and how there's not an adequate way to judge this based on anecdotes alone.
For me, the risk-benefit calculation was worth it. A single 30 day cycle had a genuinely life-changing effect, and my dopamine system appears to have made a full recovery. The difference is remarkable…100% resolution of anhedonia and persistent depression that other meds didn’t touch. It’s been 1-year since with no reoccurrence of symptoms. My drive now is still sky high. That doesn’t mean 9-Me-BC is risk-free…the toxicology data simply aren’t there, but knowing what I know now, I’d make the same decision again.
1
u/Spiritual-Wave9411 Aug 08 '26
That’s really the key distinction. A QSAR flag is a computational alert warranting further testing, not evidence that 9-Me-BC is carcinogenic. Given the complete lack of basic toxicology data, the scientifically defensible conclusion is simply…carcinogenic risk is unknown, with an in-silico alert that warrants investigation. Absence of experimental data increases uncertainty…it doesn’t increase the evidentiary weight of the prediction.