Comparison Centre
Two compounds, the same questions, no cherry-picking
Marketing compares compounds on whichever measure flatters them. This compares them on the same fields every time — including the awkward ones like how much human safety data exists. Every score here rates the evidence, not the compound: a higher number means stronger or more mature research, not that something is safer or works better.
Sharing keeps the two compounds you picked.
How to read these scores
Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.
- Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
- Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
- Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
- Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
- Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.
None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.
PNC-27
A 32-residue chimeric peptide (p53 residues 12–26 plus a membrane-penetrating leader) studied against cancer cells in the laboratory only.
Bronchogen
A Khavinson-series tetrapeptide studied in a rat model of lung damage from nitrogen dioxide; no human study. Its reported sequence is inconsistent across sources.
How far human research has progressed
PNC-27
Preclinical (cell-culture and limited animal work)Bronchogen
Preclinical (rat NO₂ lung model)Claim-specific benefit evidence
A human exposure study or trial registration does not establish that the claimed benefit occurs.
PNC-27
Not separately assessed; see the full profile.Bronchogen
Not separately assessed; see the full profile.Human research context
PNC-27
Preclinical (cell-culture and limited animal work)Bronchogen
Preclinical (rat NO₂ lung model)Human efficacy evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
PNC-27
Bronchogen
Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
PNC-27
Bronchogen
Human safety evidence strength
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
PNC-27
Bronchogen
Regulatory status (legal position, not proof it works)
PNC-27
Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.
Not an approved medicine in any major jurisdiction. Sale as a 'research chemical' is a legal and supply-chain statement, not evidence of benefit or harm. It is not an approved or trial-validated cancer treatment.
Bronchogen
Check jurisdiction-specific details in the profile.
Not an approved medicine in any major jurisdiction. Sale as a 'research chemical' is a legal and supply-chain statement, not evidence of benefit or harm.
Common claims
PNC-27
- · Kills cancer cells while sparing normal cells
- · Alternative cancer treatment
Bronchogen
- · Lung repair
- · COPD support
- · Bronchial protection
How settled our evidence rating is
PNC-27
Bronchogen
Cancer-related questions raised by the biology
These are theoretical or monitored questions raised by how a compound works. They are not evidence that it causes cancer.
PNC-27
Studied as an anticancer agent in the laboratory only. Using unapproved material instead of established cancer care carries real risk of harm through delay.Bronchogen
Not established. No specific signal identified in the curated record.What this adds up to, in plain English
PNC-27
This sits in theory and anecdote. Popular claims about it should be treated with very low confidence.Bronchogen
This sits in theory and anecdote. Popular claims about it should be treated with very low confidence.A comparison is not a recommendation