An absorption study can establish that a substance crosses a biological barrier under experimental conditions. It does not automatically validate every formulation sold for that route. The distinction is particularly important when a paper involving animals is used to advertise a human nasal spray.
The 1998 ipamorelin route-comparison study investigated male rats and compared several peptide secretagogues. It reported measurable nasal absorption in that model. The abstract does not establish a clinically effective human nasal product or equivalence to a human injectable preparation.
The formulation is part of the intervention
A peptide name alone does not describe a spray. The carrier, concentration, delivery device, stability and local tolerability are all relevant to what reaches the intended site. A study using one experimental preparation cannot authenticate a separately manufactured product that shares the ingredient name.
Bioavailability is also not a universal conversion factor. It describes exposure relative to a comparator under the study's conditions. A rat estimate should not be used to calculate a human route conversion or to decide how much of a research preparation to use. That would combine species and formulation assumptions without a clinical validation step.
Even a convincing human absorption study would leave additional questions. Does the exposure produce the intended outcome? Is delivery consistent between participants? What happens with repeated exposure? Are local and systemic adverse effects adequately assessed? Demonstrating presence in blood answers only part of that sequence.
Anecdotes about convenience or a noticeable sensation do not fill these gaps. Nor does the absence of injection make a preparation inherently safe. Route changes create a new evidence question rather than removing the need for one.
The appropriate description of this paper is a preclinical investigation of peptide delivery. It can support future formulation research, but it cannot establish that a consumer nasal spray is effective, equivalent or suitable for personal use. Those claims would require product-specific human evidence and regulatory assessment.