[Appeal] the modmail-first policy and why it exists
I have had 8 orders now and I keep a table, so here is the honest summary rather than a vibe.
Material has been consistent. Communication has not. Shipping has varied by about 24 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 93.7% against a claimed 98.6%, which I read as agreement rather than a discrepancy — inter-lab variance on this assay is a point or two either way and treating one lab as ground truth is how people end up in pointless arguments with vendors.
Batch number is in the comments. Ask if you want the method.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Crossposting this to c/labresults because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Flair changed to match the content. Read the sidebar before posting next time and we are square.
the periodic argument about moderation standards
sponsor and disclosure questions are always answered publicly
Water content matters more than people think. If a vial is carrying residual moisture, your "10mg" is not 10mg of peptide.
Did anything else change in the same window?
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again.
Adding to this: disclosure is doing more work than the comment implies.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with moderation, not with what you concluded.
Yeah, the evidence standard works.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
sponsor and disclosure questions are always answered publicly
- 1Did anything else change in the same window?6 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_duarte
- 2Crossposting this to c/labresults because the people who need it are not…5 comments in this branch · started by u/rasmus_mensah