9 months in and fake COA is still the thing I get wrong
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking PDF metadata against triglycerides for 31 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Yeah, the batch number across three vendors is a real signal.
Which order and did you have any communication from JEEP?
[removed by moderator]
Which order and did you have any communication from QYB?
a dispute resolves, edit the post and say so
Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.
a dispute resolves, edit the post and say so
Which order and did you have any communication from JEEP?
evidence required, dated screenshots, metadata, order records, or independent test
The Janoshik results I got back showed 99.1% but SGN claimed 96.8%. Same vial, two services. I posted the receipts.
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Yeah, the batch number across three vendors is a real signal.
- 1Yeah, the batch number across three vendors is a real signal.10 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_bergstrom