fraud: what the trials say vs what this community says
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on fraud in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.
[removed by moderator]
[removed by moderator]
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 99.2% on the same vial is normal.
sock puppet accounts ask the same leading questions
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.
Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points.
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Which order and did you have any communication from JEEP?
Slight fix: the number was 94.2, not 95.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
evidence required, dated screenshots, metadata, order records, or independent test
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
the ERP situation resolved, logged it here as resolved
Batch 8 appeared on BCH, QYB, and BCH claims it is raw material origin. Could be fine, could be reseller. Logged it in the directory.
a dispute resolves, edit the post and say so
- 1Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.6 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_bergstrom
- 2Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.5 comments in this branch · started by u/archived_thread_a