the fraud question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
PDF metadata. That is the whole post, but I will justify it.
Everything else people worry about in c/researchpeptides is downstream of it. Titration speed, early fullness, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort PDF metadata out first, and almost nobody does.
I say this having got it wrong for 7 months. My eGFR was the thing that eventually made me pay attention, which is a stupid way to learn a lesson that was in the sidebar the whole time.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
The Medutest results I got back showed 96.8% but GL Biochem claimed 95.1%. Same vial, two services. I posted the receipts.
Strongly agree. The dispute resolved and the record stayed updated.
group buy exit scams follow a pattern
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
the reship offer that never sends anything is worth noting
reseller scams versus fraud scams are different accusations
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
The cloned ERP store used our old homepage image from 2023. Reverse image search caught it in 10 seconds.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
the reship offer that never sends anything is worth noting
sock puppet accounts ask the same leading questions
a dispute resolves, edit the post and say so
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
Slight fix: the number was 98.7, not 96.8. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
PDF metadata is checkable in fifteen seconds
- 1reseller scams versus fraud scams are different accusations9 comments in this branch · started by u/mei_cardoso
- 2fair enough7 comments in this branch · started by u/naomi_erdogan