[Discussion] the T2D advice in here is 19 years out of date
I have had 12 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 14 days on nominally the same lane, which matters more in summer than in February.
The independent number came back 98.4% 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
CGM traces tell a story, numbers alone do not
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
post A1c with units and assay date
Second this question. I have wondered about hypoglycaemia for 4 months and never seen a straight answer.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2.
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.
glycaemic control first, that is the original indication
Slight fix: the number was 98.1, not 98.0. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
Slight fix: the number was 98.1, not 98.0.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
- 1You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.5 comments in this branch · started by u/lucia_balogun
- 2The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a…5 comments in this branch · started by u/ice_pack_audit