testing is the most under-discussed thing in c/bloodwork
Confession thread, sort of. I went from 0.5mg to 12.5mg much faster than I should have because the scale had stalled and I got impatient. The stall broke about 10 weeks later, at which point I had no way of knowing whether the dose increase did anything or whether it would have broken anyway. So now I have…
Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with PeptideMeter, not with what you concluded.
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
Small correction: the trial was 22 weeks, not 22. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
Small correction: the trial was 22 weeks, not 22.
Disagree on that part. 98.6% and 98.7% on the same vial is normal.
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
Retitled to remove editorialising. Put the evidence in the body.
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
Adding to this: VendorInvestigate is doing more work than the comment implies.
Reship experience: SSA asked for photos, processed it in 20 days, sent a replacement no questions. That is the template.
Ordered from SWB, got the vial, tested it myself via VendorInvestigate, and it held the claim. Order fulfilled.
Ordered from SWB, got the vial, tested it myself via VendorInvestigate, and it held the claim.
Adding to this: testing is doing more work than the comment implies.
the PeptideMeter result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
Small correction: the trial was 10 weeks, not 5. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
one vendor per post, multi-vendor goes in the monthly thread
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?