why does nobody talk about VendorInvestigate
Right, the testing question again, but with numbers this time.
I have 10 data points over 36 weeks. The pattern is consistent enough that I do not think it is chance, and boring enough that nobody is going to screenshot it, which is usually a good sign.
The thing I would flag for anyone new: the effect I am describing showed up at week 71, not week 25. People give up long before the interesting part.
Interested in whether this matches other people's logs or whether I am an outlier.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Cosigning the evidence standard. Receipts make the community.
First order from ERP was great, second one had a different batch and tested lower. The vendor retested and credited me. Logged it here.
Crossposting this to c/bpc157 because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Crossposting this to c/bpc157 because the people who need it are not reading this community.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
Removed a chain here. The rule is one line long and it is not negotiable.
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
Which service tested it and what did they come back with?
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
vendor staff must self-identify, full stop
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
Not to be pedantic but testing and reship are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Batch number? Date? Method? Give us the load-bearing fields.
Slight fix: the number was 95.1, not 94.2. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
the PeptideMeter result being close to the claim is the signal, not the absolute number
receipts or nothing, sorry but that is the rule
the reship rate on BCH is actually pretty consistent
the reship rate on BCH is actually pretty consistent
Disagree on that part. 98.1% and 98.3% on the same vial is normal.
Went through three vendors to find one that actually ships on-time and tests clean. The answer was WWB.
independent test or vendor COA, which is it
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
The confident tone is doing a lot of work that the evidence is not.
positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard
This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
referral links mean instant ban, no exceptions
did they reship, credit, or ghost you?
- 1i have this exact spreadsheet10 comments in this branch · started by u/adnan_karlsen
- 2vendor staff must self-identify, full stop7 comments in this branch · started by u/zeynep_duarte