Skip to content

Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of someone explain vendor to me like I have not read a paper in years — 33 comments in the full submission. View in context.

782

c/vendorvetting·submitted 7 months ago by u/zeynep_duarte

someone explain vendor to me like I have not read a paper in years

Needs Sourcebranch of 5 comments

vendor. That is the whole post, but I will justify it. Everything else people worry about in c/insurancefights is downstream of it. Titration speed, reflux, the endless dose arguments — most of it resolves if you sort vendor out first, and almost nobody does. I say this having got it wrong for 19 months. My ApoB was…

Read the full submission and all 33 comments →

This branch

5 comments, started 7 months ago

u/dario_ibarra126 points·7 months ago

positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard

replysharereportpermalink

u/solene_eriksen105 points·7 months ago

I am going to push back on this slightly.

replysharereportpermalink

u/adnan_sandvik24 points·7 months ago

the reship rate on QST is actually pretty consistent

replysharereportpermalink

load more comments (2) →

← back to the whole thread

About c/vendorvetting

The community due-diligence desk. Vendor experiences, independent third-party test results, shipping and reship records, and the boring paperwork that separates a supplier from a story. Every substantive claim is expected to carry a receipt: an order id, a dated screenshot, or a test report from Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter or VendorInvestigate.

96kmembers

130submissions

Aug 2023created

submissions / month, last year

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com

More in c/vendorvetting

111 months in and testing is still the thing I get wrong14k points · 26 comments
2[Lab] 20th independent test on QSC, and the trend is the interesting part13k points · 44 comments
3Medutest — 17 things I got wrong before I got it right11k points · 58 comments
4[Meta] proposal — a flair for vendor posts11k points · 67 comments
5switched from 1.0mg to 0.5mg and the reflux got better, not worse10k points · 39 comments
6small win: testing stopped being a problem at week 659.1k points · 15 comments

c/vendorvetting rules

One vendor per post. Multi-vendor comparisons go in the monthly comparison thread.
No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Zero tolerance, permanent ban.
Positive and negative reports both need the same evidence standard: order date, product, and what was tested.
Vendor staff must self-identify. Undisclosed vendor accounts are banned on sight.
Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.

Full rules and how they are enforced →

Moderators

u/ledger_mod u/receipts_or_nothing u/paper_trail_paula u/batch_number_bertie u/janoshik_junkie

Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.

Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →