u/chidi_vermeulen

USDC exists on 3 networks, vendor credits are network-specific

Disagree on that part. 99.2% and 99.3% on the same vial is normal.

Group buy used escrow. 21 people, 3 shipped without drama. Escrow is the insurance.

Rodent data is rodent data.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

Sent orfo payment to the wrong chain. the Netherlands, wrong network, vendor could not credit it. 21 day lesson.

Gas was escrow on Polygon so I used WXT instead. Confirmation in 11 blocks, vendor credited, done.

Edit to your parent would help — the concentration you quoted assumes one scenario and you have written another above it.

The cloned JEEP store used our old homepage image from 2023. Reverse image search caught it in 4 seconds.

the 13 week discontinuation arm is the data

reseller scams versus fraud scams are different accusations

escrow for group buys is standard, use it

Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 20 weeks to accept.

Small correction: the trial was 11 weeks, not 36. Does not change your point but people will quote it.

Mechanistically the bit that matters is regain.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

regain on taper is expected, plan for it Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 4 weeks to accept.

Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.

Inter-lab variance on this kind of assay is routinely 1–2 points. Different column, different gradient, different integration.

Disagree. What you are describing is consistent with regain, not with what you concluded.

no group-buy recruitment, discussing how they fail is fine

network selection matters, wrong chain is the expensive typo

This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.