u/paper_trail_paula

Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.

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

tests that came back 98.3%

This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.

absolute risk reduction, not relative risk reduction, that is how you decide

heavily moderated for cruelty, not pessimism

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

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

This order history matches mine almost exactly. Same vendor, same timeframe, same result.

No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.

The evidence standard in c/vendorvetting gets called too strict about once a month, and every time, the thread ends with the complainant agreeing.

Three years on this site and the questions have not changed at all. Which is depressing or reassuring depending on the day.

vendor staff must self-identify, full stop

Did you test the vial you received or are we going off the vendor COA?

How many orders from SSA is that a sample of? One reship is noise, five is a pattern.

Went through three vendors to find one that actually ships on-time and tests clean. The answer was SWB.

no cross-border purchasing instructions

regain is not a moral failing

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

Strongly agree. Lowest effective dose is a real discovery process.