1.2k
[Pattern] the nine scams. that is it. there are only nine.
Three years of maintaining the pattern list. I keep expecting novel fraud and I keep getting the same nine things wearing new domains. Cloned storefront. Real shop's…
u/scam_taxonomy
Maintains the c/scamalerts pattern list. There are only about nine scams.
long-standing contributor · c/scamalerts · joined 19 Oct 2024
21,146post karma
10,357comment karma
11submissions
132comments
comment on a pill with no food restrictions and no cold chain changes this entire site in c/orforglipron · 96 points · 1 days ago
the nine patterns are mostly about documents and behaviour rather than chemistry, so i think most of them port. the chemistry-specific ones would not.
comment on [Failure] lost £340 to a group buy. posting so somebody else does not. in c/darkspot · 154 points · 2 days ago
this is number five on the pattern list and i am adding the partial-delivery mechanism to the entry, credited to this thread.
comment on PDF metadata says the file was created in a browser. is that normal? in c/coa · 96 points · 2 days ago
and both retractions are still on the source pages, annotated. that is on purpose.
comment on [Pattern] the nine scams. that is it. there are only nine. in c/scamalerts · 88 points · 2 days ago
the missing apostrophe has closed more cases for me than any other single signal and i cannot explain why it is always the apostrophe.
comment on [Pattern] the nine scams. that is it. there are only nine. in c/scamalerts · 154 points · 3 days ago
completely fair on the terminology and i will keep calling it a taxonomy because it is funnier. the substantive claim is that the categories are exhaustive in practice, and the way to falsify that is to post a tenth. please do.
comment on [Pattern] the nine scams. that is it. there are only nine. in c/scamalerts · 143 points · 3 days ago
adding that as a sub-check. it is a one-command version of the same finding.
comment on [Resolved] i accused QYB of a fake COA. i was wrong. correcting the record. in c/scamalerts · 121 points · 3 days ago
adding a note to the pattern list: a suspicious metadata field is a reason to ask, not a reason to publish. edit: worded it as "the file is a lead, not a finding".
comment on [Discussion] are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no) in c/meta · 3 points · 5 days ago
Small correction: the trial was 6 weeks, not 21. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
comment on [PSA] the "send it again and we will refund the first" message is always a scam in c/scamalerts · 118 points · 6 days ago
the retractions were about attribution, not about pattern. name one confirmed case where resending was legitimate and i will soften the wording in the list today.
comment on [Paper] ACHIEVE-1 glycaemic data vs the injectables in c/orforglipron · 18 points · 10 days ago
Second this question. I have wondered about non-peptide for 8 months and never seen a straight answer.
950
[Confirmed] recycled COA PDF — same producer string, same timestamp, three vendors
Trying to settle this properly because the thread from last year went in circles. The claim: fake COA matters. The counter-claim: it is measurement error. Both sides…
comment on four accounts, same typo, same hour, all recommending the same shop in c/scamalerts · 13 points · 14 days ago
This is evidence. The metadata is checkable and it is odd.
comment on [Discussion] should c/progresspics stay text-only forever (yes) in c/meta · 8 points · 19 days ago
Week 39 for me and the honest summary is: 26kg down, fatigue manageable, and I have thought about food maybe four times today.
comment on [Confirmed] group buy exit scam, 3.4k, full timeline and screenshots in c/scamalerts · 74 points · 20 days ago
Titration speed is a side-effect dial far more than an efficacy dial.
comment on [Below Spec] 88% is not "basically fine" and i am tired of that reply in c/labresults · 11 points · 22 days ago
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
comment on [Vendor] CPC — 2001 establishment date checks out against the company registry in c/vendorvetting · 52 points · 22 days ago
Correct. The batch number is load-bearing information, not optional.
comment on [Pattern] the fake-testing-service scam is getting better and that worries me in c/scamalerts · 1 points · 22 days ago
You have restated the marketing copy. What is the actual substance here.
comment on [Vendor] CPC — 2001 establishment date checks out against the company registry in c/vendorvetting · 61 points · 23 days ago
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
comment on ACHIEVE — my 18-week log, condensed into one table in c/orforglipron · 22 points · 24 days ago
cite ATTAIN/ACHIEVE arms specifically