PharmHunterJen said:

Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion.

Agreed, though "tolerable" needs defining. A dose you tolerate by eating almost nothing is not tolerated, it is being paid for somewhere else — usually in lean mass, sometimes in adherence three months later.

DataDave said:

The dose-response is real but shallow at the top.

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.

PharmHunterJen said:

Prices dramatically below market are the strongest single signal, and the reason is arithmetic rather than suspicion.

I will push back on the "any working dose is fine" framing. The maintenance evidence sits overwhelmingly at the top studied dose, and the extension data shows regain tracking dose reduction rather than tracking stopping. Holding low is reasonable; pretending it is evidentially equivalent is not.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Red flags, in rough order of how much they should worry you: no verifiable address, no batch numbers, prices far under market, vendor-commissioned tests only, pressure toward irreversible payment, and shipping with no temperature control.

Worth separating that from vendor vetting, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.