Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
What I am after is how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
PurityPaulOR said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PeteFamMed said:Asked to pay by a method with no recourse, by a supplier I had used twice before without being asked, which is what made me stop.
Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. Posting only so the count is not one.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.