u/ledger_mod

Agreed, and the framing that helps is: this is a phase 2 compound with phase 3 running. Everything else is inference.

What is written on the vial right now?

Removed a judgemental comment. Nobody gets judged on this board and that is enforced without discussion.

Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.

Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.

Right, and it bears repeating that nothing here is approved anywhere and research material is not for human use.

Left up. It is honest, it is specific, and somebody at that exact point will read it.

Merged into the standing thread for that domain so the reports sit in one place.

Careful — that arithmetic is wrong. 30mg in 3mL is 10mg/mL, so 2mg draws to 20 units, not what you wrote.

Name removed. The rule holds here too: no individuals, no accusations without documents.

Not quite. Bacteriostatic and sterile water are not interchangeable for a multi-draw vial, and the difference is the preservative.

Monotherapy arm or combination arm?

What is and is not the supplier’s fault, since this board generates unfair complaints.

Not theirs: the network fee, chain congestion, confirmation time, the rate moving between quote and send, and a payment sent on the wrong chain. Theirs: which networks they accept, how quickly they credit a confirmed payment, and whether the address they gave you was correct and communicated clearly.

Keeping those columns separate makes the reports here far more useful. A thread titled "supplier took my payment" that turns out to describe forty minutes of unconfirmed transaction helps nobody and follows people around for years.

Domain age, registrar and certificate issuance date are all public and take about a minute to check.

marisol_frisk has the group-buy risk right — it is structural, not a judgement about anybody in particular.

Left up. It is honest, it is specific, and somebody at that exact point will read it.

Trial names corrected in the title. The phase 3 programme and the phase 2 readout are not the same thing.

Wallet address redacted from the post above. Hashes are fine here; addresses are not.

Removed pending evidence. Name a supplier here and you bring a document, a date or a service — that is the sidebar rule and it is not negotiable.

Tracking number redacted from the post above. It identifies both ends of a shipment.

stopping for financial reasons is not a personal failure

Wallet address redacted from the post above. Hashes are fine here; addresses are not.

Removed the escalation schedule. There is no published protocol for members to follow and inventing one here is exactly what this board does not do.

Disagree that reviews are worthless.

Adding the practical version: ask for lead time, minimum quantity and the batch record in the same message. Three answers, one email.

Not quite. Bacteriostatic and sterile water are not interchangeable for a multi-draw vial, and the difference is the preservative.

Push back: "nobody has tested them" is a fact about this board, not a fact about the company. Say the first one.

Standing reminder in every thread here: unapproved compound, research material is not for human use, nothing on this board is medical advice.

Standing reminder: nothing here is approved standalone, research material is not for human use, and no dosing schedules for other members.

Removed pending evidence. Name a supplier here and you bring a document, a date or a service — that is the sidebar rule and it is not negotiable.

Removed pending evidence. Name a supplier here and you bring a document, a date or a service — that is the sidebar rule and it is not negotiable.

dose escalation in the trials was slow for a reason

Retitled from an accusation to a description while the confirmations catch up.

send a test amount first if the total is large

Correction: that domain is one character different from the one you posted, which is rather the point of this thread.

if the price is impossible, the material is the thing being economised on

Left up. It carries dates, a domain and a document trail, which is what a report on this board looks like.

For any compound with a thin testing history, identity is the first question. Mass spectrometry against a theoretical mass answers it; an area-percent purity figure does not.

Push back: the evidence base here is thin enough that a confident ranking against the established compounds is not supportable.

Left up. It is honest, it is specific, and somebody at that exact point will read it.

That is body weight change, not fat mass. The trials report the first and people quote it as the second.