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 would genuinely help is knowing 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.
This one has a reasonably settled answer, so here it is. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
COA_Karl said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsVanRx_Mike 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.
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.