@dontfyourlife said:

This is speculation of course.....I don't understand when a multi billion dollar company calls another multi billion dollar company they just believe or go along with whatever is said.

It is not speculation: Eli Lilly has been entirely public about that campaign.
When Eli Lilly publicly called on payment processors, social platforms, and app stores to block unapproved GLP-1 and experimental peptide sales, tech gatekeepers acted to protect their own profit margins and minimize financial exposure. Under private Terms of Service and federal law, platforms like Apple, Visa, and Stripe face severe secondary liability and regulatory penalties if they ignore formal legal notices. When a pharmaceutical giant backed by FDA regulatory stances issues a legal warning, platforms shield their revenue streams by swiftly removing the flagged app or merchant account. Because these private infrastructure providers hold absolute contractual authority to terminate access, small developers are routinely deplatformed without prior mediation, ensuring corporate risk management and platform profits always take precedence over independent due process.

Measuring what has happened since 2020 as a permanent political realignment is a bit flawed, mainly because a single four or five year window is just a small sample size. It is not to present like splits haven't changed, but it does highlight the "why" money flows.

Historically, corporate cash as whole flowed heavily toward Republicans because that platform protected them from price caps and regulatory oversight. But corporate campaign finance is a financial hedge, not an act of party loyalty. These companies line the pockets of power, not who they like best.

In 2020, when the political landscape flipped and Democrats took control of the White House and Congress, the money naturally followed power. Pharma redirected its spending to buy access to the party holding key committee gavels and executive authority, hedging their bets to protect corporate interests from within.

Like I said before, if you want to see actual change, you have to change the system that allowed for the dark money to dominate our elections in the first place.

If we are talking about lobbying and regulation, it helps to follow the money and the rules that allow it.

Back when politicians were banned from using campaign cash as personal piggy banks, they wrote in a grandfather clause that was not fully closed until the 1990s. Closing that loophole caused a massive turnover of senior politicians rushing to retire before 1993 so they could walk away with millions in cash. But incoming classes of politicians simply adapted, finding new ways to keep the corporate money pipeline open.

When raising money under standard rules got tight, we got the 2010 Citizens United ruling. The lawsuit was brought by Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group created by Republican political operatives. The 5 to 4 conservative Supreme Court majority ruled in their favor, opening the floodgates for corporate treasuries, Super PACs, and dark money to buy unlimited political influence.

While Big Pharma lines the pockets of both parties to hedge its bets and buy access, historical campaign finance data from OpenSecrets shows they lean heavier toward Republicans (around 60 to 64 percent) because the GOP platform routinely opposes drug price caps and strict regulatory oversight. When Democrats actually passed statutory Medicare drug price negotiations in the Inflation Reduction Act, pharma fought it tooth and nail, and congressional Republicans voted against it across the board.

The political irony is watching the Trump administration launch direct to consumer platforms like TrumpRx, taking credit for lowering prescription costs under their own brand name, while their party fought to block statutory government negotiation frameworks at every turn.

If people want to fix this system, they have to look at who created and protected the legal framework that allows corporate dark money to dominate our elections in the first place.

@mrjoshua44 have you reconstituted them? curious if they come out cloud as they look. seeing a lot of people talk about glow/flasless lately.

I did ping them to see what they would say. They wrote back: "For non-GLP's our guarantee is 97 percent." That is all it said, nothing more nothing less.‍️

So I had bought some of nexaph before their published their own COA. Looking at the group testing they conduct it showing purity is less than 98%. Now thinking pining this is no longer a good idea. Thoughts?

@Commander I won't lie I sort of have been doing this, since I got mine tested and sometimes came above and sometimes came below. Curious are most people just going with what label they bought instead of the COA?

Where do you get your vials? I see them on amazon, and some reviews are just straight scary.

@MyB curious who are the good us importers then?

@vpeptides said:

USPS? I once sent a package to Washington from Missouri, and it travelled through Guam. USPS walks in mysterious ways.

man sending stuff to Guam on purpose is hard enough. =P sometimes it just gets stuck in hawaii waiting for a empty plane to take it.

So I placed an order from peptide test since they seem to be the only supplier with BAC that ships out without waiting months. Got my packaged today, and the box was damaged, but I think it was done to masked that it was opened. BAC was missing, and strangely enough 5 pen cartridges. Though I ordered like 40, and 5 is a odd number, could have been the person lost count packaging them and shorted me 5. Who knows, but all the BAC missing I find more interesting.

Did you pull the trigger on this? If so which vendor, and results?

@Commander
Did you make the inserts for this? I actually own this exact container that sits in the counter, so could repurpose(or in this case give it a purpose

@Randy said in Lab vs Lab, We tested 5 Labs using the same Kit.:

@islander671 nxp-3p Found it, but I have a question looking at all the coa they all say the mg amount is way over the posted mg in the vial. Do you normally just go what supposed to be in the vial, or some sort of average from lab, or do you have your own buffer you attribute to what you think is in the vial. Thanks

I don't see reta on their website, will they be selling or sold reta? New to this world, and this is seems to be a signal of who to trust in a world that seems really hard to find a trustworthy provider.