You are always quick to label a vendor a scammer on your list. I have bought from ZZB Fiona and they are a real company. I even have a test for their Tirz 30. No wonder Reddit blocked blocked you. When are you going to update your number 1 favourite Aminos research on your list? AR has been sending underdosed vials and inventing peptides and he’s still green. Scam list
Oh and while you are at it, you can provide the fake COAs for Cantides and how the are likely ahead of Canadian authorities. We need facts and not some rando making lists with nothing to back it up, the authorities will never catch me because I'm smarter than them fools.
First off,
@dionysos 's list is his own personal list, and he is free to add whatever he wants to it. It's a list made from his point of view with the information he has available, to call it a scam list is nothing short of rude. It's a great resource he has chosen to share and spends his time keeping updated to the best of his ability (biased or not).
It's not an official resource meant to guarantee any kind of standard or QA - It's a list to give people an overview of vendors and how trustable they are according to the guy who made the list- whether you trust his judgement or not is up to you - But trying to make him look bad by questioning the list with a brand new account, seems a bit more sketchy than the practices used to create the list.
As for demanding proof? That would be fair if he was charging you to view the list, but it's free. How would he even go about proving it in the first place?
Screenshots can be edited, profiles can be made with similar names, anyone can send a test of an unlabeled vial and mark it as whatever they want...
Imo, it should be standard for 3rd party tests to pay the additional 30$ to Jano to have images of the vial attached to the lab report. And vendor reports should have an email the vendors representatives has access to as the client, would make it a lot easier to verify whether the test was actually done by the seller if in doubt.
__________________
One instance of something fishy without a good resolution from the vendor should be enough to get a negative note on any list - the tolerance for mistakes needs to be very small because of the way the market is structured, then it will be possible to know what vendors are actually reliable over time.
One good order is definitely not enough to be marked off as green and good to go
5 orders in a row with great results from your own 3rd part tests, does still not guarantee that it will be the same for the 6th.
The main issue for most suppliers, is that they don't really know what they get without testing it themselves (Same is true for Chinese resellers or "labs"). The moment a vendor relaxes on testing and trusts their supplier, there is a risk of bad or even bunk product going out - It is not uncommon for vendors/suppliers to take shortcuts in order to save some $.
And when I say vendor/supplier, that also includes labs - Since you are almost definitely not buying your products directly from a lab making the raws themselves, and if you are - there might (or might not) be issues with the raws - very few of the labs that make the good raws sell directly to retail customers, at least not with the prices you are expecting from China.
If everything was 3rd party tested by the recipient, very few vendors would have a stellar track record I believe.
_________________
I have 0 interest in saying anything negative about a specific vendor since that's a bad look when having a vendor tag myself. But from some of the communication I have seen from Cantides, some healthy skepticism is warranted.
Though to be fair, I don't really know how it all started and there was a large amount of people hopping in to jab him in the face at some point.
A bit similar to what's happening to Nexaph - With an increasing amount of people calling them out for various situations without any substantial proof. I get that it really is hard to provide any kind of proof in situations like these.
But I find some of the problems called out odd, as very few vendors are very transparent about their procurement and testing process to begin with, you just have to take their word for it.
I have no idea if the allegations towards nexaph is true or not, but as a vendor I do find it slightly disturbing to see a vendor routinely bashed without any real or substantial evidence provided
). They both consistantly move the discussions forward.
