Following on from sean_dublin — and this may be the naive question:
Why a shortage listing created a legal pathway at all, since a shortage is a supply fact rather than a permission?
james_edin said:Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.
I read this differently. The confidence in this thread is running ahead of the evidence, and I would rather the uncertainty were stated than smoothed over because it is unsatisfying.
james_edin said:Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultsjames_edin said:Resolution therefore closed the doors unevenly, and the asymmetry follows from the bulks lists.
That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.