But you say it is unusable.
What are you testing it for?
A refund would be in order, no, if that's the problem.
Thought you said you were not keen on using Tesa, not long ago.
Or maybe it was someone else
I never brought up "purity"!!!!
You're correct, I have no reason to test it, it can't be used. It doesn't reconstitute, and along with all the bad feedback I never wanted this batch. I waited until a new one was available. According to the links on the current price lists the old batch hasn't even been available at any warehouse since the beginning of July! Don't those links to tests mean anything about what you're getting? Tesa clearly showed then, and still does, you're buying the 2024 green batch, not the 2023 batch.
I'm simply responding to the idiotic argument I should be happy with this effed up old batch because it's "superior".
The group buy follow up tests showed a few percentage points degradation from the original test done on the new batch when it came in.
But as I pointed out, no one did any follow up testing of the old batch, so that line of reasoning is BS. He's comparing the original test on the old batch to the follow up test taken months later of the new batch.
I'm confident this old batch has degraded significantly since the original test in November 2023, just like the new batch degraded after its original test. That's what peptides do over time and exposed to heat in shipping. So a test would kick the legs out from that gaslighting defense of sending me this crap.
My question was simply what then? Will a test proving it's not only defective and not able to be reconstituted using normal methods, but of lower purity as well, will that be enough to get a refund along with testing costs? Or will I just be out $800 instead of $500?
The proper thing to do here would've been to simply say they sent this inadvertently, taken it back and send me what I very explicitly ordered
This was QSCs mistake, and it's certainly not the "upgrade" they're trying to tell me it is.