I am not disputing your evidence as I was one of the originals using the labmax kit and still believe in it. I also agree that it would be great to find a consistently good product. However realistically I have learned in life that things are always changing and nothing is ever consistent(other than things always being inconsistent). I am one of those people that in real life I gladly pay more for quality and consistency and am very anal and perfectionistic about everything I use. However, no matter how hard you try, life just doesn't work that way and whether its intentional or unintentional, shit always happens. So, what I am trying to say is that while we would all love to have sources that put out high quality products on a consistent basis that you can always rely on; that just isn't a realistic expectation and even the best are going to have problems at one time or another. That doesn't make them a bad or dishonest source; its just means their human. People seem to have already cast judement on K and he was beheaded before he was even given a chance to deal with this issue. Just saying that by putting him in that situation from the get go probably wasn't the best way to get constructive results.
It's nice to see mature discussions about these issues. I don't think it's realistic to expect legal, regulated market-type quality control in an illicit unregulated black market. By definition, the black market will generally have significantly lower quality products. But just because the bar is set low on quality control doesn't mean that the truth about the products should not be readily available to consumers.
Now, I disagree with your opinion about the inappropriateness of putting a source in a position where questions about the quality control is made public and they are forced to address those issues. I see nothing wrong with this.
This IS the most "constructive" way to get results if your goal is to alert the community to evidence of potentially poor product quality. Shouldn't consumers be the first to know about such evidence? Shouldn't consumer reports be given the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise?
The most "constructive" way to get results may be different if your goal is to be well-compensated by the source in exchange for reporting the evidence to the source first and/or to remain "in good standing" with the source as a future customer.
Similarly, the most "constructive" way to get results may also be different if your goal is to protect the cash flow business of the source. Should sources really be the only ones to be initially alerted to the evidence of poor quality? Should sources be given the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise?
Now, there is always the situation in which the evidence of poor quality is inaccurate or false and/or is never confirmed independently. Clearly, this is unfair to source and may have unnecessarily harmed their business.
BUT, as unfortunate as that may be, it remains a much better scenario than the alternative...
If the evidence turns out to be true, then the failure to immediately post such evidence could lead to unnecessary harm/risk to numerous consumers.
If the goal is to protect consumers at all costs, then the course of action is clear.
IF the goal is to protect the source and its business, then the course of action is equally clear.
