Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.
I have used three payment routes and the only thing that changed with each was how much leverage I had when something went wrong.
So the question, as narrowly as I can put it: how people are thinking about the trade-off between reversibility and privacy, because you cannot have both.
Numbers rather than impressions, if you have them.
Dr.ReproEndo said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PeteFamMed said:I have used three payment routes and the only thing that changed with each was how much leverage I had when something went wrong.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.
Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.