The nine quotations we withdrew

Tomas Lindqvist writes about subscription pricing and unit economics. Updated September 2026.

This site publishes 18 milligram quotations — the seller’s own words for how much NAD+ a price buys, printed beside every figure on the cost-per-milligram board and on each seller’s review page. They are the evidence the whole site rests on: without them our division is an assertion.

Until 5 September 2026, 9 of those 18 were not quotations. They were reconstructions — near enough to be plausible, different enough to be untrue. A label and its value from two separate rows joined into one sentence. An asterisked footnote folded into a parenthesis. Spacing closed up. Clauses re-ordered. Each was rendered inside typographic quote marks and attributed as the seller’s own words.

And every milligram figure they carried was right. Not one number on this site changed when they were corrected. That is the part worth sitting with: a price audit checks that the arithmetic reconciles, and this defect reconciles perfectly, forever.

What went wrong, and why every number was right

A quotation is a promise that the words between the marks are the words on the page. The nine below broke that promise in small ways, and the smallness is the danger: nobody reading them would have suspected anything, because the meaning was preserved and the numbers were exact.

The reason it happened is mundane. Sellers do not print a milligram total as one tidy sentence. They print “Potency: 200mg/ml” in one table row and “Vial Size: 10ml” in the next. They print a figure with an asterisk and the qualification three lines lower. Writing that down as a quotation means choosing what to do with the gap, and the wrong choice — closing it — is the natural one.

4 of the 9 are the same seller and the same sentence, because Levers Health publishes four prices that share one dose line. The asterisk in its text points at a state-by-state qualification — a lower monthly total in three states — and folding that into a parenthesis inside the quote made a qualification the seller had deliberately set apart look like part of the claim. The figure was right in every one of the four.

The 5 ways a citation drifted

Naming the ways it went wrong is more useful than counting them, because each one is a habit rather than an accident, and a habit repeats. The order below is the precedence the record uses: a citation with more than one thing wrong with it is filed under the first that applies, so the buckets always add to 9.

What checks it now, and what that check cannot see

Every element of every milligram quotation is now checked to be a contiguous substring of a saved copy of the seller’s own page, at that offer’s own source URL, whitespace-normalised and nothing else. It reads those files raw: stripping tags out of a price page eats the very characters a quotation turns on, and that mistake has produced confident false accusations elsewhere in this network.

The quotation is stored as a list rather than a sentence, which is the structural half of the fix. Where a seller prints the two halves of a total in two places, the record keeps them in two places. There is no comma available to join them with, so the fault that produced four of these nine cannot be made again without changing the shape of the file.