Thanks, for the link in post 1842, Harkijn. I, for one, was unaware of it.
I expressed my opinion in this thread that vendor information, as well as dosage, would be helpful, at least for me. Others disagree.
Here is an analogy that might emphasize my point more clearly:
Suppose that there is a thread that reports on automobile performance (a component of automobile "experience"). A number of people posting to the thread report data that might be considered to be terrific acceleration and cornering ability, for example, for their automobiles. Others report data that might be considered to be abysmal acceleration and cornering.
Someone posting to that thread points out that it might be helpful to the readers of the thread if those reporting would specify the make of their automobiles--thinking that there might be some specific reason(s) for such a wide variation of automobile acceleration/cornering experiences and that specifying make (brand) might give a clue (or might not, also helpful) to help explain the disparities.
Someone else in the thread asserts that an automobile is an automobile, and make (brand) doesn't matter.
A mind reader reads the minds of all posters to the thread and finds that those reporting terrific acceleration and cornering all own Corvettes, Tesla Roadsters, Ferraris and Lamborghinis. And, that those reporting abysmal acceleration and cornering are driving Isettas, Mitsubishi iMievs, and Smart CDIs. Aha!
So, if people don't report the make (brand) of their automobile it might be the case that some people reading the thread, that aren't mind readers, are left scratching their heads wondering why such significant disparities exists and might be of the opinion that more information (brand, vendor) would be helpful in potentially explaining the observed differences.
I think it would be appropriate in this thread to simply mention brand and vendor along with the reported experiences. That way, if someone reports that their NR made them vomit for a week and they also reveal that it was Fèihuà brand supplied to customers by Jiǎ distributing. Then, one of the possible reasons for such a bad reaction might be suggested (also being mindful of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc").
I'm not advocating any "My dog's bigger than your dog."-type debates over brand and vendor--just simple statements of fact. The "dog" debates rightly should appear in the thread that Harkijn cites in his post 1842.
"To measure is to know"