There are few things more distressing than discovering that you’ve been described accurately but not prominently enough. This is what happened to Moggerzilla after I published my recent article about endotoxin reporting. The article explained that the discussion began when a customer challenged Pacific Coast’s reporting, converted its <0.01 EU/µg threshold into vial-level figures and asked what the result actually ruled out.
The customer was Moggerzilla.
Unfortunately, describing him as the customer who began the discussion wasn’t sufficient. He later complained:
“All credit due to them, but I’m ‘a customer’.”
The quotation marks are important. Moggerzilla may technically have been a customer, but apparently not in the ordinary sense. He was a Customer of Historical Importance, and the article should have stopped to identify him before proceeding with the less important business of the lab evidence.
The Birth of an Entire Initiative
To give Moggerzilla his genuine due, he did more than ask a passing question. He challenged Pacific Coast’s reporting, continued pressing when his replies didn’t answer the issue, supplied calculations and shared COAs showing how other labs present endotoxin results.
He identified the central numerical problem. A report of <0.01 EU/µg may sound reassuring, but applied to a 1,000 mg vial of NAD+, it becomes an upper bound of <10,000 EU/vial. Applied to a 60 mg vial, it becomes <600 EU/vial.
Those were useful observations and they helped begin a much larger discussion. I then performed the minor clerical tasks of checking the calculations, researching the regulatory background, comparing laboratory methods and certificates, contacting other labs like BT Labs and Kovera for more details, organising the evidence and writing the finished article.
Moggerzilla’s contribution was real. What’s expanded since publication is its constitutional status.
He described the article as having been written “from my work” and then followed with “Or credit not that I even really want it”
Another participant compared the situation to politicians taking credit for projects created entirely by other people. Moggerzilla replied:
“That exactly.”
Under this interpretation, he didn’t contribute evidence to a group discussion that inspired a separately researched article. He created an entire public initiative. I merely arrived for the Substack ribbon-cutting and thanked the city commissioner.
The Credit He Absolutely Did Not Want
The grievance developed in careful stages. First came:
“All credit due to them, but I’m ‘a customer’.”
So he expected the article, thought it was too good not to become one in K-Hole, but was disappointed to discover that he had been described merely as “a customer.”
This was followed by:
“Or credit not that I even really want it.”
The customer had now become the owner of “my work,” although apparently not someone who really wanted credit for owning it.
The position later developed again:
“It’s not that I want the credit. It’s that she’s getting notoriety and monetarily benefiting for it.”
So he didn’t want credit. He only wanted to be named, recognised as the person behind the work, consulted before publication and acknowledged in connection with any imaginary proceeds. Entirely different.
He had also said that he would rather not draw attention to his “quasi legal activities.” He wanted people in his circle warned about the laboratory, but disliked the subject reaching Twitter and “blowing up our spot.” That’s a coherent preference: information can be shared within a community without wanting wider exposure.
It becomes less coherent when combined with objecting that the article identified him only as “a customer.” The apparent requirement was anonymity before publication, followed by prominent retrospective attribution once the article appeared.
The Apparently Stolen Article and the Scraped PDF
Moggerzilla then raised the issue of consent:
“This is the second time she’s written an article from my work without consent.”
He later expanded the allegation:
“And now there’s an article scraped from the chat logs of me calling them on it.”
This is where the PDF enters the story.
During the same exchange, he supplied a file called edited_chat_transcript_pdf.pdf as the “full transcript source.” The transcript was described in the conversation as having been scraped from the K-Hole/PepChat backup after the group was nuked.
This established a beautifully efficient new publishing rule. Copying an entire dead chat archive into a PDF and redistributing it is preservation. Reading the discussion, checking the claims, gathering additional evidence and writing an original article about the issue raised is scraping.
The article was taken from “my work.” The copied transcript was proof that the work belonged to him.
No comparable consent emergency appears to have interrupted the PDF’s circulation. Apparently consent attaches not to every person whose messages appear in a copied transcript, but to the person who later claims intellectual ownership of the conversation.
The For-Profit Operation Nobody Could Locate
The complaint eventually acquired a financial department.
When another participant asked how I supposedly profited, Moggerzilla offered the following evidence:
“You don’t think she’s monetized on Twitter.”
Then:
“Or Substack.”
And finally:
“Or whatever it is that influencers do.”
All my articles are currently free and have no paywall. No one has ever produced any evidence that my articles have earned me anything, but the hypothetical revenue had already been identified, allocated and subjected to an informal royalty dispute.
Moggerzilla had progressed from customer, to source, to creator of the project, to uncompensated intellectual-property owner of a free article. All before anyone located the money.
The Amended Certificate of Attribution
Following this entirely proportionate credit emergency, the record can finally be corrected.
Claimant: Moggerzilla
Original description: “A customer”
Revised status: Founder of the endotoxin-reporting question
Credit requested: Not wanted, except when absent
Naming preference: Anonymous enough to avoid attention, but identifiable enough to receive recognition
Revenue established: Below the limit of detection
Supporting document: A copied transcript supplied as the “full transcript source”
Final result: PASS; against a credit threshold established after publication
A huge and apparently very necessary thank you must therefore go to Moggerzilla. Credit has now been administered at the maximum valid dose. The article remains free, the imagined profits remain undetectable and the original scientific question survives the awards ceremony:
But back to reality. He didn’t write the article. A person can contribute substantially to an investigation without acquiring ownership of everything later researched and written about it. That distinction became lost somewhere between “I don’t really want credit” and “my work.”
And Since We’re Discussing Credit
The fact that my Lab Chat attracted the heads of testing laboratories wasn’t a happy accident. I’ve spent years cultivating friendships and working relationships with some of them. I visited Janoshik and BT Labs using my own money, published countless articles across social media and rebuilt this community through seven Discord servers and now two Telegram groups.
All of that work enabled me to create a space capable of attracting and hosting respected figures from the grey market. Moggerzilla made a valuable contribution to a couple of lab chats within that space. He didn’t build the community, the audience, the relationships or the credibility that made the chat possible.
The lab heads didn’t materialise because Moggerzilla asked a question. They were there because I invited them and they accepted because of the years I've spent doing all the behind the scenes work which gave them a reason to be there. Same with all the vendors that approach me daily for a spot in my community.
So, a final piece of advice for Moggerzilla; take your head out of your own arse long enough to look at the bigger picture. You may then notice who built the community, cultivated the relationships and put in years of work, and who is actually more deserving of any credit that may be due.
Comments