🍪 CompoundTalk uses cookies to improve your experience, analyze traffic, and personalize content. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our Cookie Policy.
Evidence-based GLP-1 & peptide discussion since 2023
ForumsBuyer Beware⚠ Fake COAs — looking for input

⚠ Fake COAs — looking for input

mark_tokyo Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 2:58 AM 17 replies 1,625 viewsPage 1 of 4
This thread is more than 10 months old. Information may be outdated. Consider searching for more recent discussions.
mark_tokyo
Member
456
1,890
Jun 2024
Tokyo, JP
Aug 8, 2025 at 2:58 AM#1

I have a certificate reporting 99.2% purity and 6.1mg content on a vial sold as 5mg, and I cannot work out whether those two numbers are consistent or contradictory.

The bit I cannot resolve on my own is whether a purity figure and a content figure can disagree without one of them being wrong.

Not looking for reassurance. Looking for the part I have got wrong.

14 9pete_manc_UK, anna.melb_AU, mark_tokyo and 11 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
labquiet_amy
Senior Member
1,234
6,789
Mar 2024
Cambridge, MA
Aug 8, 2025 at 3:08 AM#2

Taking the question as asked, rather than the general version of it. The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers. Does the report name the batch on your vial. Is the date consistent with when that batch existed. Is it addressed to the vendor or to the person who paid for the test. Was the sample taken from general stock or supplied by the vendor. A perfect certificate for a different batch is worth nothing, and vendor-supplied samples are the most common way a genuine report ends up misleading.

13 8HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg, bri_stats and 10 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
SkepticalSean
Member
98
345
Jan 2025
Maine
Aug 8, 2025 at 3:18 AM#3
labquiet_amy said:
The provenance questions are more useful than the numbers.

labquiet_amy has the substance of this right. The condition it depends on is worth stating. One addition: an unstated method makes a report close to uninterpretable. "99% pure" without the technique, the standard and the conditions is a claim, not a measurement.

12 7emma_london, tammy_FL, Dr.LipidDallas and 9 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Janoshik Analytical — Independent Testing

Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.

Verify Your Peptides

GL Biochem (Shanghai) Ltd. — Direct Manufacturer

Est. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.

Browse GL Biochem
Dr.RheumBOS
Member
567
2,345
Apr 2024
Boston, MA
Aug 8, 2025 at 3:28 AM#4
mark_tokyo said:
I have a certificate reporting 99.2% purity and 6.1mg content on a vial sold as 5mg, and I cannot work out whether those two numbers are consistent or…

Same position here, arrived at the long way round. Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself calibrated, the gradient and column, the detection wavelength, and where the integration baseline was drawn. A percentage point or two between competent labs is expected. What is not expected is a large gap, and the usual explanation there is that one report is not of the batch in your hand.

11 6lori_vegas, Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona and 8 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
NurseAsh_DET
Member
356
1,567
Sep 2024
Detroit, MI
Aug 8, 2025 at 4:18 AM#5

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads.

COA red flags for certificates of analysis — here's what to look for when reviewing a Certificate of Analysis:

  • No HPLC data: If there's no chromatography graph, it's not a real COA
  • Exact 100% purity: Suspicious — real testing always shows slight variation
  • No batch number: Can't trace back to specific production
  • No endotoxin testing: For injectables, this is essential
  • Template looks like it was made in Word: Professional labs have standardized formats

I have seen fake COAs that are literally photoshopped. Always verify independently if possible.

10 5emily_PDX, Dr.SleepRoch, laura_annarbor and 7 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

Similar Threads

⚠ Peptide Sciences SHUT DOWN March 6, 2026 — what happened and what to do now8 replies
⚠ Amino Asylum raided by FDA June 2025 — warehouse seized6 replies
⚠ Swiss Chems FDA warning letter December 2024 — selling unapproved drugs6 replies
⚠ 50+ FDA warning letters sent to peptide vendors in 2025 — full list4 replies
⚠ PeptideMeter exposed: some vendors scoring E grade on basic peptides4 replies
ForumsNewTrendingMembersAccount

Log In

Forgot password?
No account? Register