Pure Health Peptides User Review: They have batch numbers and recent COAs
-
This is a vendor review submitted by kenfeyl on PeptideCritic.com.
Rating:
(4/5)
Review
I bought a few single vials from this vendor and all have a batch number and there are tests associated with each batch. Testing done with Ethos analytics which seems ok although you cannot verify the COA on the ethos analytics site.
The vials arrived in a box that held them securely and I think will be handy for storage although I'm going to be putting everything into cartridges.
Read the full review: They have batch numbers and recent COAsDiscuss this review, share your own experiences, or ask questions about the vendor.
Please keep discussions respectful and factual.
-
I sent the following email about a question I had on batch numbers for my recent shipment.
"After receiving my recent shipment of peptides, I wanted to review the COAs before I reconstituted them. However, I noticed the specific COA Batch IDs on the vials I received was used several times for other peptides, and not even the same type of peptide in some cases. For example, I received CJC-1295 (no DAC)/Ipamorelin 10/10mg with Batch ID: TUY-101025 on the two vials. Upon checking your onsite COA library, I see that same Batch ID number used on several other peptides, and often with the same Batch ID listed on the actual COA itself.
For example, TUY-101025 is the listed COA for Adipotide with a tested date of 12/1/25, AOD9604 with a tested date of 11/25/25, BPC-157 with a tested date of 10/7/25, Reta with a tested date of 10/6/25 , and several other similar examples on your website. Batch IDs are supposed to be unique to that actual peptide batch to ensure purity and traceability.
Can you please help to explain what is going on here with your COA library and why you are listing the same Batch ID number for several batches across several different peptides and peptide blends? "
They responded very quickly, good, but with the response below and not sure I understand using the same Batch ID across totally different peptides. Yes, I get within the same shipment of the SAME peptide, but not DIFFERENT peptides. Any thoughts??
"Thank you for your detailed message — and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to carefully review the COA documentation before reconstitution. That level of diligence is something we respect.
I completely understand why this would appear concerning at first glance, so let me clarify what is happening.
The COA provided always corresponds to the exact batch currently in inventory, and the batch/lot number on the COA matches the vial(s) shipped. We do not release untested material. In the event of a batch transition, only the most current, fully tested batch is released. Documentation always reflects the shipped lot.
The confusion arises from how batches are received and registered internally. When we restock inventory, we often place a single manufacturing order that includes multiple different products and multiple different weights within the same shipment. For example, in one shipment we may receive several weights of GLP-3 (R) — 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, and 30mg — depending on inventory needs.
Each of those weights is tested, but because they originate from the same production lot, they may share the same base Batch ID. Once testing is completed, we register that Batch ID across the relevant COAs. This is why you may see identical Batch ID numbers appearing multiple times — sometimes across different weights or related production lots.
The differentiator historically has been the product listing and the COA image itself (including vial cap color and weight reference), but we recognize that this system can create confusion when reviewing the archive externally.
To reduce confusion and improve transparency, we have begun integrating the weight directly into the Batch ID reference in our COA archive. This makes it much clearer when multiple weights originate from the same production lot. We take purity, traceability, and transparency extremely seriously, and this update is part of improving how that information is displayed publicly."
-
@scottrumph-gmail.com i would post this as a new topic under this vendor tab, instead of as a comment under someone else’s review.
