Peptide Critic Community

This is a vendor review submitted by ImaFrogNotaRat on PeptideCritic.com. Rating: (4/5) Review POSITIVES: After submitting my purchased vial of CJC-1295/Ipamorelin to Finnrick for analysis, I had the 10mg vial tested by BTLabs. The results came back as follows: HPLC Purity of Peptide Assay = 99.8% HPLC Potency Assay: Ipamorelin 5mg (50%); CJC-1295 7.7% (77.1%) Peptide-to-Excipients Ratio: 12.7:57.2 mg (1:4.5) [Recommended ratios of (1:2) to (1:10)] Wonderful!!! NEGATIVES: What led me to pursue independent testing? A community alert posted on Peptide Critic raised some concerns, prompting me to investigate further for peace of mind, along with a few other factors. During my initial research, I came across https://peptidedosages.com, a very useful site for dosage guidelines and reconstitution protocols. However, despite the existence of numerous peptide vendors, it exclusively promoted Pure Lab Peptides. This gave the impression that the site and the company might be connected financially or otherwise. What appeared to be an independent recommendation felt more like a subtle marketing strategy. The site stated: "Recommended Source We recommend Pure Lab Peptides for high-purity DSIP (10 mg). Why Pure Lab Peptides? High-purity, third-party-tested lots with batch COAs. Consistent, ISO-aligned handling and documentation. Reliable fulfillment to maintain cold-chain integrity." In reality, Pure Lab Peptides did not provide third-party COAs—only their own internal ones. It felt comparable to a sign reading "motel high recommended by owner." Additionally, the lot numbers on the vials didn’t match those on the COAs. The QR codes on packaging and the so-called "Certificate of Authenticity" simply redirected to their website, while the verification numbers linked to discount codes. A Google Maps check showed their listed address to be a postal annex rather than a laboratory. The lab images on their polished website appeared to be stock photos, and my initial outreach through their Contact Us form went unanswered. REDEMPTION: Eventually, Pure Lab Peptides replied with an apology and provided third-party COAs for the products I had purchased. These were, notably, conducted by BTLabs. The lot numbers aligned correctly, which helped restore my confidence. The vial I sacrificed for testing, along with the $288 I spent on independent verification, ultimately confirmed the product’s purity, potency, and quantity—personally, I’d rather confirm there’s more than less as was the case with my tested product, thankfully. FINAL THOUGHTS: 4 stars overall. I am generously forgiving, somewhat. The products performed well in testing—impressive enough for Ribbit, the research frog. The SS-31 in particular stood out, proving both difficult to source and more effective than other peptides previously tested from other vendors. One star deducted due to the lack of website published third-party COAs, questionable “certificates of authenticity,” stock imagery, misleading address details, and marketing practices that came across as somewhat disingenuous. Dear Pure Lab Peptides, please be more publicly transparent. You seem to have some great products, easy to navigate website(s), fast shipping, impressive packaging. Just be genuine and publish independently tested COAs for our peace of mind. The RUO space already raises red flags. Read the full review: BTLabs verified Pure Lab Peptides product 99.8% pure! Discuss this review, share your own experiences, or ask questions about the vendor. Please keep discussions respectful and factual.

This is a vendor review submitted by ImaFrogNotaRat on PeptideCritic.com. Rating: (3/5) Review I was initially impressed with the presentation—fast shipping, well-designed packaging, and even a credit card–sized “Certificate of Authenticity” card included with the order. However, upon closer inspection, several issues raised concerns. The QR code on the certificate card does not link to product-specific verification but instead redirects to the company’s homepage and appears to function primarily as a marketing tool for future discounts. Additionally, the vial labeling is extremely small and difficult to read. After enlarging a photo, I was able to identify a lot number (83776) and expiration date (01/28), but there was no manufacturing date listed. More concerning, the lot number on the vial does not match the certificates of analysis (COAs) published on the company’s website. Those COAs also appear to be vendor-generated rather than from an independent third party, which limits their reliability. I reached out through the company’s website using their “Contact Us” form to clarify these discrepancies but did not receive a response. Given these concerns, I chose to send one vial—purchased at $169.98 for two vials of CJC-1295 (no DAC) + Ipamorelin (10 mg blend)—to an independent laboratory (Finnrick Analytics) for verification of identity, purity, and potency, incurring an additional out-of-pocket cost. While the branding, packaging, and online presence are clearly well-developed, these elements do not substitute for transparent, verifiable quality control. The lack of matching lot numbers, absence of key manufacturing details, and inability to obtain clarification from the company raise questions that prospective buyers should carefully consider. At this time, I would rate the product 3 out of 5 stars. Hopefully, the test lab will accept my submission and I can share the results with the community. Read the full review: Batch number on Vial does not match Vendor COA on website Discuss this review, share your own experiences, or ask questions about the vendor. Please keep discussions respectful and factual.

My second Pure Lab Peptides Vendor review is pending, but I wanted to make sure the community would benefit from my independent peptide testing research. POSITIVES: After submitting my purchased vial of CJC-1295/Ipamorelin to Finnrick for analysis, I had the 10mg vial tested by BTLabs. The results came back as follows: HPLC Purity of Peptide Assay = 99.8% HPLC Potency Assay: Ipamorelin 5mg (50%); CJC-1295 7.7% (77.1%) Peptide-to-Excipients Ratio: 12.7:57.2 mg (1:4.5) [Recommended ratios of (1:2) to (1:10)] Wonderful!!! NEGATIVES: What led me to pursue independent testing? A community alert posted on Peptide Critic raised some concerns, prompting me to investigate further for peace of mind, along with a few other factors. During my initial research, I came across https://peptidedosages.com, a very useful site for dosage guidelines and reconstitution protocols. However, despite the existence of numerous peptide vendors, it exclusively promoted Pure Lab Peptides. This gave the impression that the site and the company might be connected financially or otherwise. What appeared to be an independent recommendation felt more like a subtle marketing strategy. The site stated: "Recommended Source We recommend Pure Lab Peptides for high-purity DSIP (10 mg). Why Pure Lab Peptides? High-purity, third-party-tested lots with batch COAs. Consistent, ISO-aligned handling and documentation. Reliable fulfillment to maintain cold-chain integrity." In reality, Pure Lab Peptides did not provide third-party COAs—only their own internal ones. It felt comparable to a sign reading "motel high recommended by owner." Additionally, the lot numbers on the vials didn’t match those on the COAs. The QR codes on packaging and the so-called "Certificate of Authenticity" simply redirected to their website, while the verification numbers linked to discount codes. A Google Maps check showed their listed address to be a postal annex rather than a laboratory. The lab images on their polished website appeared to be stock photos, and my initial outreach through their Contact Us form went unanswered. REDEMPTION: Eventually, Pure Lab Peptides replied with an apology and provided third-party COAs for the products I had purchased. These were, notably, conducted by BTLabs. The lot numbers aligned correctly, which helped restore my confidence. The vial I sacrificed for testing, along with the $288 I spent on independent verification, ultimately confirmed the product’s purity, potency, and quantity—personally, I’d rather confirm there’s more than less as was the case with my tested product, thankfully. FINAL THOUGHTS: 4 stars overall. I am generously forgiving, somewhat. The products performed well in testing—impressive enough for Ribbit, the research frog. The SS-31 in particular stood out, proving both difficult to source and more effective than other peptides previously tested from other vendors. One star deducted due to the lack of website published third-party COAs, questionable “certificates of authenticity,” stock imagery, misleading address details, and marketing practices that came across as somewhat disingenuous. Dear Pure Lab Peptides, please be more publicly transparent. You seem to have some great products, easy to navigate website(s), fast shipping, impressive packaging. Just be genuine and publish independently tested COAs for our peace of mind. The RUO space already raises red flags.