<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with pure-lab-peptides]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with pure-lab-peptides]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/tags/pure-lab-peptides</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 11:53:50 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.peptidecritic.com/tags/pure-lab-peptides.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Pure Lab Peptides User Review: Batch number on Vial does not match Vendor COA on website]]></title><description><![CDATA[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.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/962/pure-lab-peptides-user-review-batch-number-on-vial-does-not-match-vendor-coa-on-website</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/962/pure-lab-peptides-user-review-batch-number-on-vial-does-not-match-vendor-coa-on-website</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[ImaFrogNotaRat]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Discussion: Pure Lab Peptides]]></title><description><![CDATA[This is the official discussion thread for a vendor on PeptideCritic.com.
 View the vendor profile: Pure Lab Peptides

Share your experiences with this vendor, ask questions, or add information that might help other community members.
Please keep discussions respectful and factual.
]]></description><link>https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/311/discussion-pure-lab-peptides</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/311/discussion-pure-lab-peptides</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[PeptideCritic]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>