AUS Peptide Warehouse WARNING

[Randy]

Fake COA's. I have uploaded a few as proof because I'm sure they will take them off the site once they see this. They applied to be listed. Ooopsies

https://peptidecritic.com/vendor/peptide-warehouse-australia

https://www.auspeptidewarehouse.com.au/coa

[A Former User]

The removal of the QR code does not, in itself, invalidate the test results. The results have not been altered, modified, or manipulated in any way.

We have never stated on our website that these tests were conducted by our company. The term "third-party testing" is used to indicate that the testing was not performed in-house by either ourselves or the manufacturer.

While some may view this business model as operating within a grey-market framework, it is important to recognize that we operate in a jurisdiction where local production and testing of these products is not feasible. As a result, reliance on independent third-party testing conducted abroad is a practical necessity rather than an attempt to misrepresent the origin or validity of the results.

The key consideration is the integrity of the test data itself, which remains unchanged and accurately reflects the findings reported by the testing laboratory.

We respect your thought behind this post but it's inaccurate to have us displayed on an American only vendor review site.

[Randy]

Oh buddy. Bad news on all of that.

Let’s go over the part you are trying to dodge.

You applied to be listed on Peptide Critic. This is not an “American only” vendor review site. We list and discuss plenty of vendors that ship internationally, including vendors that serve Australia. You were not randomly dragged into this. You submitted your own vendor application.

The issue is not that you use third-party testing. The issue is that the COAs posted on your site were altered in ways that remove verification and chain-of-custody information.

First the QR codes were removed. Then, after the alert went up, the COAs were edited again with more information blacked out, including vendor/client details (example attached). That does not make the documents more trustworthy. It makes them harder for researchers to verify.

Saying “the results weren’t changed” is not the standard here. A COA is not just a purity number floating in space. The value is in being able to verify who the test was for, what batch/sample it corresponds to, and whether the document can be authenticated back to the lab. When those pieces are removed or repeatedly redacted after scrutiny, that is exactly the kind of thing this community is here to warn people about.

Also, after sending a formal removal demand through our contact form, I replied with a very simple “No.” Your follow-up response was calling me a “dumb fat American,” which I’ll be uploading because apparently we’re doing professionalism cosplay today.

So no, the listing is not being removed.

If anything, the warning is being updated with the additional redacted COAs, the application context, and the email exchange. We do not talk differently in private than we do publicly.

Congratulations on upgrading this from a forum warning to tomorrow’s YouTube video. We’ll be walking through the COA edits, the vendor application, and the email exchange in full.

So like and subscribe, I guess.

[A Former User]

It's ironic that you claim not to be a US-centric vendor review platform when every vendor listed on your site has "United States" underneath it, including ours! That alone undermines the argument that you're actively reviewing vendors from around the world.

Secondly, it's obvious you don't have much understanding of the Australian market or the regulatory environment we operate in. If you did, you'd know that the majority of Australian vendors redact manufacturer details and QR codes from their COAs for exactly the reasons I explained previously. We don't operate under the same rules or protections that US vendors do.

In fact, if you had reviewed Australian vendors to any meaningful extent, you'd see that what we've done is standard practice here. The vast majority of Australian vendors handle their COAs in the same way.

You may not like that standard, but it's the reality of this market. Presenting it as some sort of red flag to an audience that is overwhelmingly American creates a misleading and unrealistic impression because you're judging Australian businesses by standards that exist in a completely different regulatory environment.

We're more than happy to provide the original, unredacted COAs directly via email so you can verify their authenticity for yourself. However, it's obvious theres financial gain behind your website and YouTube so I doubt you'd change your stance.

As for the YouTube video, you're entitled to make whatever content you want. But if you're going to publicly call out businesses and question their integrity, at least have the conviction to sit in front of the camera while doing it instead of hiding behind it.

PS: Im sorry to offend with my comment about you being a dumb fat American, I'll redact my comment when you decide to sit behind the camera and call us out. Until then, I don't doubt you're just some fat keyboard warrior. Professionalism got thrown out the door when you decided to keep an Australian website on an only American site even after we politely handled this.

[A Former User]

Our products are clearly labeled and sold for research use only. We encourage all researchers to conduct their own independent testing, and if any product is found to differ from the purity specifications listed on our website, we will gladly offer a replacement or refund under our guarantee.

It seems that your concerns regarding COA transparency are based on the assumption that these products are being used for purposes other than research. Our products are sold strictly for research use only, as clearly stated in our Terms and Conditions.

We expect our customers to conduct their own independent testing as part of their research activities, which is precisely why we have no concerns about researchers being able to verify the results we publish on our own website.

There appears to be a consistent theme across your website and YouTube content that could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging or instructing individuals on how to use these products for self-administration. This seems difficult to reconcile with the position that your concerns are solely focused on research-use products and their intended research applications.

I addition to our previous response, we've conducted an audit of your website and YouTube and there's no mention of any non US based vendors.

You seem to have sidestepped our point regarding this being a "US-based vendor" site by pointing out that some vendors ship internationally. Whether a vendor offers international shipping has no bearing on where that vendor is based. We don't offer international shipping to the United State so once again having us listed on your website is pointless. Which puts your integrity on the line as now you're doing this for views and financial gain. That sounds a little contradictory to what the overall purpose of this website seems to be. (providing useful information to your audience group which are US based)

[SoySebastian]

@Peptide-Warehouse-Austra This criticism is hard to take seriously when your own website does the exact thing you’re accusing others of doing.

You claim discussing peptides in a way that could be interpreted as personal use conflicts with a “research only” position, yet your site is filled with images of injury recovery, skincare, wellness, and articles highlighting what peptides are “studied for” in ways that clearly imply real-world benefits.

Slapping “research” on the page doesn’t change the fact that the overall presentation is aimed at the same audience you’re criticizing.

If discussing potential applications and outcomes is evidence of encouraging personal use, then by your own standard your website isn’t exactly standing on higher ground.

[izzdatboi]

A true crashout from a scumbag? What a treat I got with my coffee this morning lmao

[A Former User]

@soysebastian

For the record, our website contains informational articles primarily for SEO purposes. Unlike businesses operating in the United States, we are unable to run promotional advertising campaigns through Meta, Instagram, TikTok, or Google. As a result, organic search traffic is our primary source of visibility.

We raised Randy's concerns because they implied human use of our products, which is not how our products are marketed or intended.

We have never denied removing QR codes and manufacturer information from our COAs. However, we do not view this as a significant issue, as we offer a money-back guarantee across our entire catalog and expect researchers to conduct their own independent testing and verification.

We are happy to provide the original COA documents in full. However, it appears that further discussion may be driven more by the prospect of additional content creation than by a genuine attempt to resolve the matter.

That in itself takes away from this websites credibility as once again we will never be a vendor to any of the members of this website. So you're defaming a business in a market/country you don't have any knowledge on all for essentially views and financial gain. Upon a short review we cannot find a single verified vendor who ships to Australia here, which staples our argument even further.

We've served over a thousand customers here, with 0 negative reviews and 0 payment chargebacks. If randy was so knowledgeable of peptides in Australia he would know most vendors down here are scammers who don't accept credit card so they can run away with their money.

So once again more than happy to provide all of our original unedited COA documents but our website doesn't need to be listed on this page.

[A Former User]

@izzdatboi clearly haven't got anything interesting going on in your life that you wake up and go look at a forum...

[izzdatboi]

Not a thing going on definitely not worried about having to defend my business on a forum I will not be getting a customer from lmao. Not all of us have that luxury though I guess.

[A Former User]

@izzdatboi sometimes I like arguing with the less educated. its nice to see how the other side lives

[izzdatboi]

Oh man oh man. My feelings got hurt.
Like your COAs the important part of my picture was edited out. Hope youre compliant when you get audited

[A Former User]

@izzdatboi oh noooo, not the TGA. no wonder why your so invested in his topic. your a tirzepatide user lmao

could've spotted you were a fat cunt from a mile away

[afkar7]

@A-Former-User said:

@izzdatboi oh noooo, not the TGA. no wonder why your so invested in his topic. your a tirzepatide user lmao

could've spotted you were a fat cunt from a mile away

I always love the name calling as the last resort. it says all you need to know.

[A Former User]

@afkar7 last resort? he's already made the report?

calling him a fat cunt is stating the obvious. if you need tirzepatide to lose weight u clearly have discipline issues.

[SoySebastian]

Welp lol that all escalated quite quickly with him deleting his profile.

[MyB]

Well, that was entertaining. The death spiral at the end was the best.
When Narcissist’s resorts to gaslighting and name calling they know they’ve lost the debate so they always resort to personal attacks. Classic.

[WisGal64]

@afkar7 said:

@A-Former-User said:

@izzdatboi oh noooo, not the TGA. no wonder why your so invested in his topic. your a tirzepatide user lmao

could've spotted you were a fat cunt from a mile away

I always love the name calling as the last resort. it says all you need to know.

Indeed it does!

[Hammertime65]

As a fat American, I'm offended that he thinks being fat makes you an idiot and undisciplined. As an idiot, I'm offended that he thinks being an idiot means you are fat. Why does he think people use the peps they use? Yay America!

[Randy]

I love waking up and seeing the communities done the work for me .

I'm still absolutely astonished that they had doctored coas and then they doctored the doctored coas as a response.

For reference if you want and the reseller is willing they can pay Jano $20 to put your name on it.

Either way, YouTube video drops in a bit.

The internet is forever.