🍪 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 — my results so far

⚠ Fake COAs — my results so far

Dr.GastroMayo Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 4:08 AM 6 replies 764 viewsPage 1 of 2
Dr.GastroMayo
VIP Member
2,345
13,456
Jan 2024
Mayo Clinic, MN
Feb 13, 2026 at 4:08 AM#1

Collecting this in one place because it comes up every few weeks and the answer is always assembled from scratch. It is about certificates of analysis, and it is deliberately narrow — everything I am not confident about is marked as such.

What is actually established

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.

The condition it depends on

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.

The practical version

The four things to check on any report, in order: does it name your batch, who commissioned it, what method was used, and does it report content as well as purity. A report failing any of those is weak evidence regardless of the percentage on it.

What I am not sure about

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. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.

— Dr.GastroMayo · corrections welcome and will be edited into this post with credit
19 14mike_nyc, VendorMark, COA_Karl and 16 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
mike.trainer_LA
Senior Member
1,567
7,234
Apr 2024
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 13, 2026 at 6:34 AM#2
Dr.GastroMayo said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

That is correct as far as it goes, and here is where it stops going. They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate. Purity is a relative area measurement: the main peak as a percentage of total peak area in the chromatogram. Content is an absolute mass measurement against a reference standard. A vial can be 99% pure and contain 6.1mg — pure material, overfilled — or 99% pure and contain 3mg, which is pure material and a short fill. Purity tells you what fraction of what is there is the right molecule; content tells you how much of it there is. You need both, and a certificate with only purity is telling you half the story.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Last edited: Feb 13, 2026 at 10:34 AM
18 13newstart_MO, mia_MS2, LeilaHI and 15 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Dr.ObesityLA
VIP Member
3,567
19,876
Dec 2023
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 13, 2026 at 9:00 AM#3
Dr.GastroMayo said:
Inter-laboratory variation comes from real methodological differences, not sloppiness: which reference standard was used and how it was itself…

I am more sceptical of certificates as a category than this thread is. The document tells you about a sample somebody chose to send, at a moment in time, and nothing about the vial in your hand. Independent purchase-and-test is a different quality of evidence and everything else is inference.

17 12tampaLisa73, KarenAZ_mom, zoe_NC and 14 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report

PeptideMeter — Independent Peptide Analytics

Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.

View Results
KevinCompounds
VIP Member
5,432
18,234
Dec 2023
Nevada
Feb 13, 2026 at 11:26 AM#4

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.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

16 11BenResearch_OR, MikeKY_noInsulin, Dr.RaviCardio and 13 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
patPC_UT
Member
212
890
Nov 2024
Park City, UT
Feb 14, 2026 at 1:57 AM#5
mike.trainer_LA said:
They are not contradictory, they measure different things, and this is the single most common misreading of a certificate.

Second this.

15 10julia.endo, JessicaM_2024, TomFromTexas and 12 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