TrustPointe Analytics 🥼

@pepfessions We wrote an article on this in 2024 trustpointeanalytics.com/blogs/trustpoi…

yall know that when a vendor says "99% purity" that number means almost nothing right?? purity by HPLC just tells you what % of the PEPTIDE content is the target sequence. says nothing about what else is in the vial. salts, solvents, endotoxins, heavy metals — none of that shows up on a purity test.

@TrustPointe it's a big step for peptide quality control, having a standard like this can make a difference in consistency and safety

@PeptideSupplyCo @Intrinzc @VinhLeRealty Which test?

@Intrinzc @VinhLeRealty @TrustPointe We’ve never said that, quite literally ever. We completely switched how we do things, though. We received input, and adapted. Call me crazy — but charging $2800 for the same exact test every other lab charges $700 for seems pretty stupid.

We just added USP <905> Uniformity of Dosage Units to our test menu. The same statistical test the FDA requires for pharmaceutical drug products — now available for your peptide vials. What it proves: all 10 units fall between 75–125% of label claim, and the batch is uniform and centered near 100%. One outlier vial fails the whole batch. This test isn’t for everyone. It requires 10 vials and a process tight enough to pass. If you’re ready for it, you already know why it matters.

@rorynotsorry You are a machine 💪🏻

One of the new features I’m launching is a literal count down timer. Three days out there will be a timer for launch. At 0 it will go live.

@VinhLeRealty @PeptideSupplyCo Also, I don’t know who @PeptideSupplyCo is and I’ve never gotten a DM from them 🤷🏻‍♂️

We’ve never said trust us. What a load of 💩 😂 1. We are the only lab with test methods validated per US FDA requirements for pharmaceutical drug products. No one else has methods validated per USP <1225>. I’ve asked here for over a month- the only lab that came close was Vanguard. Accuracy by accident is not the same as accuracy by design. 2. A lot of other labs run screening gradients: one size fits all methods to churn through samples. May miss coeluting degradation products. Our methods are developed individually for each peptide. 3. We are the only lab (to my knowledge) that runs forced degradation studies with our test methods. We actually force the peptide to degrade and then make sure we can identify the degradation products in our chromatography. We can tell you if that random peak that lowered purity is degradation or something foreign. 4. We are the only lab providing all the chromatography and data used to generate the result with the COA. Complete transparency. People on Discord were monitoring our reference standard across hundreds of runs😂 5. When the crap hits the fan, we have the expertise help our clients figure it out. I have 20 years of experience in quality engineering in med device / pharma. We once helped a client investigate low purity, which turned out to be cross-contamination between their products due to machine cleaning issues. 6. We were the first to explain to people that purity on a COA doesn’t mean what they think it does. We are out there regularly improving understanding in the space. (Speaking of which, TAMC/TYMC is not sterility testing, its microbial enumeration.) 7. We have a 5 day turnaround for assay/purity/endo , and a phone number you can call and Ashlee will answer. Our clients typically spread the cost out across large lots, so it ends up being <$0.30 per vial for them. They are willing to pay more to have confidence in the COAs they give to their clients and our support when they need help. We’re not for everyone, and we understand that. But imho, we do it better than anyone else in the space today.

@rorynotsorry @VinhLeRealty Likewise!

@VinhLeRealty @TrustPointe It would be. I know Josh. He’s a great guy!

@OracleinIrvine No additional cost beyond the testing cost for 10 vials (which is a significant investment)

@TrustPointe Awesome I think all peptides resellers and enthusiasts should be doing this test. Can you share the cost of the test?

I’ll never understand why we keep saying TAMC/TYMC is the same as sterility. It’s not, and it’s driving me nuts. USP <61> is for non-sterile dosage forms (tablets, liquid). The media is not as sensitive as USP <71> media, as it’s expected to be non-sterile and provide a plate count. USP <71> uses broth media with growth promotion testing demonstrating <100cfu growth promotion (sensitivity). A product passing TAMC / TYMC may not be sterile. It just didn’t grow fast enough on the media. Or the media didn’t support growth.

@KimeraChems @kalos21million @tread_on_them @TrustPointe @Vanguard_Lab @LimitlesBiotech

Quality testing on peptides is such a hot topic. How much is needed at the end of the day. Do heavy metals matter at such low doses? How many are truly contaminated with endotoxin? Is it worth it for me to wait and pay for sterility? I made a pyramid to visualize the full scope…at least as far as a high level grey market test will go. More info on my site, wording and specifics may be tweaked…but check it out and give me your initial thoughts. Agree or disagree on the levels? pepguide.net

@_9th_Life_ We test so you don’t randomly lactate 😂

Yes, I'd prefer to see stateside COAs from peptide vendors Yes, I am chill with paying a premium on individual vials to get them in a couple days opposed to 2 months for kits in china Yes, I know it's basically just markup product all coming from the same source Yes, I am too lazy to pay for my own testing I like the convivence and additional layer of oversight And considering I bought MK-677 for like $80 from some sketchy supplement store that caused me to lactate about 5 years ago, we've come a long way

@_9th_Life_ The entire vial is consumed during testing 👍🏻 We aren’t rolling in free peps (sorry)

What do the lab employees at Janoshik actually do with the test vials after testing? Are they completely unusable after, or do these people just end up with an unlimited supply of peps? I'd hate for any quality product to go to waste. If anyone over there is hiring, my DMs are open.

@pepfessions If the drug companies made these affordable at the median US income, this market would not exist.

a 10mg vial of retatrutide from a pharmacy: $1,400/month.the same molecule, same purity, from a research vendor: $89.the gap between those two numbers is the entire weight loss industry.

@rorynotsorry Is this a testing portal? That’s pretty nice

When you have a cricket that is chirping away while you’re trying to focus on integrating a peak

When you want growth and you get growth 🙏🏻 (don’t worry, not peptides)

We used to test for Finnrick when they first started. Trailed off when Krause started testing. Might still all be on the up and up. We are always careful to avoid decisions that erode trust in our independence. I don’t want to catch a post like this. Although those close to me know I stand on the data and I don’t care about the money 😂

THIS is journalism and reporting for the community. In the sake of being transparent and aiming for the truth I decided to investigate Finnrick. None of these are claims. every line below has a source. if anything is wrong reply or DM and i'll correct it on the record. an undisclosed vendor I spoke to from my list told me i had Finnrick wrong, i was kinda shook with what i found... lets start with five things 1. Finnrick sells testing to the vendors they publicly rate. their "Private Testing" page. one-off pricing, monthly 6% off, yearly 18% off. vendors pay them, results either stay private or get hosted on Finnrick under the vendor's name via the "Pulse" add-on. direct paid relationship with the people getting graded. IMO seems sus to grade people you're also collecting money from to test. It would be like if i collected evidence from vendors but also said ok you have to pay me to also get ranked... seems like a conflict of interest. finnrick.com/vendor-support… 2. "Launch with Finnrick" lets the vendor pick what samples count. their own program copy. vendor sends 4 samples they chose. Finnrick tests 2 of them. results go straight into the vendor's public Finnrick Rating as "tentative." first impression of a vendor on Finnrick is built off samples the vendor hand-picked. finnrick.com/vendor-support… 3. let's talk about Krause Analytical. Krause does the majority of Finnrick's testing. straight from Finnrick's own /labs page: Krause has run 4,209 tests for them. the next-biggest lab, BTLabs, has run 1,552. Janoshik (the lab everyone considers the gold standard) has run 194. Krause is at roughly 57% of Finnrick's entire test volume. it's not "one of the labs they use." it's their primary lab by 4x over the next biggest. now here's the thing that matters. Sept 2025. Rory at Crush Research had Finnrick mail the same Retatrutide batch to three different labs. Janoshik came back 30mg. Chromate came back 30mg. Krause came back 26mg. then 26mg again. 15% gap on identical material. Krause itself? Austin TX. HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS. no ISO 17025 accreditation. no principal scientist named publicly on their peptide page. same city as Finnrick's sample-receiving facility. Finnrick's own /labs page admits the problem in their own words: "Finnrick does not assume that any single lab represents a ground truth." but the per-vendor rating you see on their site doesn't tell you which lab ran which test. so the reader can't weight a Krause result differently from a Janoshik one. graymarket.substack.com/p/testing-the-… finnrick.com/labs 4. look at this job listing from their job board... what is a "Gray Market Whisperer"??? their live job posting: "Community Engagement Lead, Gray-Market Whisperer." $85 to 125k plus equity. quoting it: "[builds] a cross-platform content engine that turns HPLC graphs into viral hooks" and "email communications styled to feel informal and trusted." monitors Telegram and Reddit. those are their words. finnrick-analytics.breezy.hr/p/f72ebb84111e… 5. corrections only seem to move vendors up not down... seems sketch Finnrick's own log. went through 83 entries. Orbitrex Retatrutide 3.7 to 7.0 (D to A) after vendor objection. Orbitrex Tirzepatide 5.9 to 9.0 (B to A) same way. Peptidology BPC-157 E to C. Peptidology GHK-Cu B to A. Peptide Sciences Retatrutide 6.3 to 8.3. Reta Peptide Tirzepatide 7.3 to 9.3. Nexaph Tesamorelin purity 79.8% to 99.3%. Coffee and Peppers Tirzepatide 4.2 to 6.0. couldn't find a single score change on the log that went DOWN. clerical corrections (sample mix-ups, label errors, swaps) go both ways. but every actual rating move on the log is upward. four paid programs sold to the same vendors they grade. finnrick.com/corrections i'm calling out my own work too. my first pass list yesterday i moved Orbitrex from C to B partly because of Finnrick samples that included two of those re-graded ones. with what i know now i'd hold that move back. what's changing on reptides: Finnrick demoted from "secondary source" to directional only per-product Finnrick lines softened across every vendor entry I will be regrading all vendors shortly... this has implications to the grading system. to Finnrick: corrections welcome / reply or DM and i'll add your correction inline reptides.co/vendors

@_9th_Life_ Sir this is a Wendy’s and also you’re clearly a fed

Be honest, how many injections are you doing a week?

@BowTiedPep @PeptidePartners Imagine if every product company tool that position 😂 Tests can have errors or be faked, so we just don’t test!

@TrustPointe @PeptidePartners He deleted his mini debate with me over this same nonsense. Kept saying “people can fake COAs so why even do them!” It’s not a perfect system but it’s the best we have.

Here’s what I got from this: 1. We don’t care enough about you to wait to know if product is good or bad before we sell it to you. 2. Trust the factory bro! They have no incentive to lie. They also never mix up vials, have shipping errors, or ever make a mistake! 3. We want to add literally zero value, but expect you to pay a markup over the factory price. Interesting business model. Wish them the best!