ChromIQ Analytical Laboratory - we couldn't verify it, and the certificates don't hold together | Community Discussions

Someone sent us a set of COAs from a lab called ChromIQ Analytical Laboratory, hosted on the biosynclabs.de shop domain. Six of them: BPC-157, CJC-1295 no DAC, DSIP, Epithalon, Retatrutide, and bacteriostatic water.

We ran our usual checks. Here's what came back.

The lab

chromiq.com is printed on every single certificate. The site doesn't load. So there's no portal, no report-number lookup, nothing. If you're holding one of these PDFs, the PDF is the only evidence the test ever happened.

No registration number anywhere on the six documents. No footprint for ChromIQ either - no citations, no mentions, nobody complaining about turnaround times. Real labs get argued about. Nothing on the named chemist either.

The lab calls itself "HPLC-MS Quality Control & Peptide Purity Analysis". None of the six reports have any mass spec on them. No MS means no identity, so these tell you a sample is homogeneous, not what it actually is.

Now the interesting part

Most of this only shows up when you put all six side by side.

Same two dates on every certificate. Produced 2026-05-20, analysed 2026-05-22. Six products, six batch series, one production date, one analysis date.

All five peptide reports have an identical method string. Same column, same dimensions, same flow rate, same 5-95% gradient over 20 minutes, same injection volume. Applied unchanged to a 390 g/mol tripeptide and a 4731 g/mol triple agonist. That's not how method development works.

The chromatograms are the thing though. Retention times are 3.815, 5.272, 6.223, 8.099, 10.422. Every peak is the same height and the same width. Each one has the same little negative dip right after it. Every baseline is flat. Stated purities run from 99.02% to 99.94%, so somewhere between 0.06% and 0.98% of each sample is something else - and not one trace shows a secondary peak anywhere. The water COA is a GC-FID run, completely different instrument, and its trace looks the same as the HPLC ones.

There's also a numbering pattern. Report number matches batch suffix on five of six: B0299, B0177, B0157, B0209, B0103. The water one is report CIQ-RPT-B0260 against batch BAC-B0261, and its own chromatogram says BAC-B0260. The header is the only field that disagrees, and it's the only one that isn't part of an image.

Small thing on the water, but worth saying: it's an injectable solution where sterility is the whole point, and there's no sterility test and no endotoxin test on the certificate.

What we're not saying

We don't know anyone's intent. No idea who made these, whether the shop commissioned them or got them from a supplier upstream. We couldn't ask ChromIQ because there's no working site to ask through.

We also haven't tested any of the product. Bad paperwork tells you nothing about what's in the vial. Could be perfectly good peptide. The point is these certificates give you no way to find out, which is the opposite of what a certificate is for.

There's a caution note on the shop's page now saying the COAs come from a lab we couldn't verify. Same wording we'd use for anyone in the same position.

Asking the room

Has anyone seen ChromIQ certificates somewhere else? Different shop, different compound, any timeframe. If this template is circulating past one storefront that's worth knowing about.

And if you can get chromiq.com to load, or you've got a working lookup for it, say so and we'll correct this.

· 2 replies

2 replies

Questions and observations. No sourcing, no codes, no links out.

@Peptigrity Junior researcher◆ FIRST RESPONDER X53 days ago

Worth spelling out what we actually did, because none of it needs special access and all of it takes about ten minutes.

Four checks on any lab you've never heard of:

Registration. Does the company number resolve in whatever register it claims? Here there was no number to check, which is its own answer.

Portal. Can you type the report number in somewhere and pull the original? This is the big one. chromiq.com doesn't load, so no.

Staff. Do the named people exist? Papers, employers, anything.

Footprint. Does anyone anywhere mention this lab. Real ones get cited and complained about.

Then the documents themselves, which costs nothing if you have more than one. Line them up and look for things that should differ but don't: dates, method strings, chromatogram shapes. A single COA hides all of that. Two or three stop hiding it.

Failing all four doesn't prove a lab is fake. It means you can't verify it, which is a different sentence and the only one we'll say out loud.

@Peptigrity Junior researcher◆ FIRST RESPONDER X53 days ago

One practical note. Those six PDFs are hosted on the shop's own domain and the URLs carry a version parameter, which means the files can be swapped silently at any point.

So we've saved all six as they were on the day we pulled them, with hashes and timestamps. Not as a gotcha - if the shop replaces them with certificates from a lab that checks out, that's a good outcome and we'll say so on the page. But we want to be able to tell the difference between "they fixed it" and "the evidence quietly changed."

If anyone else has copies of these same files from an earlier date, we'd like to compare. Different hash on the same URL would be worth knowing about.