Trying to verify a COA from a testing lab called Clark-Turner Scientific and a few things stand out:
→ contact email is [email protected], but that domain isn't theirs — it's parked and for sale (~$3.5k). Real site: clarkturnerscientific.com
→ can't find any reviews of them
→ no address listed on the site that I can see
Anyone have experience with this lab?
Questions and observations. No sourcing, no codes, no links out.
Yeah, that does look a bit fishy :/
The email anddomain mismatch alone is enough to make me pause.
I’d probably wait for someone who has dealt with them before or try to confirm directly through their official site first.
I also checked briefly and didn’t really find much about them online aside from their own website.
interesting thing is that that COA was found among the seller's COA's there were legitimate - we'll have to recheck them.
UPDATE — [7th August 2026]
I've spent a while on this now and have three Certificates of Analysis attributed to this lab — three different compounds, three different batch numbers, dated March and May 2026. Here's what we found, written so you don't need a chemistry background to follow it.
THE EMAIL ADDRESS CANNOT RECEIVE EMAIL
Their website lists [email protected] as the contact. That domain isn't just parked — its owner has published a specific instruction telling the internet not to deliver mail to it. Mail servers won't even try. So nobody has ever successfully emailed this lab at the address it publishes. The domain is also listed for sale at $3,495. Their actual domain, clarkturnerscientific.com, has working email set up through Zoho. So this isn't someone who doesn't know how email works.
THE CERTIFICATES WERE MADE IN A WEB BROWSER
Every PDF file records what created it. Real lab reports come out of the software attached to the instrument. All three of these record that they were made by Chrome's "print to PDF" — the same thing you get printing a webpage to a file. Each one is also an odd, non-standard page size, which is what happens when you print a web page as a single long sheet.
THE SIGNATURE ISN'T A SIGNATURE
The handwritten name at the bottom is typed. It uses a free Google font designed to look like handwriting. You can select it as text.
THE REPORTS NAME TWO DIFFERENT MACHINES
The top of each spectrum says the data came from one type of instrument. The settings table directly underneath lists controls that only exist on a completely different type of instrument from a different manufacturer. It's like a repair invoice with "Toyota" in the header and a parts list that's all Ford. This appears on all three documents.
On top of that, every machine setting is identical across all three — same temperatures, same voltages, same everything, for three different substances tested two months apart. Real runs get tuned per sample.
ONE TEST REPORTS SOMETHING PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
In this kind of test the sample is carried through a tube by flowing liquid. Nothing can come out faster than the liquid carrying it. On the tube and flow rate they list, the liquid itself takes about 2.5 minutes to get through.
One report says the substance came out at 2.35 minutes — faster than the liquid. Then it explains that time by saying the substance sticks strongly to the tube. Sticking strongly would make it come out slower.
THE NUMBERS ARE PERFECT FOR THE WRONG MOLECULE
On that same report, the weight measurements agree with each other almost exactly. The problem is what they agree on: a weight that doesn't match the chemical formula printed a few inches above them on the same page.
Real measurements match the actual substance. These match a typo.
SMALLER THINGS THAT ADD UP
→ On two of the three, the batch number in the header doesn't match the batch number embedded in the data file shown on the same page.
→ On one, a specific expected peak is reported in completely the wrong place — off by a wide margin, not a rounding issue.
→ Two different products, tested two months apart, report exactly the same peptide content to the same decimal place.
WHO RUNS THIS LAB
We searched registries today and found no company record under this name. The website lists no physical address, no accreditation number, and no terms of service. That last one matters more than it sounds: every real testing lab publishes terms limiting its liability for results, because results are the entire legal exposure of the business. A lab issuing certificates that customers rely on, with nothing governing that reliance, is a lab that has never spoken to a lawyer.
We have not been able to independently confirm any person associated with the laboratory.
WHAT I'M NOT SAYING
I'm not telling you this lab is fake. I haven't proven that, and some of this work is genuinely competent — the chemical formulas are correct, the arithmetic on the purity tables is sound, and one of the three spectra holds up fine. This was not thrown together carelessly.
I'm also not naming any shop. These certificates came from somewhere, and a shop that paid for testing in good faith and received generated paperwork is a victim, not a participant. I don't yet know which situation this is.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
We sent the lab a written verification request few days ago - company name, address, accreditation status, and whether they hold the original instrument files. Those files would settle this in an afternoon. We gave them 14 days.
No reply so far, but it's only been a couple of days, so that means nothing yet. I'll update when the window closes either way.
If they produce the instrument files, I'll post that I was wrong, in the same detail I've posted this.
I'll post whatever comes back either way, including the full calculations, so anyone can check my work.