Skip to content

Peptide COA watchdog · Evidence-led case files · Corrections welcomed

The COA Catcher home

The COA Catcher

Evidence has a trail. We follow it.

Documented case record

Aussie Peptides — One Task Number Exposed the Black Bars

Published or last materially updated:

Case scope matters. This record concerns the product, batch, transaction, or evidence identified in the article. It should not be read as a finding about every product sold by a vendor, or as proof of intent or illegality. Review the source material, limitations, status, and any response together.

Case evidence details

Evidence published Suspected document or authentication issue

The publisher has posted sources concerning the specific product or batch described. Readers should assess the cited material and any vendor response.

Cited material raises a document-authenticity or provenance concern; it is not an official finding unless separately stated.

Annotated evidence graphic for Aussie Peptides — One Task Number Exposed the Black Bars
Annotated evidence graphic. The material findings are repeated in the text below.
Vendor URL (reference only)
www.aussiepeptides.au
Seller identity at the time
Aussie Peptides (aussiepeptides.au)
Last reviewed
Product / batch scope
BPC-157 10 mg COA published by Aussie Peptides; Janoshik batch JP20260007
Batch / lot / order ID
JP20260007

Chain of custody and provenance

The Aussie Peptides copy leaves task #105627, batch JP20260007 and the reported results visible, while Client and Manufacturer are blacked out and Aussie Peptides branding overlays the report. Janoshik’s original record for the same task identifies both Client and Manufacturer as JP. No published chain-of-custody record connects the tested JP sample to Aussie Peptides stock.

Evidence summary

ONE TASK NUMBER BLEW OPEN THE BLACK BARS.

The Aussie Peptides copy shows a convincing set of numbers: task #105627, batch JP20260007, 11.72 mg of BPC-157 and 99.765% purity. It also places black boxes over Client and Manufacturer and stretches Aussie Peptides branding across the certificate.

But the task number was still visible.

We used it to find Janoshik’s original public record. The task, batch and results all match. Then comes the reveal: the untouched report says Client: JP and Manufacturer: JP. Aussie Peptides is not identified in either field.

Janoshik’s record proves that a sample labelled BPC10 was tested. The vendor-presented copy does not prove that Aussie Peptides submitted that sample or that its stock is traceable to it.

SAME TASK. SAME BATCH. SAME RESULTS. THE ORIGINAL SAYS “JP”.

Sources and references

  1. https://janoshik.com/verification/?key=1KWNMRQ5BUSC&task=105627
  2. https://verify.janoshik.com/tests/105627-BPC10_1KWNMRQ5BUSC
  3. https://www.aussiepeptides.au/CoA/BPC10-Feb-CoA-99.765.png
  4. https://www.aussiepeptides.au/coa
  5. https://www.bluenexlabs.com/certificates-of-analysis
  6. https://strongbeautifulpeps.com/coas/
  7. https://peptidosplus.com/catalogo/blend-bpc-tb500

Laboratory test details

Laboratory
Janoshik Analytical
Method
Assessment of a peptide vial, as described on the Janoshik report
Report / finding date

Result as reported

Task #105627. Client: JP. Manufacturer: JP. Sample: BPC10. Batch: JP20260007. Result: BPC-157, 11.72 mg. Purity: 99.765%. Unique key: 1KWNMRQ5BUSC.

Vendor response

No vendor response was requested or received as at 25 August 2026. The COA Catcher correction and contact channel remains available for evidence-based corrections or a vendor response.

Limitations and uncertainty

This evidence does not show that Janoshik’s report is fabricated and does not establish the composition of every Aussie Peptides product. A shared upstream supplier is possible. The finding is narrower: the edited certificate does not independently establish that Aussie Peptides commissioned the test or that the tested batch is traceable to the stock it sells.

Editorial review record

Source authentication
Scientific review
Privacy / redaction review
TGA advertising review

Public change log

25 August 2026 — Added a vendor-copy versus Janoshik-original comparison and rewrote the summary around task #105627.

Operator disclosure

Readers should assess the cited primary sources independently. Corrections, context and additional evidence may be submitted through the right-of-reply process.

Scope note: this record concerns only the cited product, batch, transaction, and source material. It is not a blanket judgment about every product or activity of the named vendor, and it is not a legal determination.

Absence from this directory is not evidence that a vendor or product is safe, genuine, lawful, or suitable.

Reading this record

Evidence: Open the cited material where available; a summary is not a substitute for the source.

Status: Check whether the case is under review, published with limitations, corrected, or closed.

Response: Vendor context and disputes should be clearly labelled and presented with the record.

Updates: Material changes should be dated in the correction history.

Read the methodology

Correction or right of reply

If you are named or materially affected by this record, you can challenge an error, add context, or provide an on-record response. Material corrections are dated and remain visible.

Review the right-of-reply process