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

Peptide Connect AUS — Same Report, Different Name

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 Peptide Connect AUS — Same Report, Different Name
Annotated evidence graphic. The material findings are repeated in the text below.
Vendor URL (reference only)
peptideconnectaus.com
Seller identity at the time
Peptide Connect AUS (peptideconnectaus.com)
Last reviewed
Product / batch scope
GHK-Cu 50 mg COA displayed by Peptide Connect AUS; batch HK50-0107
Batch / lot / order ID
HK50-0107

Chain of custody and provenance

Peptide Connect’s displayed copy and Janoshik’s official record share task #99263, unique key RL4AATZ6BF1D, batch HK50-0107 and the same results. The displayed copy leaves Client and Manufacturer blank; Janoshik’s record identifies utherpeptide.com in both fields. No published chain-of-custody record connects that tested sample to Peptide Connect stock.

Evidence summary

SAME REPORT. THE NAME DISAPPEARS.

Peptide Connect AUS displays a Janoshik report for GHK-Cu 50mg. Task #99263 is visible. So are batch HK50-0107, the 60.14 mg result, 99.693% purity and verification key RL4AATZ6BF1D.

Only two important fields are blank: Client and Manufacturer.

We ran the same task number and key through Janoshik’s official verification record. Every identifying number and result matches. This time the missing fields are filled in: Client: utherpeptide.com. Manufacturer: utherpeptide.com.

That is the part the vendor copy does not show. The report is genuine, but its official attribution is to utherpeptide.com—not Peptide Connect AUS. The displayed report does not, by itself, prove Peptide Connect submitted or manufactured the tested sample.

SAME TASK. SAME KEY. SAME BATCH. SAME RESULTS. OFFICIAL RECORD: UTHERPEPTIDE.COM.

Sources and references

  1. https://janoshik.com/verification/?key=RL4AATZ6BF1D&task=99263
  2. https://verify.janoshik.com/tests/99263-ghk_cu_50mg_hk50_0107_RL4AATZ6BF1D
  3. https://peptideconnectaus.com/3rd-party-lab-results/
  4. https://peptideconnectaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ghk-test.jpg
  5. https://rdap.verisign.com/com/v1/domain/utherpeptide.com

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 #99263. Client: utherpeptide.com. Manufacturer: utherpeptide.com. Sample: GHK-Cu 50mg. Batch: HK50-0107. Result: 60.14 mg. Purity: 99.693%. Unique key: RL4AATZ6BF1D.

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 Peptide Connect product. Peptide Connect may have sourced stock upstream from Uther or the same supply chain, but the cited material does not establish that link. The finding is limited to the provenance claimed by this published COA.

Editorial review record

Source authentication
Scientific review
Privacy / redaction review
TGA advertising review

Public change log

25 August 2026 — Added a side-by-side vendor-copy versus official-record comparison and rewrote the summary around the missing attribution fields.

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