If you’re going to circulate fake or altered COAs and then get caught out, you need to be prepared to take the heat. What you probably shouldn’t do is insist that you never use other people’s reports immediately before somebody produces evidence of you sending one.
The COA with Somebody Else’s Verification
The report being circulated appeared to belong to Lu’s Peptide Store/GFB. It was for HGH24iu and carried Janoshik task number 95361. It listed:
Client: Lus peptide store
Manufacturer: GFB
Batch: 2026
Amount: 8.39 mg/25.17 IU
Purity: 97.310%
It looked perfectly respectable until the verification details were checked.
The official report attached to task number 95361 contained the same testing dates, batch, amount and purity result, but it belonged to Mandy, with www.mandybio.com listed as the manufacturer. The sample description also specifically referred to Mandy.
The QR code visible on the verified report was missing from the Lu/GFB version. This wasn’t two similar HGH reports being confused. It was the same task number and analytical result with different client, sample and manufacturer details. But whoever altered it had thoughtfully left the verification route in place, creating an altered report with its own fact-checking link.
“Where the Fuck Did Those Come From?”
When the discrepancy was raised, another member asked where the fake COA had been found, noted that it wasn’t among Lu’s visible reports and questioned whether there was proof that Lu or Hoss had sent it. The possibility of an imposter was raised. Hoss, the admin for GFB, separately reacted as if he’d never seen the reports before:
“Waittt where tf did those come from?”
He then added that customer COAs were posted, that he conducted plenty of testing himself and finished with “good try weirdo.”
A few minutes later, he became even more definite:
“I test my own shit. I don’t use other people’s.”
Hoss then posted a conversation with Vanguard Lab, showing that he currently had HGH samples out for testing, so according to him, no one should be using fake COAs if this accusation is true. Current testing was now his entire defence. There was just one small problem: nobody was asking whether he currently had samples at a laboratory. The question was why this particular COA verified to another supplier.
Seven Minutes Later…
The direct-message receipt then appeared. It showed the faked COA being sent by Hoss inside a Telegram chat. Hoss’s immediate response was:
“Huhhhhhh.”
When he was told it seemed odd that he didn’t remember it, he replied:
“I’m literally sending shit out for testing why would I send fake COAS….”
The recipient then reminded him:
“You sent it to me when I asked for a group buy with 700 kits. Maybe you can remember now, my friend.”
You genuinely couldn’t script it. Hoss had asked where the reports came from, said he didn’t use other people’s COAs and questioned why he would ever send fake ones. The answer to where this particular report had come from was now sitting on the screen with Hoss written across the top. There are screenshots showing a conversation between Hoss and a potential HGH buyer, with Hoss sending him the faked COA during those discussions.
The Defence Changes Direction
Hoss then said he had told the potential buyer that samples had been sent for testing, that the buyer would have to wait and that the results were private because they belonged to a group test. The recipient, however, pushed back;
“I can’t remember right, didn’t you tell me these are the COA for the old batch?”
The other member asked;
“U got receipts?”
All Hoss was able to respond with was to scroll back up to see the HGH results he’s waiting on. But the recipient kept asking;
“So you didn’t send me these COAs and saying it was the old batch?”
New Tests Do Not Authenticate an Old COA
Next, Hoss returned with new reports, sample photographs and more current testing. He said one HGH sample had been labelled 24 IU instead of 36 IU, referred to a purple-top HGH result at 99% purity and said he had sent ten samples for testing and to be accused of fake COAS is absolutely ridiculous. That may show that Hoss was testing products at that point, but it doesn’t authenticate the earlier Lu/GFB copy of task number 95361 or explain why its verification led to Mandy’s report.
A new test result cannot travel backwards through time and repair an older document. Testing ten products today doesn’t explain why a COA sent previously had somebody else’s identifying information removed and replaced.
K-Hole admin then pointed this out, telling Hoss that only recently beginning community-funded testing didn’t give him blanket immunity or mean he could never have circulated a questionable COA.
The Traditional Vendor Exit
This was Hoss’s opportunity to come clean and apologise. Instead, he complained that the group did nothing but “bitch and moan,” told members to “go dick ride lobster some more at 97 Percent purity,” called the group miserable and negative, and demanded that his channel be removed. Two minutes later, the request was granted, and Hoss was booted from the group.
Then when another member asked Hoss if he was still looking for cockbombs mate. He then realised, “Oh he’s gone”
So the moral of the story is that if anyone does decide to forge COAs and then gets caught out, they need to be prepared to take the heat from K-Hole members not like small dick Hoss here. Let this be a lesson and warning to everyone
Another one bites the dust!
Comments