I was recently contacted by a company that wanted to warn the peptide community about a supplier operating through the WhatsApp account “TC Weight Loss”.
The representative claimed to be associated with Aotai Peptides. During the company’s subsequent investigation, they also encountered the names Aotai Biotechnology Co., Aotaitai Biotechnology Co., and what they believe may be a connection to Synpept. The latter connection remains under investigation.
According to the company, they purchased 194 kits after being assured the products met high manufacturing standards and that any failed testing would be covered under the supplier’s guarantee.
Instead, they say they received products that failed independent laboratory analysis.
The laboratory findings
The company submitted 22 samples to Freedom Diagnostics for analysis and every sample tested failed at a cost of $10,800.
For most products, Freedom Diagnostics reported that the expected peptide could not be identified. Instead of finding the labelled peptide at its expected retention time and molecular mass, the laboratory repeatedly observed a signal consistent with a small, non-peptide compound, often accompanied by an ion at m/z 137. In several other samples, no corresponding peptide mass was detected at all.
The products examined included multiple GLP analogues, TB-500, BPC-157, MOTS-c, CJC-1295, SS-31, Ipamorelin, KPV, glutathione and others. Freedom Diagnostics concluded that the observed signals did not match the labelled peptide analytes.
The laboratory also reported substantial fill discrepancies in several products.
GHK-Cu 50 mg contained approximately 14.40 mg.
GHK-Cu 100 mg contained approximately 15.45 mg.
KLOW-80 80 mg contained approximately 15.87 mg.
The company also states that many of the submitted products tested positive for endotoxins and microbial DNA, raising additional concerns beyond identity alone.
The supplier’s response
After receiving the results, the customer notified the supplier. The supplier responded by stating that its production standards were extremely high, claimed there had been no previous customer test failures and said it would contact its laboratory to investigate. The supplier also stated that if the problem proved to be caused by its laboratory or logistics, it would take responsibility. However, according to the customer, no reimbursement was ever made.
Missing documentation
The dispute wasn’t limited to the laboratory findings. The customer says they requested a master invoice on 14 separate occasions, along with business documentation identifying the supplier. Despite repeated requests over several weeks, they say the documentation was never provided.
When questioned about the delays, the supplier stated that management was conducting a thorough investigation and asked for additional patience. The customer argues that producing a master invoice or business licence should have taken only minutes if the business was operating transparently.
A caution for buyers
The company also alleges that the supplier accepted payment through credit cards and PayPal giving customers a false sense of security, while promoting testing guarantees and reimbursement promises that were ultimately not honoured.
The affected kits with the by now very familiar labels are shown below
Below are just a few of the COAs
Comments