With the influx of new vendors wanting a channel in K-Hole, the K-Hole “vetting team” is becoming increasingly skilled, and some of the vendors appear to be becoming increasingly careless.
Yesterday, I posted an interview with Wiley Ma from Hui Hai Co. As per the usual script, the company claimed to be an overseas raw-material manufacturer with its own independent freeze-drying production workshop. Wiley supplied a collection of heavily redacted COAs, including two Freedom Diagnostics COAs prepared for a client named Forbidden Fruit.
One was a report for a product labelled Adamax 5 mg. I’d already posted it the previous day because LC-MS identified the product as N-Acetyl Semax instead. Wiley also provided production videos, complete with a handwritten “peptides” sign placed in front of the machinery.
Then the actual owner of the Adamax report and the person for whom one of the factory videos had been made both appeared in the chat. Neither supported Hui Hai’s presentation of the material.
The Adamax Test Did Not Belong to a Hui Hai Customer
Not long after my interview was posted, a member spotted the failed Adamax COA among the COAs she’d supplied.
Wiley said it was “really upsetting” to receive a failed third-party result and repeated that all Hui Hai batches came with COAs and HPLC documentation.
When asked whether Hui Hai had sold the failed Adamax, Wiley didn’t give a direct answer. Instead, she deflected by passing a Janoshik COA for retatrutide with Fuzhou Kangyu Technology Co, as the client and a badly redacted What’s App number as the manufacturer.
Later, the actual owner of the Freedom Diagnostics report appeared. He confirmed that he is Forbidden Fruit and said:
“That is my test. And I’ve never ordered with you.”
He explained that he'd never ordered from Hui Hai or Wiley Ma and didn’t know why Hui Hai had possession of his test report. The Adamax had been ordered from a different vendor, whom he identified as Jess from Fuzhou Kangyu Tech. He said Jess had been one of his vendors for nearly a year.
According to screenshots he shared, Jess told him there were two products being sold as Adamax: one containing adamantane and another without it. The version without adamantane was identified as N-Acetyl Semax. Jess said that the factory called both products Adamax and had not been told which version the customer required.
However, the customer also made clear that Jess resolved the matter. Customers who were happy to retain the N-Acetyl Semax did so, while those who weren’t were refunded and he received store credit and said he had no complaints about how Jess handled it.
The issue involving Hui Hai isn’t that Wiley sold this particular product as based on the customer’s account, she didn’t. The issue is why Hui Hai supplied another vendor’s customer COA among the documents used to promote its own operation.
Then Someone Recognised the Factory Video
The COAs weren’t the only borrowed-looking material. One member noticed that Wiley’s production footage appeared similar to videos recently supplied for my interview with XBT. This initially raised the possibility that Hui Hai and XBT were sourcing through the same upstream factory.
Another member then recognised one of the videos and wrote:
“Wtf? This video is mine.”
He produced evidence showing that he’d previously posted it in his own Telegram group. He said the footage had been made specifically for him and asked for it to be removed. Even the handwritten sign had a backstory. He claimed he’d asked the factory to write “PEPEtides,” but the request was misunderstood and the sign simply read “peptides.”
“It’s literally made for me.”
After checking the other footage, he clarified that not every video shared by Wiley belonged to him. He nevertheless said he would contact his factory to ask whether it knew Hui Hai.
XBT also disputed the suggestion that all the videos showed the same facility, with XBT Nico saying the filling machines in the first images weren’t even similar.
Members compared the machinery, factory-floor colours, shelving and even a chair visible beside metal piping. One theory was that several distributors were circulating videos supplied by the same factory.
That’s entirely possible and likely. A manufacturer may provide footage to multiple distributors. But that would make Hui Hai a distributor using a factory’s promotional material, not the owner or operator of the facility.
Hui Hai’s Evidence Appears to Belong to Everyone Except Hui Hai
Hui Hai introduced itself by claiming:
“We run our own factory.”
Yet among the supporting material Wiley provided was a laboratory report belonging to a customer who’d never ordered from Hui Hai and a production video another vendor said had been made specifically for him.
There may be an upstream connection linking Hui Hai, Jess, XBT and the factory that produced the footage. The available messages don’t establish the exact relationship between them or Wiley Ma may simply have “borrowed” them from other groups.
At this point, Hui Hai needs to explain where the customer reports came from, why they were presented during its interview and what verifiable relationship the company has with the factory shown in its videos.
Comments