Over the last few weeks, a lot of attention has been focused on RUO vendors and their claims of third-party testing, independent verification, and laboratory-grade quality control. Today I was sent another interesting one; a website called BlankChem.
What started as a routine look through archived COAs quickly turned into a series of questions that remain unanswered.
The BlankChem Timeline
According to domain registration records, blankchem.is was registered on 23 September 2025. BlankChem is a fully functioning RUO website selling peptides and and other research compounds. The site repeatedly promotes itself using phrases such as:
“Research-Grade Peptides & Compounds”
“Third-Party Verified Compounds”
“HPLC and mass-spec verified on every batch”
“Every batch independently tested”
“COA Verified”
It also operates its own batch lookup and verification system.
The Verification Portal
One of the centrepieces of the website is a COA lookup tool. Visitors can enter a batch number and retrieve a Certificate of Analysis. The site states
“Every BlankChem batch is independent and/or third-party tested,” and
“Every batch we ship has an independently verified Certificate of Analysis.”
At first glance, that sounds reassuring, but once the reports are opened, things become less clear.
BlankChem Quality Control Division
The COAs aren’t branded as reports from a named independent laboratory. Instead they’re branded, BlankChem Certificate of Analysis and state, Tested by BlankChem Quality Control Division.
The reports contain, purity values, net content values, identity confirmation etc…but no chromotograms are seen anywhere. They can also be verified through BlankChem’s own website.
That raises an obvious question, Who exactly is BlankChem Quality Control Division?
Is it, an internal QC department? a separate laboratory? a contract testing facility? or simply a reporting system? The documents themselves don’t provide a laboratory address, laboratory name, analyst name, or accreditation information.
The Placeholder COA
Then there is the document that raises the biggest red flag. A publicly accessible BlankChem COA template existed online.
https://store.blankchem.is/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Blankchem.COA_.Example.test_.pdf
The report claims Retatrutide 5mg, Quantity 5.02mg and Purity 99.2%. Yet the same document also contains obvious placeholders, Formula: CxxHxNxOx, Mol Wt: XXXX g/mol, Insert Chromatogram Here and a blank verifier signature line.
The existence of a template itself isn’t unusual, most companies have templates. What is unusual is finding one publicly accessible while still containing specific purity and quantity claims.
The Contradiction
The website repeatedly referenced, third-party verification, independent testing, HPLC verification and LC-MS verification, yet the reports visible on the site appear to originate from BlankChem’s own Quality Control Division. So the obvious question becomes, what exactly is independent or is this simply marketing language?
It also hasn’t escaped my notice that the name BlankChem bears a striking resemblance to Blank Peptides, despite BlankChem appearing in the public record several months earlier. Given the similarities it does raise an obvious question.
Is there any relationship between BlankChem and Blank Peptides?
Perhaps Blank Peptides would like to clarify whether any such link exists. If there’s no connection, that should be easy to explain but if there is, then it forms part of the wider story.
Comments