‘I wouldn’t dare take these drugs’: how China supplies untested peptides to the west (Financial Times)

Meanwhile… coverage is expanding to Europe on the peptide boom, here is a new story from the Financial Times in the UK (FT.com). Its great to finally see something written where the organization (the FT in this case) actually has reporters on the ground in China going around and looking to talk with the companies, find their facilities, and talk with the resellers in China. Related threads: NYT: Chinese Peptides are Latest Biohacking Trend in Tech Industry

Just to be clear… if you are buying from China you probably have no idea who the actual manufacturer is, what the purity or contaminants might be, and zero guarantees or recourse if something goes wrong… It’s not much different than buying drugs on a street corner. And this isn’t just a problem with Peptides… it’s with every chemical or drug you might want to buy via a middleman in China. They all “say” they are the manufacturer…

‘I wouldn’t dare take these drugs’: how China supplies untested peptides to the west

In nondescript office blocks across China, salespeople are pitching injectable drugs to overseas customers, fuelling a fast-growing black market in peptides — compounds that online influencers claim can improve everything from sleep and memory to skin elasticity.

The surge has been driven partly by the runaway success of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs such as semaglutide and tirzepatide, which belong to a broader class of peptide-based therapies.

Peptides are short chains of amino acids that act as signalling molecules in the body, influencing hormonal and metabolic processes. Advocates claim they could one day offer better health with fewer side effects than conventional pharmaceuticals.

But many of the compounds circulating online are either banned for human use by regulators — including in the US — or remain prohibitively expensive through legitimate medical channels. That has pushed demand towards online sellers, many of them based in China.

Sensing an opportunity, hundreds of Chinese traders have established operations exporting low-cost peptides to western buyers, according to interviews with multiple sellers and an FT review of online marketplaces. What has emerged is a highly secretive, unregulated shadow economy.

“I used to sell paper, but business was bad because of the weak economy,” said one seller, who asked to remain anonymous because selling unprescribed peptides for human use is illegal in both China and the US. “I heard from friends that there are people in Shenzhen selling peptides overseas who made tons of money.”

Industry insiders estimate there are about 1,000 Chinese sellers targeting overseas customers, a figure that has climbed sharply in recent months. Rising competition has pushed prices down. Sellers quoted prices such as $65 for 10 vials of BPC-157 at 10mg, or $70 for the same quantity of semaglutide — which compares to $110 and $1,000 for the same quantities on US websites.

Despite the proliferation of sellers, industry insiders said the underlying supply chain was far more concentrated. Most peptides are produced by about a dozen factories clustered in Shenzhen and Changsha, the capital of Hunan province. These facilities originally manufactured active pharmaceutical ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry before pivoting towards the grey market. Multiple layers of intermediaries now sit between factories and consumers.

“We never touch the product. We don’t know who makes it,” said one seller. That opacity is deliberate, even as traders circulate videos purporting to show vials on production lines, creating the impression that buyers are dealing directly with manufacturers.

Finding sellers online is easy. They advertise openly on cross-border ecommerce platforms such as Global Sources, as well as on Facebook, Telegram and WhatsApp. Tracking their physical presence is far harder. The FT visited the registered addresses of eight suppliers and found that most used false locations, with no functioning phone numbers or email contacts.

Chinese authorities have been cracking down on domestic sales of unregulated GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, arresting scores of sellers. A review of court records shows at least 40 cases of people being charged with black-market peptide sales. Penalties can include fines of up to 10 times the revenue earned. As a result, peptides popular in the US are all but unavailable to Chinese consumers.

Inside one office in China visited by the FT, a group of young women chatted with customers in Brazil, the US and Canada. They used ChatGPT to draft sales copy for WhatsApp messages and worked with western influencers who promote the products on TikTok and Facebook in exchange for commissions.

Medical experts warn of the dangers of sourcing drugs from unregulated suppliers. While sellers often provide lab reports claiming near-100 per cent purity, such tests do not typically screen for contaminants such as heavy metals or verify handling and storage conditions.

“If you’re buying peptides online without a prescription, you don’t know whether there are issues with purity, contamination or transport,” said Dr Mohammad Enayat, who runs a longevity clinic in London and prescribes peptides sourced through regulated channels.

Back in China, one seller said he had no intention of trying the products himself. “I’m overweight, but I wouldn’t dare take these drugs,” he said, laughing. “It’s westerners who are obsessed with them. I just sell them.”

Read the full story: ‘I wouldn’t dare take these drugs’: how China supplies untested peptides to the west (FT)

3 Likes

The risk of injecting unknown peptides is too high dont do it

Those certificates are photozhopped and fake its china dude…even if the peptides came from the biggest public hospital in china (they have been known to provide fake vaccines to kids, but at least they have a conscience and gave them saline instead of the melamine milk their large state owned companies and farmers fed their kids for decades) i still wouldnt trust it

Heck i barely trust macdonalds in china (google husi shanghai macdonalds case) but if u got to eat u do ur best

1 Like

Nearly half of all generic drugs available by prescription in the U.S. are made in India with very little oversight. No one is sending their BP pills to Janoshik for testing. Add in the fraud and slop pervading our medical journals and the inescapable conclusion is that we’re all screwed.

2 Likes

if the manufacturing is done by big pharma, they will audit the supply chain and check very strictly, including posting their staff to india or china to oversee it closely.

they wont take risks with their reputation.

it is similar to all those fmcg and food companies, they know how to secure their supply chains.

but if ur buying not from a big company, then ur taking a real big risk, especially if ur injecting something into u.

There are multiple harm reduction strategies that can reduce (although never eliminate) risk, but it takes time to do the research and put in the effort to learn (and money to order one’s own 3rd-party testing or join a testing group). And then it’s a matter of weighing potential benefits (if any) vs potential harms (if any) based on whatever published research (if any) is available.

3 Likes

Definitely true, but it seems that part of the issue is (since if you’re buying from China its probably 95% or higher that you’re dealing with some random middleman, in layers of middlemen), even if you test and validate one shipment is good, there is no guarantee that the next shipment is even coming from that same ultimate manufacturer.

You have absolutely no idea what the supply chain looks like, so every purchase would be like starting fresh… it truly is a “quality control” nightmare. If you’ve ever been involved in the development and production of technical or bio/pharma products, this is absolutely the type of worst case scenario you would want to work hard to avoid.

We seem to be getting a bit of a backlash here in San Francisco now on this “Chinese peptide” thing…

3 Likes

People buying direct from China buy kits from the same batch and test one or two vials. If you’re purchasing GLP1 agonists you can easily get a years supply for a cheap price.

3 Likes

This is just political nonsense. I highly doubt this person cares about peptides or health and is just trying to score some internet points.

1 Like

Yes, you’re finally getting it! Test every order you place.

Correct! Test every order, every time. This is a gray/black market, which means that supply chain obfuscation is a feature/necessity, not a bug.

Risk mitigation strategies are not rocket science (and some have been mentioned several times on this forum) , risk mitigation communities are not hard to find (and some have been mentioned on this forum).

1 Like

Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk is recalling Wegovy products due to hairs in the vials.

1 Like

Yet another false flag planted by the Drug co’s!!! They are affraid of “hope” by the sick of self care, self cure. Where Allopathica / Drugs only offers symptom management.

FDA approved drug deaths / yr: Google Search

Peptide deaths per year = 0. Least that have reached my ears. They are small proteins… Yet when bioregulators are included with peptide molecules a very high amount of power to drive health is potential.

Including India, what high percent of the worlds drugs are mfgered in China + India. This story is a plant from the scared Drug cos. Sickning!

FWIW I hear 90% of so called peptides are mfgered in China, regardless of the label on the vile. The closer you buy to the actual Chinese mfgerer the vendors pay for COAs to be listed on the same page as the peptide. When the peptide arrives you can compare the serial number/batch to the COA on the website. See nexaph.com and coas. I buy from nexaph and a place even closer to the Chinese mfgers for even deeper discounts. Viles arrive in boxes of 10 with no labels on the vile, just on the box to shave cost. When a vile of some peptide costs just $15 per one vile. Human handling would jump the costs quickly, so lots of 10 and no labels is now common.

Just imagine what Phizers actual cost of Monjaro (??) they charge $1500/mo for; pennies. They are afraid of being outed and bypassed.

Folks actually die from FDA approved and safety inspected Drugs… Peptids are NOT the problem.

Best to all, curt

curt

2 Likes

Peptides are so buzzy that the WSJ just did an interview with Michael Kors that has NOTHING to do with peptides, but alas, it’s in the title

I can’t gift an Apple News article, but I doubt it would interest most of you.

Here is the only reference to peptides:

“Are there any wellness trends you’ve recently tried?

Well, I’m peptide-free. No peptides for me. But I am taking care of my skin as I’ve gotten older. When I was younger, I cooked in the sun and never wore SPF. Now, my skin care routine is pretty simple. I use Kiehl’s face gel. For body moisturizer, I use a Vaseline intensive body spray. And I put on a little Boy Brow from Glossier. ”

1 Like

Peptides are one of the safest types of “drugs” as the ones that are not “approved” have very short half-lives, peptides are naturally more “targeted” and have fewer spillover effects compared to small and large molecule drugs that often have many side effects, some of which can cripple people for life like my daughter who is “floxed” by Cipro.

She has improved significantly over the past 2 years with the use of various peptides.

Most peptides are “inspired” by or are bioidentical to the peptides our body makes. Our body makes and uses 7,000 peptides for internal communication. Peptides are life.

Of the various drug types, peptide based drugs are considered “safer” with fewer off target reactions.

indicate how many peptides our body makes and list (1).pdf (599.3 KB)

2 Likes

I’m really interested in this area, as I’m interested in understanding in detail the risk/reward profile of peptides; both the ones through the formal FDA-approved process and associated channels, as well as the grey market of unapproved peptides.

So, I did a little analysis with Gemini:

It seems that we have a good understanding of the risks associated with GLP1s, etc. that are peptides that go through the formal FDA approval process.

Any grey-market provided peptides seem to have much more risk… in a broad array of areas (that are entirely unrelated to the actual peptide functionality, and have much more do do with the opaque and unregulated manufacturing processes in China and elsewhere where these peptides are manufactured).


The following analysis dissects the safety and risk profile of exogenous peptides, categorized into Intrinsic Pharmacological Risks (biochemical effects of the specific peptide) and Extrinsic Supply Chain Risks (quality control issues inherent to “grey market” procurement).

Executive Summary: The Risk Dichotomy

The safety profile of any exogenous peptide is a function of two distinct variables:

  1. The Molecule: The biological action, off-target effects, and half-life of the amino acid sequence itself.
  2. The Vector: The synthesis quality, sterility, salt form, and excipients used to deliver that molecule.

For FDA-approved peptides (e.g., Semaglutide), the risk is almost exclusively molecular. For research chemicals (e.g., BPC-157, TB-500 procured online), the risk is a compound probability of molecular unknowns plus manufacturing defects.

Peptide Safety_ Molecule vs. Market.pdf (106.9 KB)

1 Like

In short, these would seem to be the key risks that people face when dealing with the grey market peptides. Does anyone know if there are groups like Finnrick actually testing ALL of these metrics on a regular basis? If not, (as someone who is here for the “longevity”) - it seems very high risk, and it grows the more you use these peptides.

The “Purity” vs. “Content” Trap

Biohackers often confuse HPLC Purity with Net Peptide Content, leading to dosing errors.

Metric Definition Risk
HPLC Purity % of the sample that is the target peptide sequence vs. truncated/deletion sequences. Immunogenicity: Impurities (e.g., “N-1” deletion sequences) can trigger antibodies that neutralize the peptide or cross-react with endogenous hormones.
Net Peptide Content % of the total powder weight that is actual peptide vs. salts (counter-ions) and residual water. Underdosing: A vial labeled “5mg” with 99% HPLC purity but only 70% Net Peptide Content effectively contains only ~3.5mg of active drug.

2. Counter-Ion Toxicity (TFA Salts)

  • The Issue: Peptides are synthesized using Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA). In pharma-grade production, TFA is exchanged for Acetate or Hydrochloride salts.
  • Grey Market Reality: To cut costs, many Chinese synthesis labs skip the ion-exchange step.
  • Risk: Injecting TFA salts can cause significant injection site inflammation, cellular toxicity, and long-term tissue damage. High-purity grey market peptides can still be high in TFA.

3. Sterility and Endotoxins

  • Endotoxins (Lipopolysaccharides): Remnants of the bacterial cell walls used in recombinant synthesis.
  • Risk: Pyrogenic reaction (fever, flu-like symptoms, systemic inflammation) within hours of injection.
  • Sterility: Grey market vials are often lyophilized in non-sterile environments. Introduction of bacteriostatic water does not kill spores or pre-existing bacterial colonies; it only inhibits new growth.

4. Dimerization and Aggregation

  • Mechanism: Peptides in solution (especially reconstituted ones shipped warm) can form dimers (clumps).
1 Like

Here is an example of the testing result for my SS-31.
This is a test of the batch I purchased.
Of course each one in the batch could be different, but the place I purchased mine gets sample vials sent in from customers for round 2 testing. That would naturally keep the supplier on their toes knowing this is going to be done.

It shows purity (I have not asked what all that entails)
It shows how much of the active ingredient is in the vial vs stated amount.

1 Like

Yes - a bare minimum of information.

From what I can find, It seems that nobody tests these key variables (that are typically tested/monitored/controlled in a normal pharmaceutical company manufacturer’s process:

  1. Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA)
  2. Endotoxins (Lipopolysaccharides)
  3. Dimerization and Aggregation

High levels of residual TFA can be inflammatory or toxic over long-term use.

@Steve_Combi do you test for these on all your batches? Do any of the vendors you are aware of?

1 Like

Checking with Gemini Pro, My Prompt:

Do any third party labs like Finnrick or Jannoshik test peptides for: Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA)
, Endotoxins (Lipopolysaccharides), Dimerization and Aggregation

Gemini Pro response:

The short answer is no, not in the standard “$300 Purity Test” that most biohackers and vendors purchase.

While labs like Janoshik possess the capability to test for these variables, they are premium add-ons that are rarely purchased by grey-market vendors because they increase the testing cost by 200–300%.

Here is the breakdown of what these entities actually test for versus what is “optional”:

1. The “Finnrick” Clarification

Finnrick Analytics is not a wet lab; they are a data aggregator and watchdog (essentially a “Yelp for Peptides” or a chain-of-custody verifier). They do not perform the chemical analysis themselves; they facilitate/fund testing through third-party labs (primarily Janoshik) to verify vendor claims. When you see a “Finnrick” report, it is likely a Janoshik report that they have commissioned and verified.

2. Janoshik (The Industry Standard)

Janoshik is the primary lab used by the grey market. Their capabilities are extensive, but their standard report is limited.

Safety Metric Standard Test? Available as Add-On? Notes
TFA (Trifluoroacetic Acid) NO YES You must specifically request “Salt Content Analysis” or “Residual Solvent Testing.” Most vendors skip this because it reveals cheap synthesis methods.
Endotoxins (LPS) NO YES This is a separate biological assay (LAL test). It costs extra and requires a separate sample aliquot.
Aggregation (Dimerization) NO YES (SE-HPLC) Standard purity tests use RP-HPLC (Reverse Phase), which separates based on hydrophobicity. To see dimers/aggregates (clumps), you need SE-HPLC (Size Exclusion). Janoshik performs this for HGH, but rarely for small peptides like BPC-157 unless specifically paid to do so.

3. MZ Biolabs (The US Alternative)

MZ Biolabs is a common US-based alternative, often preferred for domestic logistics.

Safety Metric Standard Test? Available as Add-On? Notes
TFA (Trifluoroacetic Acid) NO Unlikely Their standard COA is explicitly for “Identity and Purity.” They do not typically offer salt form analysis to retail clients.
Endotoxins (LPS) NO YES (New) As of late 2024/early 2025, MZ Biolabs began offering Bacterial Endotoxin testing (USP <85>) as a separate service.
Aggregation (Dimerization) NO NO They primarily use LC-MS and UV-Vis. Detecting dimers in small peptides is not part of their standard menu.

The “Blind Spot” Analysis

If a vendor shows you a standard Janoshik/MZ Biolabs COA showing “99.8% Purity,” you are only seeing that the sequence of amino acids is correct. You remain blind to:

  • Salt Form: Whether you are injecting toxic TFA salts or safe Acetate salts.
  • Pyrogens: Whether the vial is covered in bacterial endotoxins (which cause “flu-like symptoms” post-injection).
  • Stability: Whether the peptide has clumped into immunogenic dimers (common in fragile peptides like HGH or frag 176-191).

Next Step

Would you like me to construct a “Gold Standard” testing protocol (a checklist of specific tests to request) that you could send to a lab or vendor to ensure a sample is actually safe for human research, beyond just “purity”?

1 Like

So here is what seems like a good testing protocol for batches of peptides - what do the scientific and medical people think? @DrFraser @Dr.Bart and others… is this reasonable or excessive an expectation? If I were buying peptides from a vendor, this is probably what I would expect and ask for (but of course, there is always the trust issue; the vendors can easily test on one batch and then send you from another, lower quality batch). While these costs would be huge on the customer side purchase, they are small for a vendor to test an incoming batch from a Chinese or Indian vendor…


This “Gold Standard” protocol is designed to eliminate the blind spots common in standard “purity only” testing. It requires a significant financial investment (often $800–$1,200 per batch) compared to the standard $300 test, but it is the only way to verify safety for human research.

You can copy and paste the “Vendor/Lab Request” section below directly into an email.

The “Gold Standard” Testing Protocol Checklist

1. Identification & Purity (The Baseline)

  • Test Method: RP-HPLC (Reverse Phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography) + MS (Mass Spectrometry).
  • What it tells you: Is the sequence correct? How many “wrong” peptide fragments are present?
  • Gold Standard: >99.0% Purity.
  • Critical Note: This does not detect salts, water, or heavy metals.

2. Counter-Ion / Residual Solvent Analysis (The “Burn” Factor)

  • Test Method: Ion Chromatography (IC) or Fluorine NMR.
  • What it tells you: Is this a toxic Trifluoroacetate (TFA) salt or a safe Acetate salt?
  • Gold Standard:
    • TFA Content: <1% (Ideal) or <0.5% (Pharma Grade).
    • Acetate Content: Should be the primary salt (typically 10–15% by weight).
  • Red Flag: >5% TFA. (Grey market peptides often test at 30–40% TFA, which causes injection site inflammation).

3. Bacterial Endotoxins (The “Flu” Factor)

  • Test Method: LAL Assay (Limulus Amebocyte Lysate) or USP <85>.
  • What it tells you: Are there dead bacterial cell walls in the vial?
  • Gold Standard: <5 EU/mg (Endotoxin Units per milligram).
  • Safety Limit: The FDA limit for IV drugs is 5 EU/kg of body weight/hour.
    • Example: For a 100kg human, the limit is 500 EU. A vial with 50 EU/mg is technically “safe” if you only inject 1mg, but it indicates dirty manufacturing.

4. Water Content (The “Dose” Factor)

  • Test Method: Karl Fischer Titration.
  • What it tells you: How much of the powder weight is just water?
  • Gold Standard: <5–7% water.
  • Why it matters: Used to calculate Net Peptide Content. If you have 10% water and 15% salt, your “10mg” vial actually contains only 7.5mg of peptide.

5. Aggregation Analysis (The “Immune” Factor)

  • Test Method: SE-HPLC (Size Exclusion Chromatography).
  • When to request: Mandatory for large or fragile proteins (HGH, hCG, EPO, Follistatin). Optional for small stable peptides (BPC-157, GHK-Cu).
  • Gold Standard: >98% Monomer (single molecule), <2% Dimers/Aggregates.
  • Red Flag: High dimer content (>5%) increases the risk of your body developing antibodies against the hormone.

6. Heavy Metals (The “Long-Term” Factor)

  • Test Method: ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry) or USP <232>.
  • What it tells you: Is there Lead, Arsenic, Cadmium, or Mercury from the catalysts?
  • Gold Standard: “Compliant with USP <232> limits.”

Copy/Paste: The Request Email

Subject: Request for Comprehensive “Pharma-Grade” Analysis Quote

To: [Lab Contact Name]

Body:

I am looking to commission a full safety and characterization panel for a research peptide sample (Sample Name: [Insert Name]). The standard purity/identity test is insufficient for my needs.

Please provide a quote for the following comprehensive panel (The “Gold Standard”):

  1. Identity & Purity: RP-HPLC (UV 214nm) + MS confirmation.
  2. Residual Solvents & Counter-Ions: Specifically testing for Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) vs. Acetate content.
  3. Endotoxin Testing: Quantitative LAL Assay (USP <85>) reporting in EU/mg.
  4. Net Peptide Content: Via Nitrogen Analysis or Amino Acid Analysis (AAA).
  5. Heavy Metals: Full panel (Pb, As, Cd, Hg) via ICP-MS.
  6. [Optional for HGH/EPO] Aggregation: SE-HPLC for dimer detection.

My requirement is a single Certificate of Analysis (CoA) that integrates all these metrics. Please confirm if you perform these assays in-house or if they are subcontracted.

Thank you,

[Your Name]


Summary of Expected Costs (Estimates)

  • Standard Test (Purity only): ~$300–350
  • Add-On: TFA/Solvents: +$150–250
  • Add-On: Endotoxins: +$100–200
  • Add-On: Heavy Metals: +$150–200
  • Total “Gold Standard” Cost: ~$800–$1,000 per sample
1 Like