OFFICIAL UPDATE: Testing Transparency, Independent Verification and Clarification of Recent Allegations

We are publishing this update in response to questions and allegations that have circulated online regarding Particle Peptides, our analytical testing program, and Liquilabs.

Our previous statement was published before all relevant information was available to us. Since then, additional evidence has emerged, further laboratory testing has been completed, and Liquilabs has conducted an investigation into analytical documentation published by another peptide vendor.

We therefore believe it is appropriate to provide a comprehensive update.

Our intention is not to ask customers to simply trust Particle Peptides or any individual laboratory. The purpose of our testing program and COA Vault is precisely the opposite: to make analytical results available for scrutiny and enable independent verification.

1. Particle Does Not Own or Control Liquilabs

Liquilabs s.r.o. is a separate legal entity and independent analytical service provider operating in the Czech Republic.

There is no direct or indirect ownership, management, or control relationship between Particle Peptides and Liquilabs.

Neither Particle nor its shareholders, ultimate beneficial owners, directors, or members of management hold any ownership interest in Liquilabs, participate in its management, or exercise any form of control or decisive influence over its operations.

Questions have been raised because the founder of Liquilabs is a Slovak citizen, Liquilabs is a Czech company, and Particle is a Slovak company.

Nationality alone, however, does not establish an ownership or corporate relationship between two independent companies.

Particle works with numerous independent business partners based in the Czech Republic. As a neighboring country with strong historical, cultural, and commercial ties to Slovakia, the Czech Republic is a natural business partner for many Slovak companies.

Particle's relationship with Liquilabs is a standard commercial relationship, comparable to its relationships with other independent suppliers and service providers.

Liquilabs operates independently and autonomously. Particle has no ownership interest in Liquilabs, does not manage or control its operations, and has no authority over its corporate decision-making.

Likewise, Liquilabs has no ownership interest in Particle and exercises no management or control over our company.

Accordingly, any suggestion that Liquilabs is owned, controlled, or operated by Particle is incorrect.

Liquilabs also does not work exclusively for Particle. It provides analytical services to multiple unrelated companies within the peptide industry, including other peptide vendors operating in the same market. Some of these companies publicly publish Liquilabs Certificates of Analysis for their products.

Particle is therefore a customer of Liquilabs, not its owner, operator, or “in-house” laboratory.

2. Why Particle Transitioned Routine Testing from Eurofins and Apigenex to Liquilabs

It has been claimed that Particle moved from established laboratories such as Eurofins and Apigenex to Liquilabs in order to reduce testing standards.

This was not the reason for the change.

Historically, we worked with multiple independent laboratories, including Eurofins and Apigenex, to analyze different quality parameters.

Our objective was subsequently to establish a more comprehensive routine testing program covering a significantly larger proportion of our product range and production batches.

We wanted one primary laboratory capable of providing the complete analytical panel required by Particle, including:

• Peptide purity

• Peptide identity

• Quantitative peptide content (assay)

• Bacterial endotoxins

• Microbiological testing (bioburden)

• Elemental impurities and heavy-metal screening

Liquilabs was able to provide this comprehensive testing panel at a cost that made systematic analysis across a large number of products and batches commercially feasible.

There was also an important practical reason for this transition.

The Eurofins laboratory in Slovakia that had previously performed our endotoxin and bioburden testing was closed. As a result, our existing testing arrangement was no longer available.

The transition to Liquilabs was intended to expand the scope and frequency of routine testing, not to reduce our quality standards.

We have not abandoned other independent laboratories. As explained below, we continue to use external laboratories for secondary verification and are further expanding this program.

3. Matching HPLC Serial Numbers and Cellgenic Documentation

One of the most serious allegations concerned identical Shimadzu instrument serial numbers appearing in analytical documentation issued by Liquilabs and documentation published by the US vendor Cellgenic.

We acknowledge that our original public statement did not adequately explain this issue.

A subsequent investigation by Liquilabs has provided substantially more specific evidence.

Findings of the Liquilabs Investigation

Liquilabs investigated a Cellgenic Certificate of Analysis presented as an analysis of a 50 mg MOTS-C sample, identified as MC152501, with a stated assay of 50.12 mg.

However, the chromatographic output attached to that Cellgenic document contains the following information:

• Data file: LYO-0141-P01

• Date acquired: 7 October 2025

• Measured MOTS-C content: Approximately 10.158 mg

These underlying chromatographic data do not correspond to the stated 50 mg sample or the reported 50.12 mg assay in the Cellgenic certificate.

They do, however, correspond to an original Liquilabs analysis performed for Particle Peptides.

The original Liquilabs report, LYO-0141, relates to Particle's MOTS-C 10 mg, batch 2025284, and reports a measured assay of 10.16 mg.

Supporting document: Attachment 2 – Original Liquilabs COA LYO-0141

Liquilabs' subsequent investigation specifically identified the Cellgenic chromatographic file LYO-0141-P01, its acquisition date of 7 October 2025, and the measured result of approximately 10.158 mg. These findings were compared with the original analytical documentation issued for Particle.

Supporting document: Attachment 1 – Liquilabs Investigation of Cellgenic Analytical Documentation

Why These Findings Matter

The significance of this finding extends beyond matching laboratory instrument serial numbers.

The underlying analytical data appearing in a document presented as Cellgenic's 50 mg MOTS-C analysis correspond to data associated with Liquilabs' analysis of Particle's 10 mg MOTS-C sample.

Following its investigation, Liquilabs concluded that the Cellgenic analytical documentation contained information corresponding to analytical data originally generated by Liquilabs for Particle.

This included information relating to analytical methods, instrument identification, and chromatographic records.

Importantly, Liquilabs confirmed that it had never performed the analyses in question for Cellgenic.

In light of these findings, Liquilabs concluded that Particle had neither falsified, manipulated, copied, nor misused any analytical documentation originating from Liquilabs and was not responsible for the appearance of such information in the Cellgenic documentation.

Supporting document: Attachment 1 – Liquilabs Investigation of Cellgenic Analytical Documentation

Particle takes these findings seriously and has already taken legal steps to address the identified issues and protect its legal rights and interests.

4. GLP-3 Batch 2026302 and the 8.45 mg Result

Another allegation concerns a GLP-3 10 mg product for which an analytical result showed only 8.45 mg of peptide.

We want to address this directly because our previous explanation, which referred generally to manufacturing tolerances, did not adequately describe what happened with this specific batch.

The batch concerned was GLP-3 10 mg, batch 2026302.

Initial Liquilabs Analysis – 2 March 2026

The first Liquilabs analysis, published on 2 March 2026, reported:

• Peptide content: 8.45 mg

• Purity: >99.8%

• Bacterial endotoxin: <0.001 EU/mg

• Total aerobic microbial count: Not detected

• Total yeast and mold count: Not detected

Supporting document: Attachment 3 – Initial Liquilabs Analysis, GLP-3 Batch 2026302

We did not conceal this result. It was published.

More importantly, because the measured peptide content was unexpectedly low, we did not simply treat the 8.45 mg result as the final answer.

Instead, the batch was investigated further, and additional samples were submitted for analysis.

Independent Apigenex Analysis – 14 April 2026

A sample from the same batch, 2026302, was submitted to Apigenex for independent analysis using its own laboratory equipment and analytical methodology.

Apigenex reported:

• Peptide content: 9.95 mg / 10 mg (99.5% of the labeled amount)

• Purity: 98.82%

• Identity: Consistent with theoretical mass spectrometry values

• Endotoxin test: Negative

The analysis was completed on 14 April 2026.

Supporting document: Attachment 4 – Independent Apigenex Analysis, GLP-3 Batch 2026302

Subsequent Liquilabs Analysis – 22 May 2026

The same batch was subsequently analyzed again by Liquilabs.

The later analysis reported:

• Peptide content: 9.57 mg

• Purity: >99.8%

• Bacterial endotoxin: <0.001 EU/mg

• Total aerobic microbial count (TAMC): 0 CFU/g

• Total yeast and mold count (TYMC): 0 CFU/g

Supporting document: Attachment 5 – Subsequent Liquilabs Analysis, GLP-3 Batch 2026302

The Complete Analytical History

The analytical history of this batch should not be reduced to the statement:

“A 10 mg product contained 8.45 mg, and Particle considered that acceptable.”

The complete documented analytical history is:

Since the subsequent analytical results were significantly closer to the declared 10 mg content, a legitimate question arises as to whether the original 8.45 mg result accurately reflected the product's content.

At the same time, these later results do not provide sufficient grounds to retrospectively conclude that the original 8.45 mg measurement was invalid or erroneous.

Analytical testing is inherently subject to sample variability, methodological differences, and measurement uncertainty.

Different samples from the same batch may yield different quantitative results, particularly when tested by different laboratories using different analytical methods and instruments.

The significance of the original 8.45 mg result therefore lies not in whether it can retrospectively be proven correct or incorrect, but in the fact that it triggered further investigation.

Rather than ignoring or dismissing an unexpected result, Particle voluntarily initiated additional independent testing to verify and better understand the outcome.

We believe this reflects a responsible, science-based, and transparent approach to quality assurance.

Purity and Peptide Content Are Not the Same

It is also important to distinguish between peptide purity and quantitative peptide content.

These are separate analytical parameters that measure different characteristics of a product.

A sample may exhibit a high purity profile while still containing a quantity of peptide that differs from the nominally declared amount.

For this reason, Particle evaluates and discloses both purity and quantitative peptide content, providing customers with a more comprehensive and transparent assessment of product quality.

5. Endotoxin and Microbiological Testing

We take any concerns regarding product quality, purity, or potential contamination seriously.

Reports or observations concerning a product cannot, by themselves, establish the presence of bacterial endotoxins or other contamination.

Such conclusions require appropriate analytical testing of the relevant research sample.

It is also important to place endotoxin limits into their proper analytical context.

Endotoxin limits are not based on a single universal EU/mg value. Applicable limits depend on the relevant product and testing framework and may take into account factors such as the maximum product dose.

As a result, limits such as 5 EU/mg may be applicable under certain testing specifications, depending on the product and calculation used.

Particle Peptides applies a substantially more conservative internal specification of ≤0.5 EU/mg for our research products.

Testing Results for GLP-3 Batch 2026302

The initial Liquilabs analysis reported:

• Bacterial endotoxin: <0.001 EU/mg

• Total aerobic microbial count: Not detected

• Total yeast and mold count: Not detected

Supporting document: Attachment 3 – Initial Liquilabs Analysis

The subsequent Liquilabs analysis again reported:

• Bacterial endotoxin: <0.001 EU/mg

• TAMC: 0 CFU/g

• TYMC: 0 CFU/g

Supporting document: Attachment 5 – Subsequent Liquilabs Analysis

The independent Apigenex analysis also reported a negative bacterial endotoxin test.

The Apigenex method used for this analysis had a stated sensitivity level of 5 EU/mg.

This result should not be interpreted as numerically equivalent to the more sensitive Liquilabs measurement of <0.001 EU/mg.

Rather, it represents an independent result obtained using a different analytical method and sensitivity level.

Supporting document: Attachment 4 – Independent Apigenex Analysis

Our routine quality-control program includes both bacterial endotoxin and microbiological testing, and our internal endotoxin specification remains ≤0.5 EU/mg.

Both Liquilabs analyses reported bacterial endotoxin levels below 0.001 EU/mg.

The independent Apigenex analysis likewise reported a negative endotoxin result. Although the Apigenex method had a higher detection limit of 5 EU/mg and cannot be considered numerically equivalent to the Liquilabs findings, it independently confirmed the absence of detectable endotoxin contamination under the analytical conditions applied.

6. Expanding Independent Cross-Laboratory Verification

We recognize that transparency should not depend on customers blindly trusting Particle Peptides or any single laboratory.

It should be grounded in evidence, independent verification, and objectively verifiable analytical data.

That is the standard Particle seeks to uphold.

We are therefore expanding our independent secondary verification program.

In addition to our primary routine testing, randomly selected batches will be submitted to Janoshik Analytical for independent secondary analysis.

We have already initiated this process, and selected batches have been submitted for independent testing.

Additional samples have also been submitted to Finnrick for further independent verification.

The purpose of cross-laboratory testing is not to find a laboratory that produces the result we prefer.

The purpose is to compare independently generated analytical results and investigate meaningful discrepancies when they occur.

Where the same batch has been tested by more than one laboratory, we intend to make those results available rather than selectively publishing only the most favorable findings.

7. Customers Can Independently Verify Our Products

We also want customers to have the opportunity to challenge and independently verify our analytical results.

If a customer purchases a batch from Particle and wishes to submit it to another reputable independent laboratory for verification, we are willing to consider reimbursement of reasonable testing costs.

Such reimbursement would be subject to appropriate identification of the batch and provision of the corresponding analytical documentation.

We believe that supporting independent verification is a more meaningful response to concerns about analytical reliability than simply asking customers to accept our assurances.

8. Why We Publish Unfavorable Results

Transparency has value only when unfavorable results are also made visible.

The original 8.45 mg GLP-3 result is an example of this principle.

It would have been commercially easier not to publish an unexpectedly low measurement.

Instead, the result was made available, and further testing was initiated.

Subsequent analyses produced different quantitative results, including a measurement of 9.95 mg from an independent laboratory.

We believe customers should have access to the complete analytical history rather than only the result most favorable to us.

Our COA Vault is intended to provide batch-specific analytical documentation, enabling customers to examine and evaluate the underlying data themselves.

9. What We Are Changing

The recent online discussions regarding laboratory verification have also highlighted areas where we can improve.

Our original public response to the matching instrument serial numbers was published before the subsequent investigation established the connection between the Cellgenic chromatographic data and Liquilabs' original LYO-0141 analysis.

This update provides a more complete explanation based on the findings obtained during that investigation.

We are also strengthening our analytical verification program by expanding independent random cross-testing through additional laboratories.

Where an unexpected quantitative result occurs, we will continue to investigate it through additional sampling and, where appropriate, independent laboratory verification.

We will continue to publish quantitative peptide-content results alongside purity, identity, and other relevant quality-control parameters.

We will also continue to make batch-specific analytical documentation available through our COA Vault.

Our Position

We understand that our customers include knowledgeable and experienced professionals with substantial technical expertise who apply strict quality-assurance standards and “Zero Trust” principles when evaluating products and analytical data.

Such customers rightly expect claims to be supported by evidence and independently verifiable data rather than relying solely on representations made by a vendor.

We therefore encourage customers to examine original analytical documentation, compare results across independent laboratories, and verify our products whenever they consider it necessary.

Some of the allegations circulated online raised legitimate questions that deserved detailed answers.

Where our earlier explanation was limited by the information available at the time, we are now providing additional context based on the findings subsequently obtained.

Where an analytical result is unfavorable, we will not hide it.

Where a result raises questions, we will investigate it.

And where customers seek independent verification beyond our own testing program, we are prepared to support it.

Particle Peptides

18 September 2026

Supporting Documentation / Attachments

The following documents are referenced in this statement and are provided for factual review and independent examination.

Attachment 1 – Liquilabs Investigation of Cellgenic Analytical Documentation

Document: Investigation of Cellgenic report matching serial numbers of instruments with our documentation

Investigation prepared by Liquilabs comparing analytical information contained in Cellgenic documentation with original analytical data and documentation issued by Liquilabs.

Document note: This document was prepared by Liquilabs following its investigation of analytical documentation published by Cellgenic. It is provided in full and without substantive modification. The conclusions expressed in the investigation are those of Liquilabs.

[VIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – ATTACHMENT 1 (PDF)]

Attachment 2 – Original Liquilabs COA LYO-0141

Product: MOTS-C 10 mg

Batch: 2025284

Client: Particle Peptides

Liquilabs reference: LYO-0141

Original Liquilabs analytical report, including the underlying chromatographic documentation referenced in the Liquilabs investigation.

[VIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – ATTACHMENT 2 (PDF)]

Attachment 3 – Initial Liquilabs Analysis – GLP-3 Batch 2026302

Product: GLP-3 10 mg

Laboratory sample designation: Retatrutide

Batch: 2026302

Published: 2 March 2026

Peptide assay: 8.45 mg

Purity: >99.8%

Original Liquilabs analytical report containing the initial quantitative result discussed in this statement.

The original laboratory document identifies the analytical sample as “Retatrutide.” The report is provided without substantive modification.

[VIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – ATTACHMENT 3 (PDF)]

Attachment 4 – Independent Apigenex Analysis – GLP-3 Batch 2026302

Product: GLP-3 10 mg

Laboratory sample designation: Retatrutide

Batch: 2026302

Analysis completed: 14 April 2026

Peptide content: 9.95 mg / 10 mg (99.5% of label amount)

Purity: 98.82%

Identity: Confirmed by mass spectrometry

Endotoxin: Negative

Independent analytical report prepared by Apigenex.

The original laboratory document identifies the analytical sample as “Retatrutide.” The report is provided without substantive modification.

[VIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – ATTACHMENT 4 (PDF)]

Attachment 5 – Subsequent Liquilabs Analysis – GLP-3 Batch 2026302

Product: GLP-3 10 mg

Laboratory sample designation: Retatrutide

Batch: 2026302

Published: 22 May 2026

Peptide assay: 9.57 mg

Purity: >99.8%

Bacterial endotoxin: <0.001 EU/mg

TAMC: 0 CFU/g

TYMC: 0 CFU/g

Subsequent Liquilabs analytical report providing additional quantitative and quality-control results for batch 2026302.

The original laboratory document identifies the analytical sample as “Retatrutide.” The report is provided without substantive modification.

[VIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – ATTACHMENT 5 (PDF)]