Official Statement: Addressing False Claims Circulating Online

UPDATE - 18 September 2026

Since this statement was originally published, new evidence has become available regarding the matching laboratory instrument serial numbers discussed below.

Liquilabs subsequently conducted a detailed investigation of the underlying documentation. The investigation identified that chromatographic data contained in a Cellgenic Certificate of Analysis presented as a 50 mg MOTS-C sample include the data-file identifier LYO-0141-P01, an acquisition date of 7 October 2025, and a measured MOTS-C content of approximately 10.158 mg.

These data do not correspond to the 50 mg sample or the 50.12 mg assay stated in that Cellgenic certificate. They do, however, correspond to an original Liquilabs analysis performed for Particle, LYO-0141, relating to MOTS-C 10 mg, batch 2025284, for which Liquilabs reported an assay of 10.16 mg.

Following its investigation, Liquilabs concluded that the Cellgenic Analytical Documentation contained information corresponding to analytical data generated by Liquilabs for Particle, including information relating to analytical methods, instrument identification and chromatographic records. Importantly, Liquilabs confirmed that it had never performed such analyses for Cellgenic.

In light of these findings, Liquilabs concluded that Particle 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.

Based on the findings described above, Particle has taken the matter seriously and has already taken legal steps to address the identified issues and protect its legal rights and interests.

We have published a comprehensive new statement presenting these findings, the complete analytical history of the GLP-3 batch discussed online, our independent cross-laboratory verification program, and the supporting original documentation.

[READ THE FULL SEPTEMBER 2026 UPDATE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION]

The original statement remains published below for transparency and to preserve the historical record of what information was available to us at the time.

Original Statement - 14 April 2026

In recent days, we have become aware of a post circulating on Reddit that contains a series of serious allegations regarding Particle Peptides, our quality standards, and our testing partners.

While we generally do not engage in anonymous online discussions, the nature of these claims - particularly those related to product safety and alleged document falsification - requires a clear, factual, and transparent response.

This statement aims to present verified information and bring the discussion back to objective facts.

Endotoxin Testing and Product Safety

The claim that our products are not tested for endotoxins is incorrect.

Particle Peptides has long ensured endotoxin testing using the LAL assay through independent third-party laboratories as part of its quality control process. This has been in place for years and is not a recent implementation.

Our analytical results have consistently been validated across multiple independent laboratories, including Apigenex and Eurofins. Historical Certificates of Analysis (COAs), including endotoxin results, are publicly available.

Clarification Regarding Liquilabs s.r.o.

A portion of the claims focuses on our current third-party testing partner, Liquilabs s.r.o., alleging that it is a “shell company.”

This claim is unfounded and based on incorrect assumptions.

While Liquilabs as a legal entity is relatively new, the expertise behind it is built on long-term experience in analytical chemistry. The laboratory collaborates with research peptide vendors from multiple countries and provides testing services to various companies within the industry.

Misconception About Registered Capital

The argument that low registered capital indicates illegitimacy reflects a misunderstanding of European business structures.

Within the European Union, it is standard practice for companies to be established with relatively low share capital. This value does not represent the company’s financial capacity, operational scale, or access to analytical equipment.

Laboratories commonly operate by:

• leasing high-cost equipment (e.g., HPLC, LC-MS),
• using shared infrastructure,
• or acquiring refurbished components.

These practices are widely accepted and economically efficient.

Equipment Serial Numbers

Claims regarding identical serial numbers across laboratories have been misinterpreted.

Editor's Note - 18 September 2026

The explanation below reflects the information available when this statement was originally published. A subsequent Liquilabs investigation identified evidence providing a more specific explanation for the matching instrument information. This preliminary explanation has therefore been supplemented. Please refer to our September 2026 update and supporting documentation above.

Some components were acquired second-hand from another laboratory, which can result in identical serial numbers. In addition, certain equipment is leased.

Liquilabs has also recently expanded its analytical capabilities by acquiring additional HPLC systems from a U.S.-based supplier. All instruments and their serial numbers are transparently included in analytical reports.

This level of detail is standard practice to ensure traceability and transparency - not evidence of document falsification.

Consistency of Analytical Results

Reliability is best evaluated through consistency.

Our results align with:

• manufacturer quality control data,
• and historical third-party testing conducted by independent institutions, including the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Apigenex, and Eurofins.

Consistency across multiple independent sources over time is a strong indicator of analytical validity.

Clarification on Reported Content Values

Claims of underdosing are based on an oversimplified understanding of analytical practices.

In reality, there is a distinction between:

• nominal (labeled) content,
• and measured peptide content.

Minor deviations (±5–10%) are common and result from standard manufacturing tolerances.

Importantly, Particle Peptides does not conceal these differences. Instead, we transparently publish actual measured values - even when they fall below the nominal label claim.

This level of transparency is uncommon in the research peptide market.

Manufacturing Standards

We work with a manufacturer specializing in synthetic peptides produced under cGMP conditions and audited by major international regulatory authorities, including the FDA.

This level of oversight significantly exceeds the standard typically observed in the research peptide market.

Research Use Only (RUO)

All Particle Peptides products are strictly designated as Research Use Only (RUO).

They are not intended for:

• human consumption,
• medical use,
• therapeutic or diagnostic applications.

Any use outside of laboratory research falls outside the intended purpose and cannot serve as a valid basis for evaluating product safety.

Final Statement

We understand the importance of transparency and trust in this industry.

However, the claims currently circulating rely on incomplete interpretations of laboratory and business practices and present assumptions as facts without verifiable scientific evidence.

Particle Peptides remains committed to:

• transparency through publicly available documentation,
• consistent quality control across all batches,
• open and fact-based communication.

We encourage discussions grounded in verifiable data and proper scientific understanding.

We remain open to constructive, evidence-based dialogue and are prepared to address any further questions supported by verifiable data.