c/scamalerts wiki

What this community is for

Documented fraud: cloned storefronts, recycled COA PDFs, batch numbers appearing across unrelated vendors, fake test reports, group-buy exit scams, and the small number of patterns that account for almost all of it. Accusations without evidence are removed — not because we doubt you, but because unverifiable accusations make the community useless.

c/scamalerts was created on 21 Sep 2023 and currently has 58,300 members and 95 captured submissions. It sits in the second tier of the site, which mostly affects how fast a question gets answered rather than how well.

Rules, and why each exists

Community rules come first, then the six site-wide rules that apply everywhere on GLP Research Hub. Community rules are enforced by the moderators listed at the bottom of this page; site rules are enforced by everyone.

1. Evidence required: dated screenshots, PDF metadata, order records or an independent test. No exceptions.
2. No doxxing. Company registration details are fine; individuals are not.
3. If a dispute resolves, edit the post and say so. We keep the record honest in both directions.

And the site rules, which are short on purpose:

1. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
2. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
3. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
4. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
5. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
6. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.

Terms you will see

Vocabulary that turns up constantly in c/scamalerts. Each links to the topic page, which collects every submission that touches it.

• scam — in practice, one of a small number of recurring patterns rather than novel fraud.
• fraud — deliberate misrepresentation; needs documentary evidence before it is posted.
• cloned site — a copy of a legitimate storefront with a different checkout.
• fake COA — a certificate that was produced rather than measured. Check the PDF metadata.
• exit scam — taking orders and disappearing; the classic group-buy failure mode.
• group buy — pooled purchase. Without escrow, an unsecured loan to a stranger.
• PDF metadata — the producer string and timestamps inside a file; the cheapest forgery check.

Start here

The twelve highest-scoring submissions in this community. Not necessarily the most correct — the most agreed-with, which is a different thing, and worth remembering when you read them.

1. help me understand group buy, I have read the wiki twice — 8.8k points, 49 comments, 2 years ago
2. [Meta] proposal — a flair for fake COA posts — 8.1k points, 30 comments, 2 years ago
3. how much of what we believe about scam actually comes from fake COA threads — 7.4k points, 26 comments, 1 year ago
4. [Lab] WXT tirz — PeptideMeter came back 97.1% against a claimed 97.0% — 6.7k points, 40 comments, 2 years ago
5. [Discussion] can we stop arguing about fraud until somebody posts a number — 6.3k points, 34 comments, 2 years ago
6. does fake COA actually matter or is it forum lore at this point — 6k points, 41 comments, 1 year ago
7. [Lab] split one vial across PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate — 97.9% and 98.0% — 5.9k points, 29 comments, 1 year ago
8. fake COA — 23 things I got wrong before I got it right — 5.9k points, 33 comments, 2 years ago
9. how much of what we believe about scam actually comes from group buy threads — 5.7k points, 54 comments, 2 years ago
10. the fraud thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down — 5.1k points, 21 comments, 9 months ago
11. reading PDF metadata threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly — 4.8k points, 38 comments, 9 months ago
12. cloned site is the most under-discussed thing on this board — 4.4k points, 36 comments, 2 years ago

Asked constantly

• net peptide content: i finally have a number and almost nothing to compare it against
• [Question] how do you actually verify fake COA
• reading cloned site threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
• three years of PDF metadata threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
• [Question] fake COA — what am I missing here
• [Question] cloned site — what am I missing here
• [Question] how do you actually verify PDF metadata
• [Discussion] we are measuring fraud at the wrong time and calling it noise
• [Question] how do you actually verify exit scam
• [Question] is 98.9% actually fine or am I being sold a rounding error

If your question is on that list, read the answers there first. If it is not, ask it — that is what the community is for, and "this has been asked" is only a helpful reply when it comes with a link.

Who runs this

Moderation here is done by volunteers who also post as normal members. They are not clinicians, not vendors, and not paid.

• u/ledger_mod — c/vendorvetting + c/scamalerts mod. Every claim needs a receipt or it gets a [needs source] flair.
• u/scam_taxonomy — Maintains the c/scamalerts pattern list. There are only about nine scams.
• u/coa_forgery_watch — PDF metadata is a confession. Check the producer string.
• u/whois_wanda — Domain registered eleven days ago and already has 400 five-star reviews. Interesting.
• u/sock_puppet_spotter — Four accounts, same typo, same hour. It is always the same hour.