vialaudit

affiliate disclosure · We earn affiliate commission on some vendor links. Audits, scores, and rankings are independent — vendors do not pay for placement and do not see drafts. read more →

news · Editorial · 9 min read

Three vendors closed in 12 months — what the COA data showed before they did

Amino Asylum, Peptide Sciences, and Paradigm Peptides each ceased operations under different circumstances. The signals that preceded each shutdown were public, dated, and ignored.

published · · 1 day ago

What we read

The public Janoshik test history for retatrutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide samples between December 2024 and April 2026; FDA-cited court filings for the Paradigm Peptides federal case (December 2025); contemporaneous r/Peptides threads from the 90 days preceding each of the three vendor shutdowns; and post-shutdown reporting on The Peptide Catalog and Muscle and Brawn. This is a forensic synthesis, not a first-hand audit.

The shutdown cadence

Three of the top five US peptide vendors by traffic ceased operations between June 2025 and March 2026 — a roughly four-month cadence at the top of the market. The closures were not the result of a single regulatory action; each ended for different formal reasons. The underlying pattern is what the public data shows in common.

| Vendor | Closed | Cause cited | Pre-warning visible? | |---|---|---|---| | Amino Asylum | June 2025 | FDA raid; SARMs with testosterone | Partially | | Paradigm Peptides | Dec 2025 (plea) | Federal charges; SARMs with testosterone | Yes | | Peptide Sciences | March 6, 2026 | Quality collapse + federal pressure | Yes |

Case 1: Amino Asylum — June 2025

The federal charges that triggered the FDA raid concerned SARMs labeled products that contained testosterone — a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 802(41). The peptide catalog was not the formal subject of the action.

Pre-shutdown signals that were visible:

  • COA practices were inconsistent across product lines, with several product pages publishing what appeared to be the same generic in-house certificate dated months earlier than the order.
  • Multiple r/Peptides threads in early 2025 flagged the SARM-line products with chemistries that did not match label.
  • The vendor's response to community challenges was customer-service silence rather than substantive correction.

Pre-shutdown signals that were not visible:

  • The internal compliance state that drew federal attention.
  • The specific SKU that triggered the testing referral.

For an outside observer with only public data, the SARM-line discrepancies were a yellow flag for at least three months before the raid. Whether they constituted a predictable signal of a federal action specifically is harder to claim — federal enforcement timing is not observable from outside.

Case 2: Paradigm Peptides — December 2025

Paradigm's founders pleaded guilty to federal charges in December 2025. The charge pattern was structurally identical to Amino Asylum: products labeled as SARMs that contained controlled substances. The peptide line, again, was not the formal subject of the case.

Pre-shutdown signals that were visible:

  • Substantially the same SARM-versus-controlled-substance pattern that Amino Asylum had been raided for six months earlier.
  • A community-side observation that two vendors with overlapping founding histories were running similar product lines was made on r/Peptides in late summer 2025.

The specific learning here is operational, not regulatory: when one vendor in a category is raided for a specific SKU pattern, vendors with visibly similar SKU patterns are an elevated-risk pool for the next 12–18 months. The Paradigm closure five months after Amino Asylum's was predicted, in retrospect, by the structural similarity of their catalogs.

Case 3: Peptide Sciences — March 6, 2026

Peptide Sciences was the most-recommended vendor on r/Peptides for most of the 2024–2025 window. Their closure was both the largest by reader impact and the one where the public COA data most clearly anticipated the shutdown.

The Janoshik record for Peptide Sciences retatrutide samples between December 2024 and March 2026 shows 37 tested samples with results that progressively diverged from label claims, including at least one batch that returned a mass-spec identity result inconsistent with retatrutide. The community discussion on r/Peptides escalated through the back half of 2025, with multiple users posting Janoshik QRs showing under-spec purity on what were marketed as premium SKUs.

Federal pressure followed the quality collapse rather than preceding it. The shutdown itself happened with little notice but the trailing data trend was visible to anyone reading the public Janoshik database in mid-2025.

What the data shows in common

Across the three closures, four signals appeared in some combination:

  • Sustained adverse Janoshik results on flagship SKUs (visible for Peptide Sciences; less so for Amino Asylum, where the SARM-line was the catalyst).
  • Inconsistent COA cadence — vendors switching between batch-specific and generic certificates as scrutiny increased.
  • Customer-service silence on substantive product challenges, replaced by promotional response patterns.
  • Catalog overlap with already-actioned vendors in the SARM category specifically.

None of these is a single-shot prediction. In combination, sustained across 60–90 days, they constitute a reasonable risk signal for the audit-side observer.

Reader checklist

If you are about to place a recurring order with a vendor:

  1. Pull the last 90 days of Janoshik public tests for the SKUs you buy most. If the trend across 5+ samples shows declining purity or inconsistent identity, treat the vendor as elevated-risk regardless of their headline COA.
  2. Check if the catalog includes SARMs marketed alongside peptides. Two of the three closures came through the SARM/controlled-substance side of mixed catalogs. Pure-peptide vendors carried less of this shutdown risk in 2025–2026.
  3. Watch customer-service tone on substantive challenges. Vendors that respond promotionally to specific product questions are showing a discipline gap that often precedes other discipline gaps.

What we did not read

We do not have access to vendor-internal compliance documentation, non-public sealed court filings, or the full chain-of-custody for the Janoshik samples we cite. The next iteration of this piece will benefit from r/Peptides moderator-side data on which threads were removed for defamation claims — a useful proxy for vendor-side legal pressure that is invisible from the reader-facing forum.

Sources

read next

More from the desk

newsWhat 7,164 Janoshik tests reveal about peptide vendor purity43% of vendor-claimed purity figures failed independent retesting. The gap concentrates in three patterns you can avoid before clicking buy.8 minhow-toHow peptide vendors fail: a taxonomyEight failure modes, ranked by how often they appear in public Janoshik data and how hard they are for a buyer to catch before ordering.11 minhow-toPeptide reconstitution: a research guideBacteriostatic water, syringe selection, dose math, storage. The reference we wish existed when we started.15 min
the roundup · monthly

Receipts in your inbox. Once a month.

New audits, expired coupons pruned, lab notes from vials still on the bench. No marketing. No lifestyle copy. Unsubscribe in one click.

14,200 subscribers· 0 sponsored items· 11 issues since launch