ERP
This is one entry from the TitrateLab Vendor Graveyard, a dated, primary-source archive of peptide-market shutdowns, exit scams, and enforcement actions. Documented as community group-test findings, reported April 2026. Sources for this entry are named inline below and numbered in full on the parent archive page.
A community-organized group test of approximately 80–85 participants submitted ERP-branded product to Janoshik under a neutral label (“Strong Like Bull”) specifically to prevent ERP from co-opting the resulting COAs for marketing. The account of it is the Krysia Substack write-up, published April 2026; the write-up does not state when the samples were drawn or tested, so this entry is dated to the report rather than to the test. We have not ingested the underlying certificate, so the figures below are as reported by that author and are not independently confirmed by us. This entry previously carried a “2025” date, which the source does not support.
The test produced two separable quality findings:
| Test | Label | Measured | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| SS-31 mass | 50 mg | 44.10 mg | −11.8% |
| SS-31 endotoxin | — | ~26.79 EU/vial | above validated reporting range |
If the reported figures are accurate, underfilling at the 11.8% level is not within any reasonable measurement-error band; it is a mass-accuracy miss that a prospective buyer would need to factor into dosing. The reported endotoxin reading sat above the assay’s validated reporting range.
How this squares with the endotoxin data above. The batch-quality entry on ERP records 23 publicly-submitted third-party certificates carrying an endotoxin result between February and June 2026, none failing. This group test reports a single elevated reading on one product, SS-31, from a submission the source does not date. The two are not in conflict: different product, different submission, different window, and one of them we hold certificates for and the other we do not. Read together, the corpus does not support a general endotoxin problem at ERP, and this single reported SS-31 result is not corroborated by anything else we hold.
On the customer-service allegations. What follows is the account given in the Krysia Substack write-up; the GLP-1 Forum thread discusses that write-up rather than independently documenting the conduct, so this rests on one author. We have not seen the underlying screenshots. According to that account, ERP’s reactions to buyers presenting the group-test COAs included shifting explanations (overfill, dissolution issues, “that’s not our label”), retroactive policy changes (“that fee wasn’t on the invoice when I bought”), escalation to chargeback threats, and, in cases the author describes as documented, banning customers from their Telegram channel and deleting the chat history of the dispute. We are reporting these as that author’s allegations, not as findings of our own, and an earlier version of this entry stated them in the archive’s own voice, which overstated what we can support.
Why it belongs in the archive: most vendor-quality issues resolve at the level of “one bad batch, vendor makes it right.” If the account above is accurate, the ERP pattern reads differently. But it rests on a single author, this section is explicitly the tier where “no primary-source legal record” exists, and the chemistry evidence we hold does not corroborate a systemic quality problem. A prospective buyer should read the source and weigh it themselves rather than take our summary of it as established.
Primary sources: Krysia Substack — “The Trouble with ERP”; GLP-1 Forum “JEEP isn’t only endo concern. ERP would like a word” thread.