Identifying Peptide Sciences Clone Sites

Updated August 21, 2026

Peptide Sciences declared in its March 6, 2026 closure notice that any further sales under its brand are fraudulent. Unaffiliated sites reusing the branding have appeared since. This page records the identification method that follows from the documented record: the company's own statement first, then checks any reader can run.

The operative test

The question "is this site really Peptide Sciences?" was answered in advance, by Peptide Sciences. Its closure notice of March 6, 2026 stated that any further sales under the brand are fraudulent. No registry lookup or lab report is needed to apply that test: a site selling under the name after that date is, on the brand owner's own declaration, not the brand owner. The declaration and its context are documented at the Peptide Sciences closure event record. Everything below this section is secondary — checks for readers who want corroboration, or who face a site that hedges its use of the name rather than claiming it outright.

The documented precedent

The pattern has one fully documented prior instance in this index. Paradigm Peptides went offline in March 2024; a similarly named domain, paradigmpeptides.is, appeared afterward and itself stated it had no affiliation with the original company. That case entered the record only because the site said so — a self-stated non-affiliation, preserved in coverage of the Paradigm Peptides case. Most brand reuse will not announce itself that way, which is why the checks below work from records rather than from what a site says about itself.

Checks that follow from the record

Check	How to run it	What it indicates
Domain registration date against claimed history	Public registration records show when a domain was created. Compare that date with the history the site claims.	A site claiming years of operation on a domain registered after March 2026 is asserting a history its own registration contradicts.
Lot documentation an outside party can examine	Look for analytical documents tied to specific product lots, and for a named laboratory that can be contacted about them.	A claimed continuation with no examinable documentation offers only the brand name — which the brand's owner has disowned.
Contact paths other than payment	Look for a physical address, a support route, any way to reach the operator that does not run through checkout.	A seller reachable only at the point of payment leaves no way to raise, or later pursue, any question about an order.
Reconciliation with the dated record	Compare the site's account of itself with the documented sequence: processing halted March 6, 2026; site offline within days.	A claim of uninterrupted operation contradicts the closure record and the company's own notice.

The dated sequence used in the last check — closure, batches of FDA letters, the Paradigm case — is laid out in order at the enforcement timeline.

What this method is not

This page names no operating site and adjudicates none. The record it draws on documents a pattern — a closed company's declaration, observed reuse of its branding, one self-declared lookalike domain in a parallel case — and the checks are ways to test a specific site against that record. A site that fails a check has failed a verification; what follows from that is the reader's decision. The same discipline applies in the other direction: passing these checks establishes that a site's records are consistent, not that it is trustworthy, and the fuller evaluation standard for any vendor is recorded at the verification criteria after the Peptide Sciences closure. Entity-by-entity records for the period are indexed at the vendor landscape index.

Sources