AI Summary of this issue:
TLDR: A community group test caught ERP's SS31 underfilled by ~12% and flagged for high endotoxins. Instead of refunding affected buyers, ERP offered vague future-order credits, dodged accountability with shifting technical explanations, and reportedly banned customers and deleted chat history when they pushed back. Digging deeper revealed a broader pattern: cloudy products, shipping fees added after purchase, discounts pulled back after orders were placed, and policies changed retroactively to minimize refunds. The article argues the gap between ERP's marketing promises and actual customer experience is substantial and consistent.
Summary: "The Trouble with ERP" (some lady & her AI ghostwriter, April 19, 2026)
A community-organized group test involving roughly 80-85 participants exposed a cascade of product, policy, and customer service problems at peptide vendor ERP. Here are the key issues raised:
The Triggering Event: SS31 Testing
An independent third-party Janoshik test of ERP's SS31 50mg vials showed only 44.10mg actual content, roughly 11.8% underfilled. More seriously, the vials also returned endotoxin levels above the assay's validated reporting range, with an estimated value of 26.790 EU/vial. The group used a neutral label ("Strong Like Bull") on samples specifically to prevent ERP from co-opting the COAs for marketing.
ERP's Response Pattern to the SS31 Result
Rather than offering a straightforward refund or replacement, ERP responded with a series of shifting explanations:
Overfill claims (products are supposedly filled at 1.25x), suggesting low test results reflect product characteristics rather than true underfill
Suggestions that high content causes poor dissolution, making test results unreliable
Exclusion of endotoxin from warranty coverage entirely, citing cost and potential impact on peptide activity as justification for not meeting stricter standards
Resolution offered was only a vague, undefined future-order credit, not a refund
One buyer who pressed for a full refund was met with a laughing emoji in response. When they escalated to chargeback threats, they were reportedly banned and their chat messages deleted.
Broader Product Issues
SLU-PP-332 : Reported as cloudy on reconstitution. ERP first blamed the buyer's BAC water, then reversed to claim the product is naturally turbid. The real issue, not disclosed upfront, is that SLU-PP-332 likely requires DMSO-based solvent to dissolve properly, making it unsuitable for general use without specific guidance.
MOTS-c : Reconstituted clear, but turned cloudy after 24 hours refrigerated, suggesting post-reconstitution instability.
Other buyers reported additional undisclosed or unresolved cloudy product issues.
Shipping and Pricing Policy Complaints
Multiple buyers described terms changing after orders were already placed or in motion:
A Canada-bound buyer was switched from FedEx to Canada Post after the order was placed; the shipping cost difference was only offered as a future-order credit.
A buyer qualifying for free shipping was later told their location was a "remote area" and hit with an unexpected $85+ surcharge after the order was underway.
A large-order buyer was promised a 4% discount, which was quietly revised down to 3% after committing.
A seized order buyer was originally promised full refund or reshipment, then retroactively told a policy change required either 50% payment to reship or a 30% refund.
The "Rolling Problems Forward" Pattern
Several buyers described a recurring dynamic where unresolved issues from one order were acknowledged but not actually fixed, only folded into the next purchase as partial credit or conditional resolution, incentivizing repeat orders rather than clean refunds.
Attribution Deflection
Once the SS31 evidence was presented publicly, ERP shifted to questioning whether the tested product could even be attributed to them, pointing to the neutral SLB label, absence of ERP branding on the COA, and alleged cap color discrepancies as grounds for doubt.
Chat Moderation and Narrative Control
The article claims that shortly after a public warning summarizing the issues was posted, bot accounts appeared in the relevant chat to flood and bury the complaints. It also alleges ERP has deleted negative COAs and banned customers who pushed for refunds, with at least one confirmed case where a buyer was banned and chat history removed after escalating to a chargeback threat.
The Gap Between Marketing and Reality
ERP's stated promises include: a dedicated quality inspection department, products only sold after passing QC, full refunds available for purity/quality failures, lab-tested products, and a stocked U.S. warehouse. The article argues the documented experiences systematically contradict each of those claims.
Bottom Line
The article frames SS31 as the crack that opened a much broader picture: a vendor pattern of shifting explanations, post-sale policy changes, refusal to issue clean refunds, and active suppression of public complaints. The "best" outcome any affected buyer received was a 20% future-order credit, which the author wryly notes made that buyer "the lucky one."
