NUPEPS PEPTIDES Calls on Finnrick for Transparency

A business that evaluates vendors while also selling services to those vendors should explain how it keeps commercial interests separate from its judgments. NUPEPS PEPTIDES believes that question deserves a direct answer from Finnrick.

Our concern is specific: disputed payment allegations, the handling of our objections, and commercial testing proposals should be addressed through a transparent process. We are not alleging that Finnrick sells favorable scores. A potential conflict of interest is a reason to demand safeguards and disclosure, not proof that a rating was purchased or manipulated.

NUPEPS PEPTIDES does not accept cryptocurrency payments

We categorically reject the attribution of unauthorized cryptocurrency payment requests to our company. Our position is that third parties used our business information without authorization. Our published Fraud & Impersonation Notice warns customers about those requests and explains how to report them. [1]

A copied logo or company name does not establish authorization. At the same time, allegations involving a subdomain require more than a general denial: historical account control, hosting records, payment recipients, and the relevant dates must be examined. We ask Finnrick to disclose the evidence supporting its attribution and consider the evidence NUPEPS PEPTIDES provides.

The commercial relationship deserves scrutiny

Finnrick publicly promotes testing services and paid access to research materials and reports. NUPEPS PEPTIDES also reports receiving testing proposals from Finnrick while disputing information associated with its profile. That combination raises a legitimate question: what safeguards prevent sales incentives from influencing coverage, complaint handling, or the appearance of independence?

Charging for testing is not inherently improper. Publishing criticism is not inherently improper either. But when a company occupies both roles, vendors and readers deserve clear policies separating sales, laboratory analysis, editorial judgment, and corrections.

What the record does — and does not — establish

Finnrick's public report summary describes four passing tests and no failures across Retatrutide and Ipamorelin. Those findings are limited to the samples and analyses involved. They do not establish the quality of every product, demonstrate suitability for human use, or resolve allegations about payments. [2]

Likewise, a passing-test percentage and an overall vendor rating are not automatically the same measure. We ask Finnrick to explain its scoring inputs and any changes rather than assume that a lower overall score proves misconduct.

The earlier NUPEPS PEPTIDES draft recorded a score change from 76% to 75%, accompanied by a ranking change. Those figures should be treated as historical observations pending dated captures and methodology records. We do not present them here as a verified current rating or claim that the disputed allegations caused the change.

NUPEPS PEPTIDES' account of its correspondence

The following chronology reflects NUPEPS PEPTIDES' account of its correspondence and conversations. It should be assessed alongside the original messages, delivery records, and any response supplied by Finnrick:

• September 29, 2026: NUPEPS PEPTIDES says it disputed the Telegram and cryptocurrency attributions in writing.
• October 14, 2026: NUPEPS PEPTIDES describes a call with Finnrick representatives and says a follow-up about resolving the disputed attributions was promised.
• October 23, 2026: NUPEPS PEPTIDES says it sent a formal request for removal or correction of the disputed statements.
• October 28, 2026: NUPEPS PEPTIDES reports receiving an automated sales email while still awaiting a substantive resolution.

Our concern is the reported absence of a substantive resolution, not the mere existence of automated marketing. Finnrick should identify the status of the objection, the person responsible for reviewing it, and a clear response date.

Testing quotes need a clear reconciliation

NUPEPS PEPTIDES also reports receiving proposals with different per-sample prices and a total it could not reconcile with the listed charges. Different scopes, sample counts, or methods can produce different prices. We therefore request a written, itemized explanation before drawing conclusions about the discrepancy. A pricing question should be answered with a clear calculation, not speculation about intent.

Finnrick: show the evidence and explain the safeguards

NUPEPS PEPTIDES requests straightforward answers to the following questions:

• Attribution: What records connect the disputed accounts, portal, payment instructions, and recipients to authorized NUPEPS PEPTIDES activity?
• Corrections: Who reviews objections, what deadlines apply, and are factual corrections available without buying a service?
• Commercial separation: Can sales staff influence ratings, editorial conclusions, or the handling of disputes? What policy prevents this?
• Scoring: Which inputs determine a score, how are changes recorded, and how can a vendor obtain an explanation?
• Pricing and samples: What does each quoted charge cover, how many samples are required, and how are unused samples handled?

What would resolve this dispute

Our request is not that criticism disappear. It is that disputed attribution be investigated and explained. If Finnrick cannot substantiate a connection between unauthorized payment activity and NUPEPS PEPTIDES, it should correct that attribution prominently. If it has supporting records, it should provide enough detail for a meaningful response, with appropriate protection for personal information.

Finnrick should substantiate its claims, address our objections, and explain how its commercial activities are separated from its evaluations. We consider the disputed attribution misleading and damaging. That is NUPEPS PEPTIDES' position; it is not a finding that Finnrick committed fraud.

NUPEPS PEPTIDES remains willing to address specific evidence. Customers who receive cryptocurrency requests in our name should preserve the messages and transaction details, then contact us independently through nupeps.com. Do not assume an account is authorized merely because it displays our branding.

References and scope

[1] NUPEPS PEPTIDES, Fraud & Impersonation Notice: nupeps.com/fraud-impersonation-notice. [2] Finnrick, public Vendor Intelligence Report summary: finnrick.com/vendors/nupeps-peptides/report. The public summary was reviewed for this revision; the complete paid report and the underlying private correspondence were not independently examined. Private-event descriptions above are attributed to NUPEPS PEPTIDES. No conclusion of fraud, extortion, purchased ratings, or intentional falsification is asserted. Research materials are for laboratory research only. Not for human or animal use.