Vendor Intelligence Report: LSPL

Executive summary

Across 46 Finnrick lab tests, LSPL records 30 pass / 16 fail for an overall pass rate of 65%. The data are not uniformly bad, but they are uneven. GHK-Cu is the comparatively stronger signal; Tirzepatide is mixed and needs current batch-specific verification; Retatrutide is the weak point. Ratings also contract under stricter grading, which matters for buyers who care about fill accuracy as much as headline purity.

LSPL is not anchored by a normal public storefront. The listed contact is a Facebook profile that resolved to a login wall, while the strongest accountability trail runs through ZZQ Peptide, its admin@xtxinyao.cn contact email, and a Chinese registrant identified as Shijiazhuang Haigui Information Technology Co., Ltd. That chain helps attribution, but it does not verify manufacturing capacity.

The report also maps a clone-like peptide storefront network around ZZQ. Six domains share hosting and CMS fingerprints, and one LiYu page retains a Sunnysky Peptide copy-paste error. The implication is not automatically common legal ownership; it is that LSPL/ZZQ buyers face real brand-confusion and channel-authentication risk.

The external incident record is more than chatter. A GLP-1 Forum moderator banned Ava Smith/Peilun/LSPL for incentivized positive reviews, and forum exhibits preserve reports of cloudy reconstitution, underfilled or low-purity GLP-1 products, COA cross-posting, refund stalling, and a medium-confidence but high-severity USD 3,400 counterfeit-products allegation. LSPL may be a comparatively more defensible GHK-Cu choice for buyers who insist on the vendor; it is a poor directional choice for Retatrutide on the present record.

Inside the full report:

• Appendix A with complete Finnrick lab data, product trajectories, and methodology-divergence charts
• RDAP and WHOIS chain from ZZQ and admin@xtxinyao.cn to the Haigui registrant
• Reverse-IP and CMS cluster analysis covering ZZQ, Sunnysky, LiYu, Jiante, Friendlypeptide, and Shengyuan
• LiYu/Sunnysky boilerplate copy-paste exhibit and storefront screenshots
• GLP-1 Forum exhibits covering the review-incentive ban, COA disputes, refund threads, and counterfeit allegation

Risk assessment

• Retatrutide quality-reliability risk — high: Finnrick records show Retatrutide at 22 tests, 12 pass / 10 fail, 61.82%; this is LSPL’s weakest tested product and a poor directional choice.
• Tirzepatide quality-reliability risk — medium: Finnrick records show Tirzepatide at 18 tests, 13 pass / 5 fail, 74.74%, with forum reporting of underfilled/low-purity Tirzepatide; use only with batch-specific independent verification.
• Counterfeit and COA-integrity risk — high: Forum record includes a medium-confidence $3,400 dyed-water/stolen-COA allegation plus LSPL/ZZQ cross-posted/outdated COA concerns, undermining batch traceability.
• Identity and corporate-transparency risk — high: No LSPL legal entity or standalone website was located; ZZQ’s admin domain points to Shijiazhuang Haigui Information Technology Co., Ltd., an IT registrant with no verified pharma credentials.
• Brand-confusion and channel-verification risk — high: LSPL/ZZQ/LPDN naming, six template-cloned co-hosted peptide storefronts, and no canonical official-channel or authorized-reseller list leave buyers unable to authenticate the seller reliably.
• Review-manipulation risk — high: GLP-1 Forum moderator banned Ava Smith/Peilun/LSPL for offering freebies for positive reviews; public praise from the forum was treated as unverifiable.
• Dispute-resolution and customer-data handling risk — high: Reports include refund stalling, blocked complainants, mockery, payment-tracking failures, wrong shipment, and sharing customer transaction screenshots in group chats.