Vendor Intelligence Report: Nuscience Peptides

Published 12 Jun 2026. 29-page investigative report on who is behind Nuscience Peptides: corporate records, ownership, affiliate networks, and the vendor's lab-testing record. The first 4 pages are free to read on this page.

Researched and published by Finnrick Analytics. Reports draw on corporate records, affiliate-network analysis, and Finnrick's own laboratory testing record; vendors can challenge findings through the formal objections process at finnrick.com/vendor-support/objections.

Executive summary

Across 48 Finnrick lab tests, NuScience Peptides records 18 pass and 30 fail — an overall pass rate of 38%. The catalog is uneven rather than uniformly bad: GHK-Cu and tirzepatide are the most defensible current signals, while CJC-1295 and Melanotan II are the clearest test-first or avoid candidates. Ratings also weaken under stricter grading, which makes lot-level verification more important than brand reputation.

NuScience is more identifiable than many peptide storefronts: the investigation found a state LLC, trademark filing, named personnel, a phone signal, and a comparatively responsive service record. That transparency is offset by a timeline problem. The domain and trademark begin in 2023, the North Carolina LLC forms in 2024, and archived site/address records do not support the reviewed 20+ years / since-2003 operating-history claim.

The ownership section is the high-severity hook. Public profiles connect Joseph DeRosa to NuScience, and the report walks through identity controls before discussing a 2016 SEC civil final judgment against Joseph R. DeRosa of Cornelius, NC. The case is not treated as proof of current COA fabrication, but it is buyer-relevant because the SEC allegations centered on forged and falsified documents submitted to market gatekeepers.

COA transparency is mixed. NuScience publishes lab-result materials and the investigation identified lab provenance in PDFs, but the public chain is not consistently lab-named and a reused lot number appears across different peptide COAs. Positive forum sentiment helps on fulfillment confidence; it does not replace current-lot analytical testing.

Inside the full report:

  • Per-product pass/fail rates, rating trajectories, and methodology-divergence charts for all 10 tested products
  • Corporate timeline built from domain records, USPTO trademark data, NC LLC filings, and Wayback address captures
  • Ownership and personnel dossier with LinkedIn captures, PeptideGrades evidence, and SEC identity-control checks
  • SEC Litigation Release and final-judgment analysis focused on document-integrity relevance
  • COA provenance review covering lab-identified PDFs and the cross-product batch-number anomaly
  • Address-cluster and promotion-footprint analysis, including the Albuquerque virtual-office lead and coupon/forum scan

Risk assessment

  • Operator document-integrity concern — high: Joseph R. DeRosa of Cornelius, NC consented to a 2016 SEC civil final judgment after allegations involving a forged attorney opinion letter and falsified documents.
  • CJC-1295 and Melanotan II quality concern — high: CJC-1295 is 0 pass / 3 fail with a 20.72% rating; Melanotan II is 1 pass / 6 fail with a 38.75% rating.
  • GLP-1 lot-consistency concern — medium: Tirzepatide, Semaglutide, and Retatrutide are Nuscience's stronger GLP-1 options, but their cumulative records still include 14 failures across 28 tests.
  • Small-sample non-GLP quality concern — medium: BPC-157 is 1 pass / 1 fail; Ipamorelin, Mazdutide, and PT-141 are 0 pass / 2 fail, leaving these products unsuitable without lot verification.
  • COA traceability and verification concern — medium: Public COAs omit the testing laboratory name and the investigation found Lot 00256 reused across multiple products, weakening batch traceability.
  • Misleading history/location concern — medium: The website's 20+ years experience claim is unsupported by the 2023 domain registration, 2024 NC LLC formation, and New Mexico virtual-office footprint.