SteriGenix Analytical:
Is This Peptide Testing Lab Legit?

SteriGenix has a functioning public certificate lookup. We opened two records on its own domain and compared them with externally hosted PDF copies. That establishes that the reports can be checked with their issuer. It does not independently establish who owns the operation, where the analytical work is performed or how the reported results were produced.

Our most useful finding was not a missing company-search result. It was a difference between versions of the same report: the archived PurgoLabs PDF and the current online record show different analysis dates and different supporting material. A correction may have an ordinary explanation. Readers still need to know which version they are relying on and why it changed.

This assessment is based on our own examination of the current site, registry-domain data, two public lookup records and their PDF counterparts.

The site and legal pages use the name SteriGenix Analytical, LLC. Its terms select Florida law and Duval County courts. That is a jurisdiction clause, not a street address, a corporate registration certificate or proof that instruments are operated in Jacksonville.

The current homepage, terms, privacy policy and sample agreement reviewed here did not supply a complete laboratory street address or identify the current owner. The homepage is now a limited client-login and report-verification page rather than a detailed laboratory profile.

The COAs do name people by titles and initials: Dr. R. Caldwell, Dr. P. Andersen and Dr. H. Whitman appear on the newer layout, with internal analyst or reviewer IDs. That is more than “no names anywhere,” but it did not let us independently establish their credentials, roles or connection to a physical facility. We are not saying those people do not exist.

We did not obtain a matched official corporate record that resolves the operator and facility questions. A registry access barrier is not a negative search result. We have therefore left third-party claims about corporate dissolution out of our verdict.

The authoritative .com RDAP record gives May 13, 2026 as the registration date for sterigenixanalytical.com. That is a domain date, not a laboratory founding date. The legal pages carry January 2026 update labels. Earlier preparation, migration or copied page dates could explain the sequence; the dates alone do not establish misconduct.

The current homepage says new orders and new client accounts are not being accepted. The legal-page banner attributes the pause to a transfer of ownership and says existing clients can still access published reports.

That leaves practical questions: who currently holds responsibility for earlier reports, who retains the underlying instrument files, and who will answer requests for corrections after the transfer? The privacy policy promises three-year retention of raw instrument data and laboratory records. We have not verified that retention or who will control those records after the transition.

The Futuristic Science PDF identifies report RPT-2026-684063, analyzed August 18, 2026, for batch FS-GLUTA-1500-0926. It lists glutathione identity by LC-MS, purity of 99.27 and net-content result 1504.78 against a 1500 mg label claim. The live issuer record returned those same headline values when checked on November 5.

The PDF includes an HPLC chromatogram and a vial photo. It does not show a mass spectrum, an ion-assignment table, a quantitative calibration summary or a calculation explaining the net-content result. The PDF’s metals and batch-conformity sections say no data; the current page labels them not tested. Those sections must not be read as passes.

We can confirm the issuer displays a matching record. We cannot reproduce the purity calculation or independently verify the LC-MS identity assignment from the summary alone. A missing spectrum on a public certificate does not prove mass spectrometry was never performed; it means the public document does not supply that supporting evidence.

The externally hosted PurgoLabs PDF identifies report RPT-06012026-811887 and batch PL-07-RT10. Its analysis date is June 1, 2026. The current issuer page uses that same report number and batch but displays May 30, 2026.

The headline results—99.931% purity and 10.23 mg content—agree. The supporting presentation does not: the archived two-page PDF has no chromatogram, while the live page includes one. The PDF names Dr. H. Whitman as lab director; the current layout adds analyst and QC-reviewer fields. The formula field also differs.

There is a separate chronology question. The PDF’s browser-print header shows May 27, 2026, earlier than either displayed analysis date. A browser print timestamp can reflect an incorrect client clock and is not a trustworthy laboratory timestamp. Nonetheless, the combination deserves a documented explanation, not an assumption in either direction.

We did not see a revision number or correction history explaining these differences in the public versions reviewed. That is a report-control concern. It is not sufficient evidence to accuse anyone of backdating or inventing analytical work.

The older PurgoLabs certificate reports an LC-MS identity match, a microbial no-growth result, an endotoxin pass and negative results for four metals. The public summary does not establish the detailed procedures, limits or controls behind all of those conclusions.

A useful follow-up would request the identity spectrum and assignments, chromatographic integration data, the quantity-assay basis and calibration, and the method and detection limits for each contamination screen. For microbial testing, the procedure and incubation conditions matter. For endotoxin, concentration and reconstitution details affect interpretation.

These are requests for evidence, not a demand that every raw file be printed on a certificate. A laboratory may retain detailed supporting records separately. What matters is whether it can supply a coherent, traceable analytical package when a report is questioned.

We did not obtain an active accreditation certificate and relevant test scope establishing these assays as ISO/IEC 17025 accredited. That is narrower than claiming no accreditation can exist. Alignment language, a report template or a laboratory-looking website would not substitute for a verifiable scope document.

The unresolved points are specific and answerable: the legal operator and facility address; current ownership and responsibility for historical reports; a revision log for the PurgoLabs record; and the supporting analytical package for the two samples reviewed.

For a stronger independent check, a blinded split sample could be analyzed by SteriGenix and an established laboratory using appropriately comparable methods. Until that exists, agreement between a vendor PDF and the issuer’s portal is agreement between two versions of an issuer’s report—not independent replication.

We have not contacted the lab or commissioned a retest for this review. Public material is enough to identify the questions, but not to know what unpublished documentation the laboratory might provide. A substantive response should be evaluated and reflected in an update.

Our skepticism is about what we cannot yet independently verify, plus a report-version discrepancy we can directly document. It is not based solely on the age of a website, an ownership change or another reviewer’s opinion.

The working portal earns credit. The missing operator and facility confirmation, unclear responsibility during the ownership transfer, and unexplained changes to a report keep that credit limited. We would not treat these COAs alone as sufficient independent assurance of a vendor’s product quality.

The fair conclusion is not “proven fake.” It is “not sufficiently verified for a strong endorsement.” SteriGenix can materially improve that assessment with identifiable operations, a traceable correction history and supporting analytical records.