The claims this storefront makes
The name Amino Asylum has a history, and the current operators of aminoasylumofficial.com know it. The site presents itself as the “Amino Asylum Official Site” under “new private ownership” by an “investment group,” and states plainly that it has no association with the previous owners, whose business, by the site’s own account, closed in 2025 after an FDA enforcement action that brought criminal charges against its founders. The relaunched store sells about 83 listings across vials, liquids, nasal sprays and capsules, and the catalog is not limited to peptides: SARMs, pro-hormones, research oils and research chemicals share the shelves, including items named after prescription medicines. Free shipping starts at $500 and international delivery is offered. The one thing a reader should know is that the site asks to be judged as a fresh start while giving no way to identify who is making that request.
The headline claims are mostly badges. A “Third Party Lab Tested and COAs” graphic and an “FDA Compliance” graphic sit on the site. The testing page states that certificates are matched per lot to the number on the label, at a 98 percent or higher HPLC standard, and that laboratory partners have been “identified.” The company describes itself as “US-based.” No GMP or ISO certification is claimed, and no guarantee of any kind is stated.
We read the homepage, the about page, the shipping policy and the testing and COA verification page, looked for any certificate, any laboratory name and any contact detail, and then went to the public record to see what exists on both the old operation and the new one. Finnrick, an independent testing aggregator, has a file on the original vendor, and we report what it says with attribution rather than as our own finding.
What held up when we checked
The relaunched site has, at least, addressed its history rather than burying it. An ownership-change statement is published, and so is a page about FDA compliance; whatever one makes of their content, their existence shows the operators expected the questions. The shipping policy is specific in a way the rest of the site is not: processing takes one to two business days, domestic standard delivery runs five to seven business days and international standard runs ten to twenty-one, with USPS, UPS and FedEx named as carriers. A research-use-only disclaimer is present.
Prices are visible without an account. IGF-LR3 at 1 mg is $59.99, PT-141 is $49.99, a listing the site names GC-1 (Sobetirome) is $114.99, and YK-11 in a 10 mg by 30 mL liquid is $39.99. There is no BPC-157 5 mg listing, so we cannot place the store on our usual price comparison, and the price tier is recorded as unknown.
That is the whole of what checked out. Everything from here on is a claim with no document behind it.
What did not, and what we could not verify
Take the testing badge first. The site says its laboratory partners have been “identified,” and then never identifies them. No laboratory name appears anywhere on the domain. We looked for an example certificate, for any lot, and found none. The per-lot matching statement is a description of a process, and a process we cannot see a single output from. A badge that reads “Third Party Lab Tested and COAs” is not a certificate of analysis; it is a graphic.
The FDA compliance badge is in the same category, with an extra problem. The graphic carries no certificate, registration number or explanation of what it means. The FDA does not certify or endorse sellers of research materials in this way, and the site offers nothing to substantiate the image. For a brand whose predecessor, by the site’s own account, closed after FDA enforcement, that badge invites more scrutiny than it deflects.
Then there is the question of who is behind the relaunch. No legal entity, owner name, street address, phone number or email is published. “US-based” is the only location given, with no city. A business that asks to be judged separately from its predecessor has supplied nothing with which to judge it at all. Payment methods are not stated, there is no returns policy and no guarantee in our record, and whether the catalog includes GLP-class products is unknown. The catalog mix itself is a compliance observation: peptides alongside SARMs, pro-hormones and items named after prescription medicines is a combination regulators have acted on at other sellers.
On the public record, the history is clearer than the present. The current site states the original business closed in 2025 after an FDA enforcement action with criminal charges against its founders; secondary sources describe a June 2025 FDA raid. We located no FDA or Department of Justice primary document and no FDA warning letter naming Amino Asylum, so that history rests on the site’s own statement and on press coverage. Finnrick reports 15 tests of the original vendor’s products with 7 passes and 8 fails, the most recent dated March 16, 2025; it notes that its samples lacked batch IDs, and that BPC-157 failed both of its two tests. Finnrick also reports that the original Amino Asylum LLC, a Kentucky company, was administratively dissolved in 2021, and that the old aminoasylum.shop domain later redirected to a coupon page for a different seller. None of that is our finding, and none of it concerns material sold by the current operators, but it is the only testing data that exists under this name.
Our read
Every statement that would let a purchaser evaluate this supplier arrives without its evidence. The testing badge has no laboratory and no certificate. The compliance badge has no backing. The ownership statement has no owner. The shipping page is the one part of the site that reads like a functioning business, and a shipping page cannot carry a store on its own.
We are prepared to believe that a new operator bought a recognizable name and intends to run it better. If so, the path to being believed is short: name the entity, post a certificate for a current lot, identify the laboratory and print a contact address. Until that happens, there is nothing here to verify, the only independent data under this name belongs to a predecessor whose products failed more tests than they passed, and a research purchaser has no reason to be the one who finds out whether the relaunch is different.