Vendor Intelligence Report: Hazel

Published 3 Jul 2026. 19-page investigative report on who is behind Hazel: corporate records, ownership, affiliate networks, and the vendor's lab-testing record. The first 3 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 1 Finnrick lab test, Hazel is 1 pass / 0 fail for a 100% overall pass rate. That headline is real, but narrow: the only product with data is tirzepatide, and the single 10 mg vial tested strong on purity and fill. It is a favorable sample, not yet a repeatable quality record.

Hazel is best read as an unidentified personal seller rather than a conventional peptide brand. Finnrick captured no verified website, no legal entity, no named operator, no label, no batch or expiry marker, and no batch-matched COA trail. The public rating also becomes more sensitive under stricter Finnrick scoring because the chemistry is doing almost all the work while traceability contributes little.

The investigation’s most useful finding is attribution discipline. Searches around Hazel repeatedly collide with Rezie Hazel Añonuevo, known as Hazel Cheffy, and the ZMZ / Slimming Dust by Mia promotional ecosystem; packaging, product format, domain, and registration clues point to that network as a false positive, not the source of the unlabeled Finnrick vial. The relevant buyer risk is not that the tested tirzepatide looked bad, but that a future red-cap, silver-crimp vial cannot be authenticated as the same source without fresh evidence.

For buyers already considering Hazel, the reasonable-use window is limited to tirzepatide and only with batch-specific verification or retesting. There is no Finnrick basis to extend the result to semaglutide, retatrutide, BPC-157, or any other peptide, and Philippine FDA warnings on unregistered injectables raise the cost of anonymity.

Inside the full report:

  • Certificate and packaging analysis for the no-label, silver-crimp, red-cap Tirzepatide 10 mg vial
  • Appendix A laboratory data and methodology-divergence charts for Hazel’s 1 tested product
  • Domain reconnaissance covering hazelpeptides.com and other Hazel lookalike leads
  • Hazel Cheffy, ZMZ International, Slimming Dust by Mia, and Fulgent Wellness false-positive analysis using website and registration artifacts
  • Philippines FDA/NBI regulatory context and buyer-risk matrix for unregistered injectables
  • Affiliate and promotion scan across X, coupon sites, and web Reddit search, with platform gaps noted

Risk assessment

  • Batch-tracking and quality-control failure (Tirzepatide 10 mg) — high: The tested vial lacked label, batch ID, and expiry markers; future tirzepatide vials cannot be tied to the tested source.
  • Regulatory-registration risk (all products) — high: No FDA registration or accountable dispensing channel was verified for Hazel-sourced injectables; Philippines FDA/NBI materials show active scrutiny of unregistered injectables in the relevant market.
  • Supply-chain opacity risk (all products) — medium: No manufacturer, compounding pharmacy, sourcing chain, legal entity, or verified COA trail was identified for Hazel inventory.
  • Brand-confusion and authenticity-verification risk (all products) — medium: Hazel searches resolve to unrelated Hazel Cheffy/ZMZ promotion and parked/unrelated domains; Hazel supplies no canonical channel or authorized-seller list.