Vendor Intelligence Report: RR Biohakr

Published 2 Jul 2026. 14-page investigative report on who is behind RR Biohakr: 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 4 Finnrick lab tests, RR Biohakr records 3 pass / 1 fail, an overall pass rate of 75%. The useful read is narrow: every supplied test is retatrutide, so the vendor has some objective signal for that peptide and no Finnrick-supported read for anything else. The one failure makes this a batch-check vendor, not a trust-the-brand vendor.

The lab story is matched by an unusually thin operating trail. RR Biohakr is documented as a TikTok/TikTok Shop seller, with no public website, no independent email or phone, no business address, no Delaware entity, no USPTO mark, and no Wayback history for the obvious domain. That does not prove a scam; it does mean recourse and authenticity checks are platform-dependent.

The report also separates a real attribution lead from an ownership claim. A similarly named California clinic and named biohacking personnel create a brand-confusion trail worth resolving, but the dossier does not find shared filings, addresses, payment rails, or a statement tying them to RR Biohakr. The affiliate record is similarly bounded: the X/web/coupon sweep found no RR Biohakr codes or promoters, while TikTok-native and private-channel promotion remain open coverage gaps.

For buyers, RR Biohakr is a narrow, mixed retatrutide case. It is more informative than a zero-test TikTok seller, but weaker than a vendor with a larger clean series; stricter Finnrick scoring makes the small-sample uncertainty more visible. The full report is built to answer whether the current TikTok channel, batch paperwork, and identity trail justify taking that risk.

Inside the full report:

  • Appendix A — Finnrick Laboratory Data and methodology-divergence charts for the retatrutide-only record
  • Delaware registry, WHOIS/DNS, Wayback, and USPTO search artifacts for RR Biohakr infrastructure
  • TikTok Shop sales-channel and payment-rail analysis, including the recorded store identifier
  • Ownership and personnel attribution matrix covering Biohackr Health, Atousa Habibi, and Charles Chi
  • X/web/coupon/Reddit promotion sweep with coverage limits for TikTok-native affiliate monitoring
  • Buyer verification checklist for retatrutide orders and lookalike domains

Risk assessment

  • Operating-identity opacity risk — high: No public legal entity, domain, address or independent contact surfaced; the documented sales channel is TikTok/TikTok Shop.
  • Authenticity and brand-confusion risk — medium: Name overlap with Biohackr Health and no canonical domain, official-channel list or anti-counterfeit system leave buyers with weak authenticity checks.
  • Retatrutide quality-reliability risk — medium: RR Biohakr's only Finnrick-tested product is retatrutide: 4 tests, 3 pass / 1 fail, current rating 78.61%.
  • Retatrutide regulatory and medical-oversight risk — medium: Retatrutide is unapproved for human use; RR Biohakr's known product is sold through a social-media research-channel model rather than medical oversight.