Revitalize IV Solutions Review

What Revitalize IV Solutions charges

• NAD+: $250 — THE BOTTOM OF A PER-INFUSION RANGE — the IV therapy section of the pricing page reads "NAD+ $250-500". No infusion dose, no frequency and no billing period are published beside it
• Glutathione: $39 — THE BOTTOM OF A RANGE FOR AN ADD-ON, not a course — "Glutathione $39-$85", and the line beneath it names the options: "ala-carte | one gram | two grams". The $39 end is the smallest single add-on

Revitalize IV Solutions also sells 12 compounds this site boards without publishing a price for them: Sermorelin, Ipamorelin (board ranks no provider), CJC-1295 (board ranks no provider), Tesamorelin, BPC-157 (board ranks no provider), TB-500 (board ranks no provider), PT-141, GHK-Cu, MOTS-C (board ranks no provider), KPV (board ranks no provider), Semax (board ranks no provider) and Epitalon (board ranks no provider).

The peptide page prices nothing

The page that lists the peptides contains no dollar amount at all. That is a joined-text census, not a per-element one, so it is not the failure mode that manufactures false absences.

The pricing page is a different document, and on it two of the compounds this site compares do carry figures — one as a per-infusion range and one as a per-gram add-on with the gram options named.

An earlier research pass recorded this seller as publishing no per-peptide price in HTML at all. That was not right: two are priced, in plain visible text, on a page the seller links from its own navigation.

The menu is a PDF, and it opens

The peptide page links a downloadable menu, and it links it twice — in the ordinary link attribute and again in a second attribute the page's own builder uses. That second location is exactly where documents hide from a sweep that only reads links.

The file was fetched. It returned a success status, a genuine PDF content type, a six-figure byte count and a file beginning with the bytes that identify a PDF. A nonsense filename on the same content network in the same run was refused.

So the menu is real. It is also a price menu, not a certificate of analysis, and nothing about it should be read as a testing document.

Fourteen compounds, two figures, no company

Fourteen compounds this site tracks are named across the two pages read, which is among the wider declared catalogues in this batch. Two of them carry a published figure.

The footer prints a copyright year and no company name at all. No dispensing pharmacy is named, and no state coverage is published.

The pricing page is otherwise generous, running through facial, IV, injection and laser services with the units and options stated. The gap is peptide-specific.

How we verified this

• Fetched the peptide page and the pricing page with a full browser user-agent, comparing the effective URL to the requested one on both.
• Fired a nonsense-path control at the host in the same run; it returned an honest not-found status.
• Joined the text nodes before matching, then confirmed the peptide page contains zero dollar amounts and read all forty-nine figures on the pricing page in context.
• Corrected an earlier claim that no per-peptide price is published, by finding two compounds this site compares priced in plain text on the pricing page.
• Swept every attribute on the peptide page, not only links, and found the menu PDF referenced in two different attributes.
• Fetched the PDF and recorded its status, content type, byte count and first bytes, then fired a nonsense filename on the same content network in the same run, which was refused.
• Screened the trading name against the regulator's live warning-letter index, with a known-positive and a nonsense control in the same run.