UPC valid, no independent record
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
A brand storefront was found, but no exact-product comparison could be completed.
Walmart and iHerb require an exact UPC/GTIN match before their price, panel, or reviews can be attached. Product-name results are treated only as leads, never as this product. No affiliate links; LookCloser earns nothing from these sellers.
Only product facts and comparisons earn a card. Pipeline gaps stay collapsed.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
The Supplement Facts panel is not captured here, so these links provide ingredient-level context only; they do not verify this product’s contents.
Do the labeled amounts reconcile with the stated serving and container? Evidence that would settle it: identity-bound Supplement Facts panel.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing could be independently confirmed from the available record.
Documented concerns
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
The retained listing evidence does not establish net weight, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim cannot yet be checked against serving arithmetic. This is a neutral evidence gap, not a pass or strike.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 0 on 2026-06-04 to 19 on 2026-07-05 (net +19). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
Which specific study supports this claim — and was it run on this exact formula?
Ask for the citation, how many people took part, the dose used, and whether the study tested this product or just one ingredient in it. Ingredient research is not product evidence.
Can you send a clear photo of the full Supplement Facts panel?
It’s the one part of the label required to state what’s inside and how much. A seller who won’t show it before purchase is asking for trust the label would have earned.
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 022600978220.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 23, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.