LookCloser.aipublic evidence record

LookCloser record · 049100401430 · methodology v0.1

Culturelle Pro Strength Daily Probiotics For Digestive Health (2 Month Supply) with Preb…

Rebuilt from public sources on July 21, 2026.

Result
MODERATE public verifiability

This product can't be verified from public data Neither good nor bad — the checks below show what this listing publishes and what it withholds. Verifiable products publish more. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.

3 of 6 public trust signals found · 0 product-specific concerns

The short read

The label shows that this supplement contains Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and inulin. While these ingredients have been studied, this record doesn't confirm how they were combined or the exact amount per serving. You can check that the "Supplement Facts" panel on the bottle you have matches the one shown in the product images.

Why this result?
We ran this product through public-record checks — label math, barcode registries, FDA recall lists, published lab tests. This banner sums up what those checks could and couldn’t confirm. Green means nothing public contradicted the label — not proof it works or is safe. Gray means the data to check simply isn’t public: a gap, not a verdict. We show the evidence; the conclusion is yours.

Confirmed evidence

What checked out02

These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.

Taken the way the research studied it

Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (magnesium, prebiotic fiber). For example, magnesium: daily oral use; chelated forms (glycinate) are studied for absorption — note labels may state compound mass rather than elemental magnesium, which differs ~7-fold. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.

Confirmed

Every ingredient amount is disclosed

The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.

Confirmed

Documented concerns

What needs caution00

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

What is still missing05

We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.

The listing doesn't publish enough to check the math

What this means: the listing doesn't publish net weight, per-serving dose, servings per container, so the dose claim can't be checked against physics from public data. That's neither a pass nor a strike — but it does mean you're taking the label on faith. Checkable products publish these numbers.

No data

No label filed with NIH's public catalog

The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.

No data

Barcode record is too sparse to confirm identity

Open Food Facts resolves 049100401430 to "Culturelle" (brand not supplied), but that record lacks enough exact brand/product detail to confirm or contradict this listing.

No data

180-day review-count history is on file

Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 984 on 2026-01-24 to 1,091 on 2026-07-19 (net +107). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.

No data

This item belongs to a catalog variation family

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.

No data

What to ask and check

What would settle the open questions

Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.

Ask the brand or seller

1

Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?

A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.

2

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.

3

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

1

Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.

Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.

2

Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 049100401430.

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.

3

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.

The full report is free no signup · no paywall

Every check, claim, label read, dose comparison, registry search, source, and date. Free to read, download, and share.

Read the full report — free →

Want to know if this changes?

Supplements are repeat purchases. Formulas get reformulated, lots get recalled, brands finally publish the lab report they were asked for. We can watch this record and email you only if something changes.

Your address is used for this one purpose. No newsletter, no marketing, no third parties, no tracking pixels — and every email carries a one-click unsubscribe that needs no login. We store the address, the record, and the date. Nothing else.

Record built July 21, 2026. Sources: source listing (live fetch) · brand's own storefront · published independent assays (NOW Foods 2024, SuppCo 2025; brand-level) · PubMed · openFDA · Open Food Facts · NIH DSLD · LookCloser ingredient KB. Evidence-tiered statements of documented fact; conclusions belong to the reader. Beta: this report isn’t yet independently archived — treat it as a well-sourced starting point, not a certificate. Evidence-based corrections welcome.