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.
LookCloser record · 363736123017 · methodology v0.1
Vitron-C Iron Supplement, Immunity Support Iron Supplements with Vitamin C
Result
LOW 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.
2 of 6 public trust signals found · 0 product-specific concerns
The short read
The product lists specific amounts for each ingredient on its label, including Vitamin C and Elemental Iron. This means you can see exactly how much of each nutrient is present, rather than it being part of a hidden blend. However, the total weight of a serving, the number of servings, and the overall net weight are not publicly shared, so the label's math for dosage cannot be verified. You can check if the "Supplement Facts" panel on the product's packaging matches the information displayed here.
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 out01
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
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 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.
Barcode record is too sparse to confirm identity
Open Food Facts resolves 363736123017 to "IRON plus vitamin C" (brand not supplied), but that record lacks enough exact brand/product detail to confirm or contradict this listing.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 2,367 on 2026-01-30 to 2,440 on 2026-07-20 (net +73). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
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.
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
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 363736123017.
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.
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.