The dose claim fits the serving — physically possible
Claimed 300.0 mg is 6% of the ≈4,687 mg serving (listing net weight ÷ unit count (single unit — no servings stated)) — within physical limits.
LookCloser record · 605069991285 · methodology v0.1
Himalaya KSM-66 Organic Ashwagandha Gummies, Ashwagandha Supplements to Help with Stress…
Result
MODERATE public verifiability
No contradictions found at this check depth Passed every check we could run — not an endorsement; read the record. Evidence availability only; this does not establish safety or effectiveness.
3 of 6 public trust signals found · 0 product-specific concerns · $0.90 per serving
The short read
The label states this gummy contains 300 mg of KSM-66 Ashwagandha extract per serving. This is the same amount listed on the product's Supplement Facts panel, meaning the amount of ashwagandha noted on the label matches what is claimed. However, we could not find this specific product in the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database. You can verify the Supplement Facts panel on the product bottle matches the image shown on the retailer's website.
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 out03
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Confirmed
Taken the way the research studied it
Nothing in this listing contradicts how these ingredients were studied (ashwagandha). For example, ashwagandha: daily use over 6–12 weeks in studies; extract concentration matters (root powder ≠ standardized extract). Sources: NIH NCCIH — Ashwagandha, PubMed search: ashwagandha randomized trial.
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.
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.
Reviews not analysed yet
Marketplace rating 4.6★ across 13,184 ratings. Authenticity not analysed: burst, purge and stockout patterns need price/review history.
Cost to reach a studied dose
At 1.0 serving(s) a day to reach the low end of the studied range (250–600 mg), this product runs roughly $27 per month. A price observation, not a recommendation.
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 recall found — which is not the same as being tested
This means only that no enforcement record matched the brand name — it does not mean the product was tested, reviewed, or cleared by FDA. New and untested products also have no recall records.
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
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.
2
Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?
“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.
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 605069991285.
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.