Marketing check: 1 remains partly or independently unverified.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
Couldn’t verify means public proof was not found; it is not a mark against the product. Ingredient research is not treated as a trial of this exact product.
No named laboratory or lot-specific certificate was found for this exact product. No exact brand product page was available for a document check. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record. This is a public-evidence limit, not a finding that testing did not occur.
Headlines first. Open evidence only when you want the source trail.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
Ingredient context used alongside the captured panel. These sources do not test this product or establish safety or effectiveness.
Open related seller leads before buying, then confirm the flavor, count, and serving size. Their prices are visible, but LookCloser does not claim savings until the pages share a UPC/GTIN.
Exact page checked on 2026-07-23; current price was not retained.
View on Amazon ↗Open the brand storefront to search manually.
No defensible same-product page was retained from the brand catalog.
Check brand website ↗No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search Walmart ↗No matching product page was confirmed in the current record. Search results cannot be attached as this product until the UPC/GTIN matches.
Search iHerb ↗Prices and stock are point-in-time observations. Related pages are never used as product evidence. No affiliate links; LookCloser earns nothing from these sellers.
The full report shows every source, the exact unresolved question, and the documentation that would settle it.
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 observed listing claims third-party testing without naming a lab or certifier. No product-bound report is retained, so the claim cannot be verified as stated. NSF, IFOS, USP, and Informed-Sport were not checked in this record.
Technical check only: the panel’s 14 actives sum to 2,404 mg, which fits inside the ≈10,000 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
45 servings × 10 g = 450 g, matching the printed net weight 454 g (1 lb (454 g) powder). This checks agreement within the photo read; it is not an independent contents test.
Published sources describe how magnesium, zinc have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Magnesium fact sheet, PubMed search: magnesium glycinate supplementation.
This record does not currently hold an identity-bound public label filing for the exact product. That is a LookCloser coverage gap, not evidence that no filing exists.
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 15 on 2026-01-25 to 50 on 2026-07-13 (net +35). 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
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.
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
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.
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 850055539785.
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.