The pack says it is tested, but names no lab or certifier.
A testing badge without an issuer or report is a marketing claim, not evidence. Ask for the lab name and lot-specific report.
Exact product checked · GTIN 850064273038TRU NIAGEN · observed 2026-07-23
The useful read · TRU NIAGEN
TRU NIAGEN Patented NAD+ Supplement, 300mg Niagen
The pack says it is tested, but names no lab or certifier.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 23, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
Shopper scorecard
The useful findings, in decision order.
Only product facts and comparisons earn a card. Pipeline gaps stay collapsed.
Any trouble on the record?
Needs explanationCertification / laboratory record
The pack says it is tested, but names no lab or certifier.
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
Why it mattersA testing badge without an issuer or report is a marketing claim, not evidence. Ask for the lab name and lot-specific report.
Open the source-linked findingWhat remains open 3
- Panel amounts still need a clearer source image.
- Not yet in NIH's public label registry.
- Barcode checksum is valid; no independent product record was found.
These are evidence gaps, not strikes against the product.
What would settle the biggest open question?
Can the testing claim be tied to a named laboratory and this product lot? Evidence that would settle it: lot-specific COA naming the laboratory and matching the product lot.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out00
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
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 missing06
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
Panel amounts are awaiting a clearer image read
The current image extraction retained 1 ingredient name(s) but no usable amounts. This is a LookCloser processing gap, not evidence that the brand withheld the numbers; dose arithmetic is withheld until the panel is re-read.
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.
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.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 109 on 2026-02-20 to 114 on 2026-06-18 (net +5). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
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
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 850064273038.
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.
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.