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.
1 of 6 public trust signals found · 1 product-specific concern · $1.17 per serving
The short read
The weight-loss supplement category is flagged by the FDA as having a high rate of fraud, which means products in this group have a documented history of containing undeclared ingredients. This listing's own math for the active ingredients is consistent within itself. However, the authenticity of customer reviews has not yet been analyzed for this product. You can check the Supplement Facts panel on the product's packaging against the list of ingredients provided 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, ashwagandha, 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
✓
Pack math confirmed from the label
30 servings × 4.5 g = 135 g, matching the printed net weight 135 g (Net Wt. 4.8oz (135g)). Any different figure in the marketplace’s shipping-weight field describes packaging, not the product.
Confirmed
Documented concerns
What needs caution01
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
!
Ingredient amounts hidden in a blend
The panel lists “Probiotic Blend” as a combined amount. A blend total can’t tell you whether any single ingredient reaches a dose used in research.
Caution
Unresolved public record
What is still missing03
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
…
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 6 actives sum to 190 mg, which fits inside the ≈4,500 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
No data
…
This category has documented FDA fraud risk
FDA's health-fraud program lists weight-loss products among the top supplement categories found to contain undeclared drug ingredients. Category-level documented fact — not a test result for this specific product. Source: fda.gov (linked in Related research).
No data
…
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 13 on 2026-05-04 to 140 on 2026-07-20 (net +127). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
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
What is the product’s UPC or GTIN?
The barcode is how a product gets matched to outside records — certification registries, label databases, recall data. Without it, almost nothing can be cross-checked.
2
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.
3
What is the amount of each ingredient inside the proprietary blend?
A blend total tells you nothing about whether any single ingredient reaches a dose used in research. Brands may decline — that answer is informative too.
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
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.
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.