LookCloser.aipublic supplement evidence
What checks out · NUTRAHARMONY

D-Mannose 2000mg with Cranberry & Hibiscus

The panel publishes 3 amounts, led by D-Mannose 2.03 g, Hibiscus Flower Extract 10:1 201 mg.

Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.

What this means for you · What checks out

What the record confirms

The panel gives a per-ingredient amount rather than hiding quantities inside a proprietary blend, so each one can be compared to published research.

Specific fact confirmed

Exact trademark owner identified

USPTO lists NUTRA HARMONY LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) in Wyoming, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells t…

Panel, decoded

The listing amount and panel row need explanation

MARKETING2 g — per-serving claim
PANELD-Mannose 2.03 g — panel readD-Mannose 2.03 g + Hibiscus Flower Extract 10:1 201 mg
amount differs

We compared the listing claim (2 g) with the panel row (2.03 g d-mannose). They do not match within the report tolerance; the source label or serving basis needs checking.

Panel rowAmount%DVWhat to notice
D-Mannose2030 mg
Hibiscus Flower Extract 10:1201 mg
Cranberry Fruit Extract 10:150.25 mg

vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.

Public ownership record
🇺🇸
NUTRA HARMONY LLCLimited Liability Company · exact mark owner for NUTRAHARMONY

312 W 2nd St, Office 5161, CASPER, Wyoming 82601, UNITED STATES

Registered2025-01-14
AssignmentsNo transfers recorded

Filed address
312 W 2nd St, Office 5161, CASPER, Wyoming 82601, UNITED STATES

This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.

Review history
/ 5
not shownvisible ratings

Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 249 to 378 across the observed period. That describes count movement, not review authenticity or product quality. A variation family may share some public counts.

Keepa exact-listing history · counts do not prove authenticity · variation family may share counts

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.

Read / share full evidence →
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check

Confirmed evidence

What checked out02

These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.

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.

Confirmed

Exact trademark owner identified

USPTO lists NUTRA HARMONY LLC (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) in Wyoming, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.

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 missing04

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.

No data

Listing claim matches the label panel

The listing claims 2 g; the photo-read Supplement Facts panel shows D-Mannose at 2.03 g per serving — the listing text and its photo-read panel agree; this is internal consistency, not independent testing.

No data

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.

No data

180-day review-count history is on file

Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 249 on 2026-01-30 to 378 on 2026-07-20 (net +129). 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

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

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.

4

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.

5

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

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 22, 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.