About this site

1. No invented facts. Where something was not supplied, this site says it was not supplied rather than filling the gap. On this build that list runs to ten items.
2. Provenance is stated. The milligram figures here came from a written brief rather than a photographed panel, and every page carrying them says so.
3. The label wins over the brief. Where the two disagree — and on the claim wording they disagree substantially — the artwork is authoritative and the conflict is published.
4. No study is cited unless it was opened. No identifier on this site was written from memory.
5. No fabricated testimony. The seller's review figures are published as the seller's, audited, and emitted in no schema.
6. Every choice favours the product. Lowest studied dose, nominal salt ratios, no absorption penalty. If the conclusion survives all three it is not a conclusion about our method.
7. No verdict we are not entitled to reach. We set out the regulatory framework on the claim page and stop short of ruling, because FDA has not ruled and we are not FDA.
8. Corrections carry dates. When we are wrong we say so on the page, not in a changelog nobody reads.

The seven amounts

The seller's written brief, which presents them as the product's published panel. No panel artwork was supplied.

The claim wording

Read off the two supplied marketing images of the front of the bottle.

The delivered weights

Molecular weights from the NIST Chemistry WebBook, and the 2:1 stoichiometry from PubChem CID 76045315. Arithmetic, shown on the salt and base page.

The Daily Values

The FDA's Daily Value reference table, cross-checked against the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements factsheets.

The studied doses

The papers listed in the references block of the relevant pages. Every one was opened.

The regulatory material

21 CFR 101.93, the FDA Small Entity Compliance Guide, the 2000 final rule, FDA's substantiation guidance and the FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance.

The prices

The seller's brief. Published as given.

The review figures

The seller. Published as the seller's, with an audit.

The panel and its provenance →The arithmetic →

The written brief and the supplied images disagree in five places. All five are published rather than resolved quietly.

What the product claims to do

The brief describes the claims as “daily mental clarity, sustained energy, cognitive well-being as printed”. The front of the bottle, in both supplied images, reads CLINICAL MEMORY RESTORATION. Those are not the same claim, and the one on the bottle is the stronger of the two by a wide margin. This site publishes the bottle's wording, because that is what a buyer holds.

Whether the FDA disclaimer appears

Neither supplied image shows the disclaimer that US rules require alongside a structure/function claim, and neither shows an asterisk on the claim line that would link to one. We are not saying it is absent from the product: we were given two marketing renders of the front of the bottle and no back panel, so we cannot see where it might be. We are saying we could not find it in what we were given.

Where the milligram figures come from

The brief supplies a typed list of seven ingredients with milligram amounts, and refers to “the published panel”. No panel artwork was supplied. Every figure on this site therefore comes from the brief and is attributed to the brief, not transcribed from a document we have seen.

How many ingredients the marketing shows

The brief lists seven. Both supplied listing images show six molecule callouts, omitting L-Citrulline Malate. A missing callout is a design decision rather than a labelling fault, and it is the kind of small inconsistency worth noticing on a page that asks you to count things.

What the sales page and the bottle each say about dose

The brief gives “One capsule daily with an 8 oz glass of water” and both listing images print “One capsule with water”. These agree, which is worth saying in a list of disagreements.

The first is the one that shapes this site. A brief describing “cognitive well-being” and a bottle reading “clinical memory restoration” are selling different things, and the buyer only ever sees one of them.

The claim, in full →

1. Establish what we actually have

   The first task on this build was not reading the brief but working out what kind of document it was. A typed ingredient list with no panel photograph is a different evidential object from a transcribed label, and every page carries that distinction.

2. Compare the brief against the artwork

   The written brief and the supplied images are read side by side. Where they disagree the artwork wins and the disagreement is published. Five were found here, and the first of them is about what the product claims to do.

3. List what is missing

   Anything a buyer would reasonably want that was not supplied goes on a list rather than being filled in from industry convention. On this build that list runs to ten items, and it includes the Other Ingredients line.

4. Convert before comparing

   Every salt is converted to its base weight using published molecular weights before any comparison is made, because comparing a salt weight against a trial dose would overstate the product.

5. Open every source

   No paper is cited that was not opened and read. Where a claim could not be verified, the page says so rather than using it.

6. Choose the reading that favours the product

   Lowest studied dose, nominal salt ratio, no absorption penalty. If a conclusion survives all three it is not a conclusion about our method.

7. Stop where our authority stops

   The claim page sets out the regulatory framework and declines to reach a verdict, because FDA has not reached one and we are not FDA.

8. Send it for review

   Before a page goes live, Dr. Mary Cunningham, a neuropsychologist, reads it for accuracy and for how it treats memory, attention and safety. The page carries the reviewer’s name and the date it was revised.