About
What this desk is, and why 2.9 is the highest score here
This page explains what this desk is, how a product gets read here, what this desk refuses to do, how the score was built, and why the medical-review line at the foot of every page on this site is an empty slot rather than a name.
Prostacylsupport is an independent information desk. It sells nothing. It reads the label and the seller pack, publishes what those documents actually say, and marks every gap rather than filling it. Every figure here is printed on the label, derived from printed figures with the working shown, or cited. On this product that method produces 18 findings and a score of 2.9 out of 5.
- What this site is
- An information desk
- What it sells
- Nothing
- Panel rows
- 9
- Rows with a printed amount
- 9 of 9
- Proprietary blend
- None
- Numbered findings
- 18
- Score
- 2.9 out of 5
- Reviewer named
- Nobody yet
How a product gets read here
One process, run in the same order every time. It is written out because a method you cannot inspect is indistinguishable from an opinion, and because on this product the fourth step is where almost all of the work turned out to be.
- 01Read the label artwork first, at magnification, before any marketingThe bottle is read before anything else and transcribed character for character. On this product that step took a long time, because the supplied label wrap carries a great deal: a front panel, a suggested-use block, a caution block, three storage lines, a distributor identity, three regulatory marks and a complete Supplement Facts panel with nine rows. Every one of those nine rows carries a printed amount. That is the single most important fact about this product and it is why this site reads differently from the others in the series.
- 02Transcribe the panel exactly, then decide which document governsA panel is the one document on a supplement with rules attached to its contents, so it is quoted rather than summarised: the serving size, the servings per container, the chemical forms, the species, the plant parts, the two standardisation percentages and the double asterisks, untidied. Then the disagreement gets settled. The seller pack records that the sales page’s own ingredients heading printed no panel; the label artwork in the same pack carries a full one. The label wins, every time, and the awkward consequence is printed with it: the merchant’s own sales page omits the panel the merchant’s own label carries.
- 03Do the arithmetic the printed figures permit, and show every step of itThis is where the work on this product actually is. Every amount is printed, so nothing here is a ceiling and nothing is estimated. Four rows change meaning once you multiply: a synthetic vitamin E converted at the rate NIH publishes, a 5% lycopene preparation, a 3% pygeum standardisation, and a nettle row whose plant part decides which literature applies. Each sum is shown the first time it is used, in the form two printed numbers and a result.
- 04Name the source for every figure that did not come off the labelA Daily Value, an upper limit, a trial dose or a USDA food figure is an external number, and it is attributed in the same sentence it appears in. 12 sources are cited across this site and every one was opened and read.
- 05Check the supplied evidence against the other packs this desk holdsReviews, portraits and rating figures are treated as evidence about marketing until they can be traced. An MD5 digest run over the ten supplied portraits, against the packs held for several unrelated products, found that 8 of the 10 are byte-for-byte identical to portraits presented under other names on other brands’ sites. Two match nothing this desk holds, and that is reported with the same care.
- 06Count what is missing, name each item, and publish the listGaps are enumerated rather than summarised. 17 things a buyer might reasonably expect to find in a product’s own material do not appear in this one, and the list is printed in full on several pages. A named gap is a gap you can take to the order desk and ask about, which is the only thing that makes recording one worth the space.
- 07Score six dimensions separately, and credit the row the product winsThe score is six marks out of five with a written reason beside each, so you can disagree with a row rather than with a number. On this product the first row scores 5 out of 5, which has not happened before in this series, and the reason is printed beside it in the same table as the failures.
Two things in that sequence are worth drawing out. The label step comes before the marketing step, always, so a sales graphic is never allowed to stand in for a panel — and on this product that ordering produced a credit rather than a criticism, because the label turned out to carry far more than the sales page. The arithmetic step is fenced in the other direction: only printed figures go in, and what comes out is a result rather than an estimate. The label page carries the whole transcription, row by row.
The method is not tuned to the product. It was fixed before this bottle was read, which is why the portrait checksums were run at all. Nobody set out to audit ten photographs on a product whose panel is the best in the series. The step exists, so it ran.
The eleven standing editorial rules
Applied to every page here. They were set before this product was read and they are not renegotiated product by product. Several of them cost this product something. Two of them cost this site something, which is the better test of whether a rule is real.
- Never invent a fact. If no supplied document contains it, it does not appear here. Arithmetic may be derived from printed figures, and the working is always shown.
- Missing stays missing. A gap is recorded as Not published and is never softened or filled with a typical value. The three-bottle row in the pricing table on this site is empty for that reason and will stay empty, because a figure between $69 and $49 a bottle would be a guess.
- Nothing on this site is a ceiling. Every amount on this label is printed, so every figure here is a printed amount or a printed amount multiplied by a printed standardisation. That is a stronger position than this desk usually gets to work from, and it is the product’s doing rather than this desk’s.
- The label wins over the marketing. Where the two disagree, both are printed and the label is identified as the product. On this bottle that rule has real work to do, in both directions.
- No invented people. No doctor, reviewer, laboratory, licence, jurisdiction, statute, company registration or adverse-event body is ever supplied by this desk. One badge on this product reads Doctor Formulated and names no doctor; this site does not name one either.
- No rating or review markup is sent to a search engine from here. A star rating in machine-readable data is an assertion with the caption stripped off it, and the five figures supplied for this product cannot be checked from outside.
- No claim about how a supplied photograph was produced. Ten portraits came with this product and all ten are published. What can be shown about them is shown; how any one of them came to exist is not something this desk can check, so it is not asserted.
- No before-and-after photographs, for any product, ever. Such a photograph is unverifiable by construction and would not be published here if it were supplied.
- Never guess a plant species from a photograph. This label names its species in print, which is the right way round. Where it does not — the nettle row carries a plant part and no binomial — the gap is recorded rather than filled from a picture.
- Credit what is good, in the same voice as the criticism. Nine printed amounts, no blend, species and plant parts named, two standardisations, a complete caution block, correct storage lines, the full FDA statement, a properly qualified country-of-origin mark and a real named distributor all belong in the record, and all of them are in it.
- Square brackets are reserved for empty slots. If you see one on this site it marks a value no human has supplied yet, and it is meant to be found.
The second and tenth rules are the expensive ones on this product. A reader arriving from a search for the three-bottle price leaves without it, because no three-bottle total has been published and this desk will not interpolate one. A reader arriving expecting a demolition gets a page that opens by saying the label is the best in the series, because it is. Both are harder pages to write and better pages to trust.
The rule that is hardest to keep here
Being evenhanded is more work than being critical, and on this product it is more work than usual. The ingredient disclosure row in the score table below is the first 5 out of 5 this desk has awarded in this series, and it sits in the same table as a 1 for dose against evidence. The ingredients page takes all nine rows one at a time, in that same order: what is printed, what the serving delivers, what the published work used.
What this site does, and what it is not
What this site does
- Transcribes the Supplement Facts panel in full, row by row, exactly as printed.
- Shows every multiplication, so you can repeat it or find the error in it.
- Names the source for every figure that did not come off the label, in the same sentence.
- Publishes all ten supplied reviews and all ten portrait digests, so the check can be repeated.
- Scores six dimensions separately and prints the reason for each, including the row the product wins outright.
What this site is not
- Not a clinic. Nothing here diagnoses anything and nothing here is advice about your body.
- Not the seller, the distributor or the manufacturer. This desk cannot see, change or cancel an order, and cannot send you a bottle.
- Not a laboratory. No assay was run here and none was supplied, so every figure on this site describes a declaration rather than a measurement.
- Not a review platform. This desk has no verified customers of its own and publishes no rating of its own.
- Not medically reviewed yet. The reviewer slot is vacant and says so on every page.
The one sentence that matters most on a page in this category
This site is an information desk and nothing on it is medical advice. Urinary symptoms have causes worth identifying, and some of them need a clinician rather than a capsule. The label’s own caution block says to consult a physician if you have a known medical condition, and that sentence is the most useful one printed on it. Take the panel to a pharmacist if you already take anything else — this product has a panel to take, which is more than most in this series offer. The safety page sets out the three numbers worth knowing before you stack a second bottle.
What this label does right, said first
This belongs near the top of the page rather than buried under the findings, because it is the largest true thing about the product. Ten items, all of them printed on the label itself rather than on a sales page.
- Nine ingredients and nine printed amounts. Not a name without a figure anywhere on the panel, and nothing hidden behind a blend total.
- No proprietary blend at all. There is nothing to divide, because nothing has been grouped.
- Species named where a species exists. Serenoa repens, Vitis vinifera, Cucurbita moschata, Lycopersicum esculentum, and Pygeum africanum on the row that carries it.
- Plant parts named on every botanical row. Fruit, bark, seed, seed, leaf, tomato. This is what makes the nettle finding visible at all.
- Chemical forms named on both vitamins and on the mineral. dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, boron amino acid chelate. A form is to a mineral what a standardisation is to a plant.
- Two standardisation percentages printed. The pygeum at 3% phytosterols and the lycopene at 5%. Printing them is what lets anybody check the rows at all.
- A complete caution block. It names a dose limit and the four groups who should ask a physician first, and it is printed on the label rather than left to a sales page.
- Correct storage and seal lines, and the full FDA statement in capitals at the foot.
- A properly qualified country-of-origin claim — made in the USA, using foreign and U.S. ingredients — which is the form the FTC standard asks for.
- A real distributor identity printed on the label, with a name, a town, a state, a ZIP code and an email address. Most products in this series do not manage any of that.
Set that list against the rest of this series and the gap is wide. The findings on this site exist because of it rather than in spite of it: four rows change meaning under arithmetic that the label itself made possible.
How the score was built, and why 2.9 is the highest here
Six dimensions, each marked out of five, each with a written reason beside it. The reasons are published so that you can disagree with a row rather than with a number, and so that a row can be re-marked the day a document arrives that changes it.
Why this is the highest score this desk has given in the series
2.9 out of 5 is the highest total this desk has awarded to any product in this series, and the whole of the difference is the first row. Ingredient disclosure scores 5 out of 5 because the panel declares 9 ingredients and 9 printed amounts with no proprietary blend, names the species where a species exists, names the plant part on every botanical row, names the chemical form on both vitamins and on the mineral, and prints a standardisation percentage on two rows. That is what a label is for, and almost none of the others in this series does it. Nothing else on this page outweighs that, which is why the sentence appears early and in the same voice as the criticism.
Why it is not higher
Two rows score 1. Dose against evidence scores 1 because four of the nine rows sit a long way below the published work once the arithmetic is done: 0.5 mg of lycopene against 15 mg in the trial, 6 mg of pygeum phytosterols against 13 mg in the trial standardisation, 50 mg of nettle leaf where the trials use root at 360 mg, and 300 mg of saw palmetto with no standardisation printed at all. Badge honesty scores 1 because one supplied badge reads Vegetarian over a product whose capsule is gelatin, and another reads Doctor Formulated with no doctor named anywhere.
Why claim accuracy scores two rather than zero
Credit first: of the two rows carrying a percent Daily Value, one is exactly right. 13.8 mg of B6 against the 1.7 mg Daily Value is 811.8%, and the panel prints 812%. The row loses marks on the other percentage. 25 mg of dl-alpha tocopheryl acetate is printed at 167% DV, which is 25 divided by the 15 mg Daily Value; on the conversion NIH publishes, the synthetic form delivers about 12.5 mg of alpha-tocopherol, or about 83%. The figure printed is roughly double what the form delivers, and at 25 mg the amount is far below the 1,000 mg upper limit, so this is an accuracy point and not a safety one.
Two of the six rows could be re-marked tomorrow by one document each. Label documentation goes up if a photograph of a printed retail bottle arrives whose panel matches the artwork. Price and refund terms goes up the day the sales page prints one refund window instead of two. All 18 findings are numbered on the label page, in the order they were made.
What is known about where this comes from
Four statements, each with the document it came from and what it actually establishes. This is the whole of what the supplied material says about the origin of the product, and two of the four rows are credits rather than gaps.
Printed on the label itself, with the email [email protected]. A real distributor identity, which most products in this series do not provide.
Printed on the label as a properly qualified claim, in the form the FTC standard asks for. This is the correct way to make this claim.
Neither mark names a certifying body, a registration number or an audit date. Registration is a legal requirement, not an endorsement.
A self-description. The sales page is a different domain, prostacyl.com, reached at a path ending /flow-warning/.
Distributed By: Nutrova, Tallmadge, OH 44278, with the email [email protected]. This is a real distributor identity printed on the label itself, which is more than most products in this series manage. It does not match either address this site publishes: the retailer's office is in New York and its returns address is a different New York building. A buyer therefore deals with three names — Nutrova on the bottle, Prostacylsupport on the shop, and a generic support domain on the refund line.
Recorded by this desk against the supplied label
The country-of-origin row is the one most products in this series fail and this one passes. A bare Made in USA mark has a standard behind it; a qualified one — using foreign and U.S. ingredients — is what the claim has to become when the ingredients are globally sourced, and that is the form printed on this label. The facility row is the one that does not resolve: neither the GMP mark nor the FDA-registered mark names a certifying body, a registration number or an audit date. All ten supplied badges are walked one at a time on the badges page.
The arithmetic this desk is willing to do
Arithmetic is the only kind of claim on this site that you can check without trusting anybody, so it is published in full rather than summarised. On this product it is seven steps long and it is the reason the site exists.
- 01Start from what is printedNine rows, nine amounts, a serving size of two capsules and thirty servings a container. No proprietary blend and nothing hidden behind a total. This is the whole input, and it is more than most labels in this series provide.
- 02Check the panel adds up25 + 13.8 + 300 + 200 + 100 + 100 + 50 + 10 + 10 = 808.8 mg a serving, which is 404.4 mg a capsule. A size 0 capsule holds roughly 400 to 500 mg of powder, so the fill is plausible and close to capacity, with the brown rice flour making up the rest. The panel is internally consistent.
- 03Convert the nutrient formsTwo rows carry a %DV. B6 at 13.8 mg against a 1.7 mg Daily Value is 812%, and the printed figure is correct. Vitamin E is the synthetic all rac form, which NIH converts at 2 mg synthetic to 1 mg alpha-tocopherol, so 25 mg supplies about 12.5 mg: roughly 83% of the Daily Value, not the 167% printed.
- 04Apply the standardisationsTwo rows print one. Pygeum at 200 mg standardised to 3% phytosterols delivers 6.0 mg of phytosterols. Lycopene 5% at 10 mg delivers 0.5 mg of lycopene. These are multiplications of two printed numbers and nothing else.
- 05Read the plant partsNettle is declared as leaf. The prostate literature is on nettle root. That is not an arithmetic step, but it changes what the 50 mg can be compared with, which is the same kind of correction.
- 06Set the results against the published doses6 mg of pygeum sterols against 13 mg in the trial standardisation. 0.5 mg of lycopene against 15 mg. 50 mg of leaf against 360 mg of root. 300 mg of unstandardised saw palmetto against a trial that found nothing at 320, 640 and 960 mg.
- 07State the limit of the readingNone of this says the product does not work, and none of it is a safety finding. It says that four of the nine rows deliver substantially less of the measured constituent than the published work used, and that a reader could only discover that by doing arithmetic the merchant did not do for them.
- Two printed numbers, one result. A standardisation sum is a multiplication of the printed amount by the printed percentage and nothing else. 200 mg at 3% is 6 mg of phytosterols. 10 mg at 5% is 0.5 mg of lycopene.
- A nutrient conversion is used only where a federal body states it. The vitamin E correction rests on the sentence in NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplements fact sheet that 1 mg of alpha-tocopherol equals 2 mg of the synthetic all rac form. It is not this desk’s rate.
- Where two readings are defensible, the weaker claim is published. The vitamin E row could be read down to about 76% of the Daily Value if the 25 mg is ester weight rather than tocopherol equivalents. This site publishes about 83% as the headline, because that one rests on a published conversion rather than on an assumption about which weight was declared.
- A percentage the label got right is said to be right. 13.8 divided by the 1.7 mg Daily Value for B6 is 811.8%, and the panel prints 812%. That row needs no correction and gets none.
- The panel is checked for internal consistency before anything else. The nine amounts sum to 808.8 mg a serving, or 404.4 mg a capsule, against the 400 to 500 mg a size 0 capsule holds. The fill is plausible and close to capacity, which is a point in the label’s favour.
Nothing on this site is a ceiling, and that is the product’s doing
On most labels this desk reads, the only quantitative statement available is a bound derived from the size of a capsule. Not here. Every amount on this panel is printed, so every figure on this site is that printed amount or that printed amount multiplied by a printed standardisation percentage. Where a figure came from outside the label — a Daily Value, an upper limit, a trial dose, a USDA food figure — the source is named in the same sentence. The mechanism page sets each row against what the research on it actually says.
How evidence is handled, and how this site is funded
Images and testimonials are the two kinds of evidence you are least able to check, so the rules about them are the strictest here. They also produce the most uncomfortable page on this site, and the one least related to the quality of the label.
- Supplied material is published, not withheld. All ten supplied reviews and all ten supplied portraits appear in full. Leaving them out would protect them: a reader who never sees ten reviews in one column cannot see that ten of ten close with the same sentence shape.
- Checksums, not impressions. An MD5 digest is a fact about a file that anyone can reproduce with one command. All ten digests are printed in full on the reviews page so the check can be repeated rather than believed.
- Cross-pack comparison. Every review block this desk receives is kept. An unusual phrase from one is searched against all the others, and that step produced the shared closing rotation — the same ten places a bottle is kept, in the same ten positions, across unrelated products.
- No claim about how a picture was produced. This desk reports what a set has in common and what a digest shows. How any individual image came to exist is not something it can check, so it is asserted nowhere.
- A supplied figure is printed as supplied and never republished as fact. The pack’s 4.7 out of 5, 1,086 written reviews, 4,669 orders and 88% recommending all appear on the reviews page labelled as the merchant’s claims. Note the first two together: that would be a review rate of about 23%, several times what retail usually sees.
- Six empty review slots, visibly empty. The reviews page carries six customer review cards with every field left as a fill-in slot. They are never filled from a seller pack.
The distance between the two halves of this product is the thing to hold on to. A panel printing nine amounts sits in the same asset pack as a hero image whose bottle text does not match the product’s own front panel, and a set of ten portraits of which eight are reused files. The reviews page publishes everything supplied, with the digests and the shared rotation set out in full.
How this site is funded
Stated plainly, because you are entitled to know who pays for a page before weighing what it says. Prostacylsupport is not the manufacturer, not the distributor and not the seller. This desk earns a commission when a reader buys through the checkout link on this site.
- It never changes the price you pay. The commission comes out of the seller’s side rather than yours. One bottle is printed at $69 and six at $49 each, and both figures appear here exactly as the merchant gives them.
- It has not changed what is printed. This site scores the product 2.9 out of 5 and publishes 18 numbered findings against it, including every one of the four arithmetic findings that cost it most.
- It has not changed the credits either, which is the harder half. The highest row in the score table is the one the product wins, and it is marked 5 out of 5.
- No payment was received for a score, a placement, a review or a mention, and none would be accepted. Nothing here is sponsored content and no section was written to a brief from the seller.
- The struck-through figure is not used as a price. The sales page prints $119 struck through beside the one-bottle price, and nothing supplied evidences that it was ever charged, so it appears in the pricing table nowhere at all.
- No urgency device appears anywhere. No countdown, no stock counter and no discount claim is used here.
The arrangement creates an incentive and this is where the incentive is disclosed. The defence against it is not a promise of independence. It is the method at the top of this page, the published multiplications, and the fact that every finding here can be checked against a document you can open yourself. The pricing page prints every published figure with its arithmetic, and leaves the unpublished row blank.
What this desk does not know, and how to tell it it is wrong
A page about trustworthiness that lists only its strengths is not worth much. These are the limits of what has been done here, stated as plainly as the findings.
- What is actually in the capsule. The panel declares nine amounts and no laboratory result was supplied for any of them. A declaration is a claim about contents; an assay is a measurement of them, and nobody has shown this desk one.
- Whether the artwork matches the bottle you receive. The supplied label wrap carries a grey rectangle reading AREA FOR BARCODE with a production note attached to it, which means what this desk has read is pre-press artwork rather than a photograph of a bottle in a buyer’s hand. Checking the panel on arrival against the panel on this site takes about a minute.
- Whether the product helps anybody. No clinical evidence about this formula exists in anything supplied. Ingredient-level evidence at doses the product does not match is not product-level evidence.
- Who wrote the ten supplied reviews. It can be shown that 8 of 10 portraits are reused files and that the ten closing sentences follow a rotation shared with other brands. Who wrote them is in nothing supplied.
- Which refund window binds an order. The sales page prints 60 days in one place and 90 in another. This desk prints both and chooses neither, because choosing would mean inventing a term.
- What a three-bottle pack costs. The pack is shown with no total printed, so that row is blank.
- What the live checkout says today. This site reports the material it was given. The checkout is the document you actually agree to.
Every item on that list is a gap a document would close, and most could be closed by the seller in an afternoon: a photograph of a printed retail bottle, a certificate of analysis to match the certificate number already supplied, a standardisation figure for the saw palmetto, a three-bottle total, and one sentence resolving the refund window. The label-check page writes out the nine rows to read on the bottle when it arrives.
How to tell this desk it is wrong
Corrections are wanted and they are acted on. The five steps below are not a gatekeeping procedure. They are the shortest route from noticing an error to seeing it fixed.
Name the page and the sentence
Give the page address and, if you can, the heading or the anchor showing in your address bar. Every section on this site has an anchor, so a correction can be pointed at one sentence rather than at a page. That is the difference between a fix the same day and a long exchange.
Say what the right figure is, and where it is printed
A correction that names its source is acted on immediately. A photograph of a printed bottle, a certificate of analysis matching the certificate number supplied, a checkout screenshot showing the refund term, or a three-bottle total would each change this site materially.
Send it to the editorial address, not the order desk
Corrections go to [email protected]. That address reaches the people who write these pages and nobody else. The order desk cannot change a page and this desk cannot touch an order, and sending either message to the wrong place costs a week.
Expect the page to change rather than to be defended
A factual error is corrected, not argued with. If a document arrives that closes one of the 17 recorded gaps, the gap closes on every page that mentions it and the date is printed. If a document arrives that shows a finding is wrong, the finding goes.
Expect a credit to be published as readily as a correction
If a photograph of a printed retail bottle arrives and its panel matches the artwork, the pre-press finding will be withdrawn in the words it was made in and the label documentation row in the score table will be re-marked upward. That outcome is the one this desk would most like.
One address, and what it cannot do
Corrections go to [email protected]. That is this editorial desk and nothing else: it cannot take an order, trace a parcel, cancel anything or issue a refund, and it will not pass a message to the seller. Anything about an order goes to the order desk on +1 (302) 200-3480 with the order ID. Every published route, and what each one actually reaches, is set out on the contact page.
Who reviews these pages?
Nobody yet. The medical-review half of the signed block at the foot of every page on this site is an empty fill-in slot, and it stays empty until a named person with a stated credential has read these pages and agreed to be named on them. No name has been invented to fill it, and nothing is sent to a search engine claiming a medical review while it is empty.
Every page here carries that block and every byline links to this section. The first half of it is filled: this site is written by The Prostacyl Editorial Desk, whose work is label analysis and fact-checking. The second half is the four rows below, and they are deliberately vacant.
Four empty slots. Filling them in this site’s data file fills the byline, the author box, the pre-footer check box and the footer on every page at once, and only then is a reviewer named in the page data.
The reviewer slot
This page has not yet been reviewed by a named clinician. The slot above is deliberately vacant. It is filled in only when a named person with a stated credential has read the page and agreed to be named on it, with the date they did so printed beside the name. Until then no reviewer schema is emitted and no review byline appears anywhere on this site.
The decision underneath that note is the point of this section, so it is stated without hedging. One of the ten badges supplied with this product reads Doctor Formulated, and no doctor is named anywhere in the material — not on the label, not on the sales page, not in the seller pack. A badge asserting a physician’s involvement without naming one is the reason this slot is treated as carefully as it is.
The objection is structural rather than personal. A name handed over by the seller of a product, to be printed on a page about that product, is not an independent review of it. This desk did not commission a review, did not brief one and did not pay for one. A medical-review line is one of the easiest things on a supplement page to fake and one of the hardest for a reader to check. An empty slot is honest about what it is; a borrowed name is not.
The same rule applies in the other direction, and it is worth saying while the slot is still vacant. If a named clinician does read these pages, the name, the credential, the role and the date will appear in those four rows and in the signed block on every page — and the pages will not be rewritten to be kinder to the product as part of the arrangement. A review that can only be obtained by changing the findings is not a review. The disclaimer repeats this position in the place you are most likely to need it.
Questions about this desk
Eight questions about who writes this site and how, rather than about the product. Type in the box to filter them.
who makes prostacyl nutrova
The label prints Distributed By: Nutrova, Tallmadge, OH 44278, USA, with the email [email protected]. That is a distributor identity rather than a manufacturer, and the distinction matters: a distributor sells a product and a manufacturer makes it. No manufacturer or packer is named anywhere in the supplied material, and no facility address appears either. What is unusual here is that a real named party is printed on the bottle at all, which most products in this series do not manage.
nutrova labs tallmadge ohio
Tallmadge, Ohio is the place of business printed on the label beside the distributor name, and the email on the same line is [email protected]. Neither matches the two addresses this site publishes for the retailer, which are both in New York. Nothing supplied describes the relationship between the two, and this desk does not guess at one. The practical consequence is set out on the contact page: there is no single name appearing on the bottle, the shop and the refund line.
who writes this site
The Prostacyl Editorial Desk writes it, and its work is label analysis and fact-checking. The byline on every page carries that name. The second half of the byline — the medical reviewer — is an empty fill-in slot on every page of this site, and no name has been put in it. The section further down this page sets out what would have to happen before one appears.
is this the official prostacyl website
No. This is an independent information desk that reads the label and the seller pack and publishes what they do and do not say. It sells nothing itself. The sales page named in the material is prostacyl.com, reached at a path ending /flow-warning/, and the shop this site documents is prostacylsupport.com — different second-level domains rather than paths on one site.
how is this site funded
This desk earns a commission if a reader buys through the checkout link here. That is stated plainly because you are entitled to know who pays for a page before weighing what it says. It never changes the price you pay, and it has not changed what is printed: this site gives the product 2.9 out of 5 and publishes 18 numbered findings against it.
why is prostacyl scored 2.9 out of 5
Because the six rows pull hard in opposite directions. Ingredient disclosure scores 5 out of 5 — nine rows, nine printed amounts, no blend, species and plant parts named — and that is the highest single row this desk has awarded in the series. Dose against evidence scores 1, because four rows sit far below the published work. Badge honesty scores 1, because one badge contradicts the label. The total is the sum of a very good label and a formula the label itself lets you measure.
why is there no doctor named on these pages
Because no doctor has read them. One of the ten badges supplied with this product reads Doctor Formulated and names nobody, and nothing in the material connects any named physician to the product or to these pages. A name on a medical-review line is one of the easiest things on a supplement page to fake and one of the hardest for a reader to check, so the line here is an empty slot instead.
References
12 sources are cited across this site and every one of them was opened and read. The two below are the ones this page rests on: the labeling rule that says what a panel has to carry, and the fact sheet whose stated conversion the vitamin E correction uses. Neither is cited as an allegation.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter IV, Nutrition Labeling (21 CFR 101.36).
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Vitamin E: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
The product pages carry the rest. The label page sets the panel against what 21 CFR 101.36 requires, requirement by requirement, and the ingredients page carries the source for every row separately.
Everything the merchant supplied, published in full
This desk publishes the whole asset pack rather than the flattering parts of it, so a reader can check the reading against the source. Thirty-five distinct files were supplied: a full label wrap, three pack shots, four marketing graphics, ten compact badges, a money-back seal, a payment row, ten reviewer portraits and three further faces that match none of the reviews.
Four of the supplied graphics. The first is the one that matters, and it is the reason this site can do arithmetic at all.
Read the panel before you decide
Sixty capsules, two a day, thirty days a bottle. The Supplement Facts panel declares nine ingredients and nine amounts, with no proprietary blend — the most transparent label in this series. Four of those nine rows change meaning once the arithmetic is done, and all four sums are shown in full. One bottle is $69; six are $49 each. The refund window is printed as 60 days in one place and 90 in another.
- 60 or 90 days — the page prints both
- Nine ingredients, nine printed amounts, no blend
- Returns to 1370 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 4, New York, NY 10019, USA
Prices as printed on the sales page, as of October 12, 2026: one bottle $69, six bottles $49 each with free shipping. The three-bottle total is not published, so it is left blank rather than estimated. The refund window is printed as 60 days in one place and 90 in another — confirm it at the checkout. Questions first? Every published contact route is here.
Keep reading
Authorship and review
Who wrote and checked this page
What this page was checked against
- The label artwork, read at 2× and transcribed character for character. Where the label and the marketing disagree, the label is printed.
- The seller pack, quoted rather than paraphrased, and identified as marketing wherever it is used.
- The published sources listed in the references on this page. Every one was opened and read; none is cited from memory.
- The arithmetic, shown in full. Every amount on this panel is printed, so the figures here are conversions of printed amounts with the working given, never ceilings and never estimates.
- Nothing else. Any fact that was not supplied is recorded as not published rather than filled in.
Last updated October 12, 2026. A highlighted slot is a value no human has supplied yet. Who reviews these pages?