Disclaimer
Information about a label, not advice about you
This page sets out what this site is for and what it cannot do. It is short on formula and specific about this product, because a disclaimer written in the abstract is a disclaimer nobody reads at the moment it matters.
This site is an information desk, and nothing on it is medical advice. It reads a label and publishes what it says with the arithmetic shown. Urinary symptoms have causes worth identifying, and some of them need a clinician rather than a capsule. Dietary supplements are not approved by FDA, and the label carries the required statement in full: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
- What this site is
- An information desk
- Medical advice
- None, anywhere
- FDA approval
- Supplements are not approved
- Label caution block
- Complete, and quoted in full
- Figures to know
- Three
- Reporting scheme published
- None in the material
- Reviewer named
- Nobody yet
- First step for symptoms
- A clinician
The FDA statement, and what it actually means
This sentence is printed in full and in capitals along the foot of the label, which is correct and is to the merchant’s credit. A great many products in this category print it in part, print it illegibly, or leave it to a sales page.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Printed on the label, and required wherever a structure/function claim is made
Read it as two separate statements, because people usually read only the first. The first half says the claims on the package have not been evaluated by a federal agency: nobody checked them before the product went on sale. The second half says the product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease — which means it is not offered as a treatment for anything, including an enlarged prostate.
Two consequences follow. A dietary supplement is not FDA-approved, because FDA does not approve dietary supplements before sale; a facility making them has to register, and registration is a filing rather than an endorsement. And a claim that a product supports a normal body function is permitted, while a claim to treat a named condition is not. The benefits page reads this product’s three label claims one at a time against that line.
An information desk, not a clinic
Six things this site is not. They are listed rather than summarised because each one corresponds to a question this desk is actually asked, and the answer is different each time.
- Not a clinic. Nothing here diagnoses anything, and nothing here is advice about your body. No clinical relationship exists between you and this desk.
- Not a prescriber. No dose on this site is a recommendation. Every figure describes what a label declares or what a published trial used.
- Not a laboratory. No assay was run here and none was supplied. The nine amounts on this panel are declarations, and a declaration is a claim about contents rather than a measurement of them.
- 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 review platform. This desk has no verified customers and publishes no rating of its own, and no rating or review markup is sent to a search engine from this site.
- Not medically reviewed yet. The reviewer slot on every page of this site is an empty fill-in slot rather than a name, and the section below explains why.
What this site is can be said in one sentence: a transcription of a label with the arithmetic done and the sources named. On this product that is worth more than usual, because the panel is complete. 9 rows, 9 printed amounts, no proprietary blend, species and plant parts named and two standardisation percentages. That is a document you can hand to a clinician, which is the single most useful thing a reader can take away from here.
Six reasons to ask somebody first
Six situations in which the useful next step is a person rather than a page. None of them is unusual, and the last one is the most common of all.
- Blood in the urine, pain on passing urine, or a fever with urinary symptoms. These are reasons to be seen rather than reasons to read a label.
- You cannot pass urine, or you can only pass a little with great effort. Urgent, and not a supplement question at all.
- Symptoms that came on quickly, or changed quickly. A gradual change over years and a change over a fortnight are different stories.
- You take any prescription medicine. Take the panel to a pharmacist. This product has a panel to take, with nine names and nine amounts on it, which is more than most products in this category offer.
- You already take a multivitamin or another men’s formula. This serving carries 812% of the Daily Value for B6 and half the adult upper limit for boron, and figures like those stack quietly across two bottles.
- You are using a supplement instead of being assessed. This is the common one and the quiet one. Urinary symptoms have several possible causes, several of them have nothing to do with the prostate, and deciding which one you have is not something a capsule can do.
The sentence this page exists for
Urinary symptoms have causes worth identifying, and identifying them is a job for a clinician. Several possible causes have nothing to do with the prostate, the ones that need attention quickly are not label-reading problems, and a capsule cannot tell you which you have. If something has changed about how you pass urine, the appointment is the first step and the bottle is a question to raise at it. The who-it-is-for page turns these into a six-question check that keeps your answers in your own browser.
What the label does and does not warn about
Start with the credit, because it is substantial and because this page is where it matters most. This label carries a complete caution block, printed on the bottle.
Do not exceed recommended dose. Pregnant or nursing mothers, children under the age of 18, and individuals with a known medical condition should consult a physician before using this or any dietary supplement.
The caution block, printed on the label
This caution block is complete and correctly drafted. It names a dose limit and the four groups who should ask first, and it is printed on the label rather than left to the sales page. That is worth saying plainly, because a great many labels this desk has read do not manage it.
Now what it does not do. The block names no specific interaction, and no interaction list has been supplied in any material this desk has read. It names no condition in particular, leaving “a known medical condition” to cover everything. And it says nothing about the three printed figures in the next section, which are the numbers a reader taking a second supplement would actually need. None of that is a drafting failure — a caution block is not an interaction monograph — but it is the gap between what the label warns about and what the panel lets you work out.
The storage lines are correct and complete: KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN. DO NOT USE IF SAFETY SEAL IS DAMAGED OR MISSING. STORE IN A COOL, DRY PLACE. So is the direction for use: As a dietary supplement, adults take two (2) capsules daily. For best results, take with 6-8 oz of water or as directed by a healthcare professional. The directions page sets out what is printed and what the label leaves to you.
Three figures worth knowing
Three rows on this panel carry figures a reader should see before taking a second supplement alongside it. None of the three is an alarm. All three are printed on the label, and every limit beside them comes from a body named in the same row.
| The row | What is printed | The limit, and whose it is | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin B6, 13.8 mg at 812% DV | The percentage is correct: 13.8 divided by the 1.7 mg Daily Value is 811.8%. | US upper limit 100 mg a day, so this is about 14% of it. EFSA set 12 mg a day in 2023, which this serving is about 15% above. | Not a warning. The neuropathy literature behind both limits concerns much higher chronic intakes, with reported cases starting around 500 mg a day. It is a number to know if you take more than one supplement. |
| Boron, 10 mg | No Daily Value exists, so the double asterisk on that row is correct. | Adult upper limit 20 mg a day. One serving is half of it, and roughly seven to ten times a typical total intake from food and supplements of 1 to 1.5 mg. | NIH records no adverse effects from supplemental doses within the upper limit and no known clinically relevant drug interactions. The practical point is counting before you add a second product containing boron. |
| Vitamin E, 25 mg printed at 167% DV | The form is synthetic, and the label names it. On the conversion NIH publishes, the serving delivers about 12.5 mg, or about 83% of the Daily Value. | Upper limit 1,000 mg a day, which 25 mg is a long way below. | An accuracy finding, not a safety one. The printed percentage overstates what the form delivers. Nothing about the amount is a risk. |
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Vitamin E: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Vitamin B6: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Boron: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
The common thread is stacking. A serving carrying a large share of one upper limit is not a problem on its own; it becomes a number worth counting when a second product carries the same ingredient. That is the practical use of a complete panel: you can count. The safety page works through all three in full.
An accuracy finding is not a safety finding
This distinction runs through the whole site and it belongs on this page, because the four arithmetic findings on this product read as alarming and are not.
- The vitamin E finding is about a percentage, not a risk. The panel prints 167% of the Daily Value and the synthetic form delivers about 83%. At 25 mg the amount is far below the 1,000 mg upper limit. The printed figure overstates what the serving gives you; nothing about it is unsafe.
- The lycopene, pygeum and nettle findings are about shortfalls. Those rows deliver substantially less of the measured constituent than the published work used. A shortfall is a question about whether a product can do what it is sold for, not a question about harm.
- The saw palmetto finding is about comparability. With no standardisation printed, the row cannot be placed against a trial extract with confidence. That is an information problem.
- None of the four says the product is dangerous, and this site does not say so anywhere. What they say is that four of nine rows deliver less than the published doses, and that you could only discover it by doing arithmetic the merchant did not do for you.
- Equally, none of them says the product works. No trial of this formula exists in anything supplied. A row matching a trial dose would not be evidence about the finished product either.
If you want the whole chain rather than the summary, it is published step by step with every multiplication shown. The label page carries the derivation and all 18 findings, and the ingredients page takes the nine rows one at a time.
The score grades documentation, not safety
This site gives the product 2.9 out of 5 across six rows, and the number is routinely misread. It is a score for what the merchant published and how well the published figures stand up. It is not a safety rating and it is not a verdict on whether the product works.
Read the first row and the third row together, because they are what the score is actually made of. Ingredient disclosure scores 5 out of 5 — the highest single row this desk has awarded in this series — and dose against evidence scores 1. A product can document itself superbly and still carry rows well below the published doses, and keeping those two judgements apart is the whole purpose of scoring six dimensions rather than one. The about page sets out every row and why it is marked where it is.
If you have a reaction
If something happens after you take this product, the first call is to a clinician — and if it is severe or fast, to emergency care rather than to anybody listed on a bottle or a website.
No reporting body is named on this page, and this is why
A page like this one would normally name a national adverse-event reporting scheme and link to it. No such scheme, address or web address appears in any material supplied to this desk for this product, and this desk does not print a route it has not been given. So none is named here. What exists is listed below, and the honest summary of it is that the published routes are commercial ones.
| Route | Where it comes from | What it is for |
|---|---|---|
| Your own clinician or prescriber | Not on the bottle, and the most important route on this page | Anything that is happening to your body. This is the first call, every time. |
| Emergency care | Not on the bottle | Anything severe or fast. Do not route a severe reaction through a customer-service line. |
| [email protected] | Printed on the label beside the distributor name | The only published route to the party named on the bottle. Send the lot code from your own bottle and the date. It is a company address rather than a safety line. |
| +1 (302) 200-3480 | The order desk, from the supplied material | Order support, refunds and cancellations. A commercial line rather than a safety one, and nothing published says who answers it or when. |
| [email protected] | The sales and refund email | A written record, which a telephone call does not give you. |
| A contact printed on the bottle | The label | One email address, beside the distributor block. No telephone number appears on the label. |
| The manufacturer | Not published | Nothing. The label names a distributor, which is who sells a product rather than who makes it, so there is nobody behind that name to escalate to. |
| A national reporting scheme | Not published in anything supplied to this desk | Nothing can be given here. No scheme, address or web address appears in the supplied material, so none is printed. |
Two practical notes. Write down the lot code from the base of your own bottle before you call, because a report without a lot cannot be matched to a production run; the lot and certificate strings published on this site came from the seller pack and are not yours. And keep whatever you are told in writing, because no reply-time commitment and no escalation route is published for this product by anybody. Every published route is on the contact page.
What the citations do and do not cover
12 sources are cited across this site and every one was opened and read. It matters to be exact about what each kind of source is being used for, because a citation beside a sentence can imply more than it supports.
- Regulatory sources are cited for what a label has to carry and for what a mark means — the labeling rule, the structure/function rule, the cGMP rule, the country-of-origin standard. They are not cited as allegations against this product.
- Federal fact sheets are cited for reference intakes and upper limits, and for the vitamin E conversion. Those are figures about nutrients rather than about this formula.
- Trial reports and monographs are cited for doses and standardisations used in published work on named ingredients. A dose used in a trial of one extract is not a statement about a different extract at a different standardisation.
- The USDA table is cited for a food comparison, because a cup of tomato juice is a useful yardstick for a lycopene figure and is published per household measure.
- None of the 12 is evidence about this finished product. No trial of this formula exists in anything supplied to this desk, and ingredient-level evidence at doses the product does not match is not product-level evidence.
That last point is the one to carry away from this page. A citation on this site tells you what somebody published about an ingredient or a rule. It never tells you what a capsule will do. The category guide sets out what the evidence on each main ingredient actually says, with the dose each trial used.
The reviewer slot is vacant
Every page on this site carries a signed block naming who wrote it and who reviewed it. On every page the reviewer half is an empty fill-in slot rather than a name, and this is the page where that matters most.
Why there is no name in it
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.
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. Printing a name in this slot without a clinician having read these pages would produce a site that looked medically reviewed without being medically reviewed, which is the single most misleading thing a page like this one can do. It would be most misleading here, where you are weighing a bottle against a question about your own body.
The slot stays empty until somebody has actually read these pages. When one has, the name, the credential, the role and the date will appear on every page at once, and nothing else about the site will change — the pages will not be rewritten to be kinder to the product as part of the arrangement. The reasoning, and what the slot will say when it is filled, is set out on the about page.
Until then the position is stated plainly: these pages were written by The Prostacyl Editorial Desk, whose work is label analysis and fact-checking, and they have not been reviewed by a named clinician. That is a weaker claim than most supplement sites make, and it is the accurate one.
Questions people actually ask
Six questions about approval, advice and what to do first. Type in the box to filter them.
is prostacyl fda approved
No, and no dietary supplement is. FDA does not approve dietary supplements before they are sold. A facility that makes them has to register, and that registration is a filing rather than an endorsement: one of the marks on this label reads Manufactured in a FDA Registered Facility, which says nothing about any product made in it. The label carries the required statement in full and in capitals, which is correct and to the merchant’s credit: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”
is this medical advice
No. This is an information desk that reads a label and publishes what it says, with the arithmetic shown. Nothing here is a diagnosis, a dose or a recommendation, and no clinical relationship exists between you and this desk. The most useful thing this site can give you is the panel itself, transcribed, with nine names and nine amounts on it — which is a document worth handing to a pharmacist or a prescriber.
should i see a doctor about urinary symptoms instead
Yes, and especially before deciding the answer is a capsule. Urinary symptoms have several possible causes, and some of them need a clinician rather than a supplement. Blood in the urine, pain, fever, or being unable to pass urine are reasons to be seen rather than reasons to read a label. The label’s own caution block says to consult a physician if you have a known medical condition, and that is the most useful sentence printed on it.
can i take this with prescription medication
Ask your own prescriber or pharmacist, and take the panel with you. Point out three figures: 812% of the Daily Value for B6, 10 mg of boron against a 20 mg adult upper limit, and a vitamin E row whose printed percentage overstates what the synthetic form delivers. Then say plainly that three of the six botanical rows print no standardisation, so the amount of the measured constituent in those rows is unknown.
does the label carry any warnings
Yes, and it is one of the better-drafted parts of this product. The caution block names a dose limit and four groups who should consult a physician first — pregnant or nursing mothers, children under 18, and anybody with a known medical condition — and it is printed on the label rather than left to a sales page. The storage and seal lines are correct too. What the block does not do is name any specific interaction, and no interaction list has been supplied.
is a prostate supplement a substitute for treatment
Nothing on this site supports that reading, and the published work on these ingredients does not either. The largest trial in this category escalated saw palmetto to 960 mg a day across 369 men over 72 weeks and found no difference from placebo at any dose. Benign prostatic hyperplasia is a disease state with a name, a supplement may not claim to treat it, and the decision about what is causing your symptoms belongs with somebody who can examine you.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter IV, Nutrition Labeling (21 CFR 101.36).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Structure/Function Claims for Dietary Supplements.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Dietary Supplements (21 CFR Part 111).
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?