Two reference numbers, and an honest account of what sits behind them. Which is not a laboratory report.
Prepared by the Sodatidedaily Editorial Desk · Medically reviewed by Dr. Pascale Carbonara, MD · Updated
The Sodatide material we were given records lot SOD-26/SO-5904 and certificate reference SOD-5904-26-SO. The same document states that both are draft labels rather than lab proof. No laboratory report, testing house or analytical result was published to us behind either reference, and we have published no test data because there is none to publish. To match a number on your bottle to an order, call the order desk with your order ID.
| Reference | Value | What sits behind it |
|---|---|---|
| Lot | SOD-26/SO-5904 | A draft label reference. No production record was published to us |
| Certificate | SOD-5904-26-SO | A draft label reference. No certificate of analysis was published to us |
| Testing laboratory | Not published | No laboratory is named anywhere in the material |
| Test date | Not published | |
| What was tested | Not published | No assay, no potency result, no contaminant screen |
| Expiry / best before | Not printed | Check the base of your own bottle |
On their own, nothing about what is in the capsule.
A lot number is a production reference. It lets a manufacturer trace a batch and, if something goes wrong, recall it. That is genuinely useful and it is not a quality claim.
A certificate of analysis is a different object entirely: a laboratory document stating what was tested, by whom, on what date, with what result. A reference number that looks like a certificate number is not a certificate. We were given a reference and no document.
The brief is unusually candid about this, and the candour is worth quoting: it says the lot and the certificate reference are draft labels, not lab proof. We have taken it at its word and published no test data, because there is none.
We will not produce a certificate of analysis, name a laboratory, or print a test result that nobody gave us. A fabricated lab document is worse than no document, because it converts a gap into a false reassurance.
The brief says the lot and best-before appear on the base of the bottle when the bottle shows them. That is the only place your own batch reference will be.
This is the one we would most like to hear about. If your bottle carries a Supplement Facts panel, photograph it and send it to the website inbox. We will publish it and correct this site.
The label says do not use if the safety seal is damaged or missing. If it is, photograph it and call before you open the bottle.
The order desk with your order ID. That desk can connect a bottle to a purchase; this website cannot.
A separate number is printed on the label for Instituto Experience in Lakeland, Florida. Different company, different job — product questions rather than orders.
The listing carries ten marks. Exactly one of them has a number behind it that we could confirm, and exactly one of them is supported by the printed panel. They are not the same badge.
The money-back guarantee is the one with a number: 60 days from purchase, given in the brief, and the only guarantee we can state.
There is no second badge we can support. The vegetarian mark would be the easiest to confirm on any normal product — a capsule is vegetarian or not according to its shell — and no other-ingredients line was published, so the shell material is unknown.
The rest — FDA-registered facility, GMP certified, made in the USA, GMO free, gluten free, dairy free, natural ingredients, doctor formulated — have no certificate, no certifying body and no named laboratory behind them in anything we were given. Several are plausible. None is verified, and the doctor-formulated one names no doctor at all.
The best-evidenced mark in the pack. The brief gives 60 days from purchase unless the sales page prints a longer window, and a second roundel in the same pack agrees. It is a purchase policy rather than a medical promise, and it is the only claim here with a number behind it.
Natural has no regulatory definition for a dietary supplement. The panel's own other-ingredients line reads hypromellose, microcrystalline cellulose, magnesium stearate and silica — four manufactured excipients. The roundel is a mood rather than a specification.
Look at the mark itself: it reads MANUFACTURE IN across the top and MANUFACTURE IN again across the bottom, around a USA shield, never completing the sentence. It is the third time this desk has found the same broken stock badge on a different product. The label's own wording is better: it says made in the USA <i>with globally sourced ingredients</i>, which is the qualified form the FTC describes.
The factory is on a list. The FDA states plainly that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”, and that facilities must register under the 2002 Bioterrorism Act. Registration is an administrative filing, not an inspection result and not an endorsement. No facility is named in anything we were given.
A second FDA-facility graphic in the same pack, in a different style. Neither carries a registration number or a facility name, so neither can be checked.
Rules about how a product is made, recorded, traced and kept clean. A statement about process rather than contents: a GMP factory can perfectly well make a capsule containing 211 mg of something the trials used 8 grams of. No certifying body is named and no certificate was supplied.
A sourcing claim about raw materials, with no certifying body named and no certificate supplied. Worth noting that inulin and potato starch are both agricultural commodities where the question is a real one.
Nothing on the printed other-ingredients line is a dairy derivative, so this is plausible from the panel. What the panel does not say is what the three probiotic organisms were grown on, and dairy-derived growth media are common in that industry. No certificate was supplied either way.
The second guarantee graphic. Two marks agreeing on one policy is the sort of internal consistency this desk likes to see, and it is the reason the guarantee scores well while almost everything else does not.
No doctor is named on the label, on the listing, or anywhere in the material we were given. The only image of a clinician in the whole pack is a stock photograph of a man in a white coat holding the bottle, and the hospital badge clipped to his coat reads <b>Generic / Name Sanme</b> — placeholder text left in the picture. We have not published that photograph and we have not put a name on the doctor it implies.
Do not take it. Photograph the seal, the panel and the base of the bottle, then call the order desk with the order ID. A bottle that does not match the panel published here is a question for the distributor as well.
Because a lot number and a certificate reference look like evidence, and a reader who sees them on a listing deserves to know what sits behind them. On this product the honest answer is a pair of reference strings and no laboratory document, and the material we were given says so itself.
A laboratory name and address. A date. A sample identifier that ties the document to a specific batch. A list of what was tested for. The method used for each test. The result of each test, with units. And a signature or an authorising name.
None of those exists in anything we were given for this product. What we have is a Lab Tested mark with a microscope icon on the label, a reference string of the shape a certificate number takes, SOD-5904-26-SO, and a note in the same document describing it as a draft label rather than lab proof.
That note is unusually honest and we have taken it at face value. The alternative — printing the reference on a page under a heading like Lab Verified — would convert an absence of evidence into the appearance of evidence, which is the single most common dishonesty in this category.
If a certificate is ever published for this product, this page will carry it, with the laboratory named and the date printed. Until then this page carries the honest version, which is shorter and less impressive.
Lot SOD-26/SO-5904 and certificate reference SOD-5904-26-SO. The same document that supplies them describes both as draft labels rather than lab proof, so we publish them as references and not as evidence. No laboratory is named and no certificate of analysis was supplied.
None appears in anything we were given. The brief says the lot and best-before appear on the base of the bottle when the bottle shows them, so the base of your own bottle is the only place to look. On a product containing live organisms this matters more than usual.
No dietary supplement is. The FDA states that it “does not have the authority to approve dietary supplements before they are marketed”. The listing's registered-facility badge means a factory is on a list the FDA keeps, which is a filing requirement rather than an inspection result or an endorsement. We never write FDA approved on this site and this label does not either.
Nobody is named. Not on the label, not on the listing, not anywhere in the material we were given. The only photograph of a clinician in the whole pack is a stock image of a man in a white coat holding the bottle, and the hospital badge clipped to his coat reads <b>Generic / Name Sanme</b>. We have excluded that photograph from this site rather than publish it, and we have not put a name on the doctor it implies.
The order desk handles anything about an order: tracking, changes, refunds. The website inbox handles pages, typos, privacy and press, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm ET. Both are listed in the site footer. The website address cannot see your order. The label also prints a separate number for the distributor.
The label prints a complete distributor line: Instituto Experience, Lakeland FL, 33804, with a telephone number and an email address. That is more than most labels on this desk carry and it is to this one's credit. No manufacturing facility is named, and the email is the same address the brief gives for the sales desk.
One bottle is 30 capsules at one a day, so a bottle is exactly thirty days and the front of the label says so. The 60-day guarantee runs from purchase, not from delivery, and the price is shown at checkout.
Order NowRead the label firstNo price was published to us. We print no figure we have not seen ourselves. · 60-day guarantee from purchase · Not for under 18, pregnancy or nursing