Disclosures
One page for the things a reader is entitled to know before weighing anything here: who did the work, what the method can establish and what it cannot, whether a clinician has checked it, what the site earns, and how to get an error fixed. Each of these is stated once, here, and linked from the foot of every page.
What this site does
It reads what is printed and what is registered. Every product in the audit is taken apart against its own Supplement Facts panel, the brand’s live page and the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database, superseded label versions included. Every strain designator is resolved to a published record, or reported as resolving to none. Every certification is checked at the issuer’s own register rather than at the badge on the box. Every clinical claim carries the identifier of the record it came from — a PubMed ID, a trial registry number, a DOI, an NIH label-database record, a regulator’s own docket — so that a reader can check it without trusting anybody.
Where a search found nothing, the page publishes the absence together with the databases actually searched. An unscoped “zero” is a claim about the world when it is really a claim about one query.
Who runs it
Roman Sydorenko, an independent analyst with a background in search and data analysis. That work is finding records, reading them against each other, and checking whether a published number survives being looked up — which is most of what goes wrong in this category. A strain designator that resolves to nothing. A CFU count with no temporal basis. A certification badge that is not in the certifier’s register. A percentage that turns out to come from a survey of paid customers. A trial the marketing evokes, run on a different strain at a different dose. None of those are clinical errors. They are record errors, and they are visible to anyone willing to open the record.
He also runs an independent SEO consultancy. That is the unrelated work that pays for this site, and it is a real interest a reader should know about: somebody whose living comes from search visibility has an obvious incentive to make a site look authoritative. No brand in the audit set has ever been a client of it, and if one becomes one, it is disclosed on that brand’s page and dated in the corrections log on the same day. The author page sets out the background and the adversarial pass this project ran against its own drafts.
Where that background stops
Roman Sydorenko is not a clinician, and nothing on this site is medical advice. Reading trials is not the same as clinical judgement. Where a claim needs clinical judgement rather than record-checking, this site defers to a named guideline body and reproduces its wording verbatim, so that the judgement on the page is theirs and attributable rather than ours.
Urinary symptoms, a rising PSA, blood in your urine, new erectile dysfunction and difficulty conceiving are diagnostic problems. They need somebody who can examine you, and nothing here should delay that appointment by a day.
Clinical review
No clinician has reviewed this site. If one ever does, their name, their credential as it appears on the issuing register, and the date of the review will be published on the pages they reviewed.
The slot stays visibly empty rather than filled with a name. A “medically reviewed by” line attached to somebody who never read the page is the one failure this site could not survive, and it is the standard practice in this category. The scope a reviewer would be given is published in advance, on the methodology page and here: A reviewer would check clinical claims and how they are characterised — grades, effect sizes, caveats, and the database scope of every absence statement. A reviewer would not check label transcriptions, label-database records, price arithmetic or certifier-register lookups; those are the operator’s method and the operator’s responsibility.
When one signs, their name, their credential exactly as it appears on the issuing register, a link to that register and the date of the review appear on every page they reviewed, and in the structured data of those pages. Not before.
What the method cannot establish
No product in this audit was purchased, opened, weighed or cultured. Nothing here verifies that a bottle’s contents match the panel printed on it, and no sentence on this site may be read as a measurement of what is inside one. What is established here is what a company discloses, and whether the record behind that disclosure holds up when you open it.
The score on a product page ranks disclosure and nothing else. It is not an assessment of whether the product works: this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and it recommends nothing.
Every cell that could not be verified is published as unverified rather than deleted, and the gap list on each product page is generated from the record rather than written by hand — so it cannot quietly disagree with the page it sits on.
What this site earns
Nothing, today. There is no revenue of any kind: no affiliate links, no sponsored placements, no brand partnerships, no display advertising, no lead-generation forms, no subscriptions, no donations and no products of its own. The hosting and the time are paid for out of the consultancy named above.
No product, sample, review unit, early access or payment from a manufacturer or a retailer has ever been accepted, and none is accepted today. Nobody named on this site was shown a page before publication or given an opportunity to influence one.
If that position changes, it is disclosed before it takes effect rather than discovered afterwards. The footer line changes first; the change is dated in the corrections log with the old wording quoted beside the new; and the funding page names who pays, for what, and on which pages, in plain text on every page that carries it. Paid rankings are a different question and not a disclosure one: selling position in a ranking is deceptive under the FTC’s endorsement guides whatever it is labelled, so that is a legal boundary rather than an editorial preference. The full commitment, in six points, is on the funding page.
Who is responsible, in law
Roman Sydorenko, autónomo (self-employed individual), registered in Spain. Autónomo is Spain’s legal form for a registered self-employed trader: a named party, under a named legal system, and the party responsible for everything published here. A site that names brands and says unflattering things about them owes those brands, and its readers, somebody real to raise it with.
Correspondence is by email. No postal address is published on this site.
If something here is wrong
Send it to roman@seobro.com. Corrections are published on the same terms from anyone, including from a brand whose product is audited here. They are dated, permanent, and quote the original error in full; nothing is silently edited, including by us. Absence statements — “zero”, “never”, “no trial exists” — are the most perishable claims on this site and the first place to look. The corrections policy sets out how one is published.