One product, one panel, one record.
Integrative Therapeutics Probiotic Pearls Advantage (SKU 70652) — label audit
All four organisms carry a real, published strain designator — and that is exactly what makes the product falsifiable. Looked up, three of the four have substantial human trial literature and the fourth, Lp-115, has one RCT-tagged record.
This page is an audit of a label. It records what this product’s panel discloses, what of that could be checked against a primary record, and what could not. The score below ranks this product on that disclosure and on nothing else.
The record this page rests on
- NIH label record
- Label read on
- The most recent dated artefact behind this page. Labels change; this is how old our reading of it is.
- Cohort
- Addendum — outside the founding denominators Audited 2026-07-31, outside the frozen founding cohort of 27 and outside every D27 denominator.
- How deep this went
- Label audit — the lighter pass What the label says, what basis it gives for its CFU number, whether the strains are coded, whether a government label record exists — checked and published. No full claim inventory was written for this SKU. It is a real result, and it is a shallower one than the teardowns above it, which is why the page says so before you weigh it against them.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
59.7 out of 100
Rank 72 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 7 other products — 8 products sit on 59.7 and are tied. They hold the position jointly; no tiebreaker is applied, because every tiebreaker available here would be a number the rubric deliberately refused to weigh, smuggled back in to make a list look tidier.
The score measures one thing: how much of what you are buying this company tells you, and how much of that survives being checked against a source that is not the company. It does not measure whether the product works — this site holds no efficacy data of its own, and 0 of 294 organism slots in the founding cohort carry a strain with a human randomised trial for any male-specific outcome, so nobody in this category has evidence that would support a ranking by effect.
Computed over 86% of the rubric by weight — the share of the five questions below this record could answer. The remaining question is unanswered, and unanswered is not nought: it leaves the divisor rather than dragging the score down. That share travels with the number and is never dropped — this score over 86% of the weight and the same score over all of it are different claims.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction | Weight × fraction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | 4 of 4 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 4 / 4 = 1.0000 | 0.2400 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 0 of 4 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 0 / 4 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | Potency basis "none-stated": CFU figure printed yes, single basis stated no, basis reaches expiry no — 1 of 3. | 1 / 3 = 0.3333 | 0.073333 |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | 4 of 4 checked organism slots resolve to at least one human randomised trial under the designator exactly as printed. This counts whether the identity leads to a trial, never what the trial found. | 4 / 4 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | No certifier register has been queried for this product. Not checked is not the same as holds nothing. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.513333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.5969. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 59.7 above.
See this product’s row in the full ranking, alongside the other 153 scored products, or read what each of the five components asks and how to check it .
What this label discloses
Everything in this table is what the product itself states — on the printed panel, on the brand’s own page, or in the label record the manufacturer filed. Nothing in it is checked yet; checking is the next section.
| Disclosure | As recorded |
|---|---|
| CFU as printed | Proprietary Probiotic Blend — 26 mg, providing 5 billion CFU |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | All organisms coded |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 4 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
The panel prints "providing 5 billion CFU" with no temporal qualifier — not at manufacture, not at expiry. The only DSLD label statement is the vague "Guaranteed Delivery", which is not a potency-at-expiry guarantee. Marketing body copy, separately, does make a shelf-life potency claim: "maintaining full potency through the product's shelf life." That is brand copy, not a panel guarantee, and it is not phrased as a guarantee at expiration. The claim and the guarantee sit on different surfaces.
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
A CFU number appears with no temporal basis of any kind. A count with no basis is not a quantity; there is no date at which it is claimed to be true.
Every organism on the panel carries a printed strain designator. Whether those designators lead anywhere is a separate question, answered below.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bifidobacterium lactis | Bl-04 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | Lp-115 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Bifidobacterium longum | BB536 | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | NCFM (printed as HOWARU® Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM) | — not stated separately | Human RCT | PubMed E-utilities, exact designator with randomized controlled trial[pt] |
What of that is verifiable
A disclosure is verifiable when a reader can open a record that neither we nor the brand controls and see the same thing. Below is every dated artefact this page rests on. What is absent from this list is not verified, however reasonable it sounds.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 313851 (opens in a new tab) captured On-market. UPC cross-check passed — the live page prints "UPC: 871791004481" and DSLD records 8 71791 00448 1. Allergen line reads "Contains milk, soy, and fish (Tilapia)".
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 317922 (opens in a new tab) captured On-market, same UPC as 313851. Allergen line reads "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)" and soy has moved to the free-from list. The two live records disagree.
- Dated capture of the brand’s own page — integrativepro-70652-2026-07-31https://integrativepro.com/products/probiotic-pearls-advantage — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits. captured HTTP 200. Price verified in four independent places in the page source — og:price:amount, the productPrice dataLayer variable, the Shopify variant JSON ("price":6575) and schema.org offers.price. compare_at_price equals price, so there is no fake-discount anchor and no subscription offer. Image alt text reads "Nature's Way® | Probiotic Pearls Advantage" — Integrative Therapeutics is a Nature's Way brand.
How many of its strains have a human trial for what it is sold for
Across the frozen founding cohort, 0 of 294 organism slots (0.0%) carry an organism with a human randomised controlled trial for any male-specific outcome. Not for this product — for all 27 of the founding teardowns, taken together. That is the number to hold against any men’s probiotic, including this one.
Two further founding-cohort figures for context: only 43 of 294 organism slots carry a strain with any human RCT at all under the exact code printed on the label, and only 2 of 27 products have a published human trial of the finished formula — the thing actually in the bottle. All three figures divide by the frozen cohort of 27 teardowns and 294 organism slots, never by every teardown on this site.
For this product specifically, 4 organism slots carry a strain with a human RCT under the exact designator printed on the label.
A word on what a designator has to clear before it counts here. The organism must be named with the exact strain code that appears in the trial, the trial must be in humans, and the code must return that trial when a reader searches it. A species name does not qualify: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species contains thousands of them.
What it costs per day
$1.10 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $65.75 USD
- What that buys
- 60 capsules, 1 capsule daily, 60 servings per container. Single variant, no size options.
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://integrativepro.com/products/probiotic-pearls-advantage — Address given, not linked: this site does not link out to the products it audits.
What certification it holds, checked at the issuer’s own register
A badge on a bottle is a claim like any other. Every row below was checked — or not checked — at the certifier’s own public register, never at the badge. Across the frozen founding cohort, 2 of 27 products hold a certification we could confirm at the issuer — a founding-cohort figure, not a count over every teardown on this site.
How it differs from the same brand’s women’s version
Across the fourteen same-brand men’s-versus-women’s label diffs run inside the frozen founding cohort, zero men’s or default formulas contain a probiotic strain, identified by designator, that was selected on male-specific evidence. In eight of the fourteen the sex-specific differentiator is a botanical or a mineral, and in five of the fourteen the women’s SKU is better-specified, cheaper, or both — “better-specified” meaning the panel that discloses more, never the panel with more in it. The rule behind each of those counts, and all fourteen pairs classified against it , are published in full. Diffs run on teardowns added since sit outside this fourteen, and outside the sentence above.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 cfu-basis-unstated-while-marketing-promises-shelf-life-potency
The panel gives 5 billion CFU with no temporal basis, and the DSLD label statement is only the vague "Guaranteed Delivery". Marketing body copy promises "maintaining full potency through the product's shelf life". The claim and the guarantee are on different surfaces.
The record: DSLD 313851 and 317922, panel and label statements; integrativepro.com body copy, 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 no-per-strain-cfu
5 billion CFU split four ways in a 26 mg blend, allocation undisclosed.
The record: DSLD 313851 panel transcription
Finding 3 allergen-disclosure-weaker-on-the-page-than-on-the-label
The label declares flatly "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)". The PDP leads with a "Does Not Contain" box (salt, wheat, soy, artificial colors) and relegates the fish-gelatin fact to an FAQ answer; the milk fact appears on the PDP only as "It may contain a minimal residual amount of milk protein" — softer than the label's flat "Contains milk."
The record: DSLD 317922 allergen statement versus integrativepro.com PDP, both 2026-07-31
Finding 4 two-live-dsld-records-same-upc-disagree-on-soy
313851 lists soy as an allergen; 317922 lists soy as free-from. Both on-market, both UPC 8 71791 00448 1. Two live federal label records for the same UPC disagree about an allergen.
The record: DSLD 313851 versus DSLD 317922, both retrieved 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 highest-cost-per-cfu-in-its-batch
$1.10 per day for 5 billion CFU, the highest cost per CFU in its batch by a wide margin. Publish the counterweight in the same sentence: CFU count is a poor quality proxy, and these are four named, well-characterised strains. The price buys identifiability, not volume.
The record: $65.75 over 60 servings at 5 billion CFU per serving, integrativepro.com 2026-07-31
Finding 6 product-of-japan-on-the-label-not-on-the-page
The DSLD-transcribed label states "Product of Japan". Country of origin appears nowhere on the product detail page.
The record: DSLD 313851 label transcription versus integrativepro.com PDP, 2026-07-31
Finding 7 howaru-mark-is-an-ingredient-trademark-not-a-certification
HOWARU® is an IFF ingredient trademark used under licence ("HOWARU is a registered trademark of IFF and is used under license"), and it is the only mark on the panel besides a "Does Not Contain" list. It attests to strain provenance, not to potency, purity or third-party testing.
The record: DSLD 313851 label transcription, 2026-07-31
What we could not verify
Every gap below is published rather than deleted. Most are derived automatically from the empty fields in this page’s own record, so a gap cannot be hidden by leaving a box blank.
- Third-party certification
- No certifier register has been queried for this product. An empty certification list on this page means not checked — it does not mean the product holds nothing.
- A men’s-versus-women’s label diff
- The same brand’s women’s SKU has not been compared against this panel.
- How the 5 billion CFU is split across the four organisms
- Not disclosed. One 5-billion aggregate over four organisms in a 26 mg blend. The fill is small, but nothing on the label prevents an uneven split, and the label does not say.
- Which of the two live DSLD records is correct about soy
- 313851 declares "Contains milk, soy, and fish (Tilapia)" and lists free-from as "no salt, wheat, or artificial colors". 317922 declares "Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)" and lists free-from as "no salt, wheat, soy, or artificial colors". Both are flagged on-market and both carry the same UPC. Soy moved from the allergen line to the free-from line between them. Whether that is a reformulation or a label correction cannot be determined from the records.
- What the brand's quality standards actually are
- The PDP carries a generic "Learn About Our Quality Standards" link to /pages/quality, which is JS-rendered and returned no certification content to a fetcher.
- Whether any of the four strains is present at a studied dose
- The PubMed figures above are record counts, not appraisals. No trial was read, and no endpoint, dose, population or funding source was assessed. Per-strain CFU is undisclosed, so a dose comparison is structurally impossible from this label.
How to check every line of this page yourself
Nothing on this page requires trusting us. Every claim above resolves to a record you can open:
- Open the NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record linked at the top of this page. It is the label the manufacturer filed, not our transcription of it.
- Compare the CFU line and the suggested-use line against the disclosure table above. If they disagree with us, we are wrong and we want to know.
- Take any strain designator from the panel and run the query printed beside it. The query is published precisely so you can get a different answer than we did.
- Divide the price by the number of days the label’s own dose instructions make the container last. That arithmetic is the whole of the cost-per-day row.
- Search the certifier’s own register for this product, not for the brand. A company can participate in a programme without this product being on its list.
Every organism on this panel carries a real, published strain designator. In this category that is the exception, and it should be credited plainly: Bifidobacterium lactis Bl-04, Lactobacillus plantarum Lp-115, Bifidobacterium longum BB536, and HOWARU® Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM.
Naming the strain is what makes a claim checkable, and checking cuts both ways. Three of these four have substantial human trial literature under the exact code on the label — BB536 at 40 RCT-tagged records, NCFM at 35, Bl-04 at 14. The fourth, Lp-115, returns one. The correct sentence is not “four clinically proven strains”; it is that all four are identifiable, so a reader can check them, and on checking, one of the four is thin. Those are record counts, not appraisals — no trial here was read.
The panel gives 5 billion CFU and stops. No “at manufacture”, no “through expiration”, nothing. The only label statement is the vague “Guaranteed Delivery”. Meanwhile the marketing copy promises “maintaining full potency through the product’s shelf life” — a claim that lives on a different surface from the panel and is not phrased as a guarantee at expiration. And the 5 billion is a single number over four organisms in a 26 mg blend, with no allocation given.
Two smaller things are worth a reader’s attention. The allergen disclosure is weaker on the product page than on the label: the label says flatly “Contains milk and fish (Tilapia)”, the page leads with a “Does Not Contain” box and softens milk to “may contain a minimal residual amount of milk protein”. And two currently live federal label records for the same UPC disagree about soy — one lists it as an allergen, the other as free-from.
On the site’s central question: Integrative Therapeutics runs a Men’s Health category and sells men’s-coded products, and Probiotic Pearls Women’s exists across three corporate labels. There is no men’s Probiotic Pearls. The brand has the shelf space and the naming convention and does not apply either to a probiotic.