One product, one panel, one record.
Klaire Labs Ther-Biotic Complete — label audit
Twelve organisms, twelve individually disclosed CFU figures, summing precisely to the 25 billion on the front of the bottle — the best dose transparency read in this batch and one of the best in the project. And not one strain designator, so not one of those twelve doses can be tied to a trial.
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 Torn down 2026-07-31, outside the frozen founding cohort of 27 and outside every D27 denominator.
- How deep this went
- Full forensic teardown Panel transcribed, every strain designator queried, every certification chased to its issuer’s own register, and the literature behind each marketing claim opened and read.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced Three limits sit on this record. (1) The brand's own page could not be read live — us.sfihealth.com returns HTTP 202 with a zero-byte body to automation — so every statement here about what that page says, including the searches that establish no potency basis anywhere on it, is scoped to an Internet Archive snapshot dated 2025-10-27. The panel itself does not depend on that: its twelve per-species CFU figures reconcile exactly with DSLD 281247. (2) The blend weight is not settled. Three current or recent sources print 150 mg, 255 mg and 280 mg for the same organism list and the same 25 billion CFU, so at least two of those printed panels are not simultaneously current, and the milligram figure on this page should be read as the archived brand page's figure rather than as the product's mass. (3) A reseller's claims that potency is guaranteed for seven days outside refrigeration and that the product is formulated with overage are not adopted anywhere here — they appear in no brand or label copy — and any strain designators the company holds internally sit behind a healthcare-professional login that was not entered.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
31.8 out of 100
Rank 116 of the 154 products in this audit the rubric can score. This rank is shared with 4 other products — 5 products sit on 31.8 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 | 0 of 12 organism slots carry a printed strain designator. | 0 / 12 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | 12 of 12 organism slots have an amount of its own; the rest are inside a blend total. | 12 / 12 = 1.0000 | 0.2000 |
| 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 | 0 of 12 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. | 0 / 12 = 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
| Certification confirmed at the issuer’s own register | 0.14 | Every certification on this record is brand-asserted with the register unreachable, or not yet queried. An unreachable register is a fact about the verification infrastructure, not about this brand, so it may not move its position. | Not answered | — excluded from the divisor, not counted as nought |
0.273333 — the last column added up — divided by 0.86, the weight this record could answer, is 0.3178. Multiplied by 100 and rounded to one decimal, that is the 31.8 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 | Probiotic Blend (25 billion CFU) in a base of inulin (from chicory root) — 255 mg |
| What that count is measured against | No basis stated |
| Strain designators | None — species only |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 12 — the full panel |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
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.
The panel names species only, with no strain designator anywhere. A species name is not a claim: the trials in this field are of strains, and a species can contain thousands.
| Organism as printed | Designator as printed | Quantity as printed | What the designator resolves to | The query we ran |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus rhamnosus | — none printed | 6.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium bifidum | — none printed | 5.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus | — none printed | 3.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus casei | — none printed | 2.5 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus plantarum | — none printed | 2.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus salivarius | — none printed | 2.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium longum | — none printed | 1.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Streptococcus thermophilus | — none printed | 1.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus bulgaricus | — none printed | 1.0 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Lactobacillus paracasei | — none printed | 0.5 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis | — none printed | 0.5 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
| Bifidobacterium breve | — none printed | 0.5 billion CFU | No designator printed | — |
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 281247 (opens in a new tab) captured Klaire Labs, 120 vegetarian capsules, UPC 7 09616 01225 3, on market, entered 2023-01-23. Its per-species CFU list — 12 species totalling 25.0 billion — reconciles exactly, species for species and figure for figure, with the archived brand page's Supplement Facts. The label's IP field reads "KLAIRE LABS (a trademark of ProThera Inc. d/b/a SFI Health)": Klaire Labs is a brand, not the legal manufacturer, and both names appear as brand in the federal database, which is why a single-name search misses half the records.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 322463 (opens in a new tab) captured SFI Health, 60 capsules, UPC 7 09616 77506 6, off market, entered 2025-02-23. Same organism list and same 25 billion claim at a 150 mg blend weight — one of the three disagreeing blend weights.
- NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record — DSLD 322471 (opens in a new tab) captured Ther-Biotic Women's, UPC 7 09616 01231 4, 60 vegetarian capsules, on market, $54.53 (SKU K-TWF) — the women's comparison panel, which discloses only two genus-level buckets.
- Internet Archive capture — 20251027025401 (opens in a new tab) captured The brand's own product page, fetched from the Internet Archive because us.sfihealth.com returns HTTP 202 with an empty body to automation. Source of the 255 mg blend weight, the claim copy, the storage line, the FAQ block and the gated technical-information notice. Every statement about what the brand's page says is scoped to this snapshot.
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, 0 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
$0.88 a day at the dose the label itself instructs.
- Price
- $52.99 USD
- What that buys
- 60-capsule bottle (60 servings, 1 capsule daily with food), SKU V775-06
- Price checked
- — the source we read it fromhttps://us.sfihealth.com/v775-06-ther-biotic-complete — 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.
| Programme | Status at the issuer | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| "Third-party quality certifications" (issuer never named) | Not checked | 31 July 2026 |
| Non-GMO (self-assertion) | Not checked | not checked |
"Third-party quality certifications" (issuer never named)
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
The label reads, verbatim: "Produced under a strict quality management system in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and third-party quality certifications." Plural, unnamed, unscoped. No issuer, no programme, no certificate number, no analyte. There is nothing here that can be checked at any register, because no register is identified. This is weaker than a claim that could be failed to verify; it is a claim constructed so as not to be verifiable.
Non-GMO (self-assertion)
We have not queried this register for this product. It does not mean the product holds nothing.
No Non-GMO Project seal is claimed. An unverified self-assertion, and honestly not dressed up as a certification — which is worth crediting.
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.
Compared against Ther-Biotic® Women's. Diffed .
What the two panels differ by
- The women's SKU discloses less than the unisex one. Ther-Biotic Complete names 12 species and gives each an individual CFU figure. Ther-Biotic Women's names 10 species and gives two genus-level buckets — "Lactobacillus Species 20 billion CFU" and "Bifidobacterium Species 5 billion CFU". Same brand, same line, same panel format, worse disclosure on the sex-targeted product. DSLD 281247 versus DSLD 322471
- Blend weight is 255 mg on Ther-Biotic Complete against 300 mg on the women's SKU, and the price is $52.99 against $54.53. DSLD 281247 versus DSLD 322471, plus brand catalogue-search pages read 2026-07-31
- Claim positioning differs entirely — GI and immune support here, vaginal comfort, bacterial and yeast balance, vaginal pH and odour reduction on the women's SKU. Brand product copy for both SKUs, read 2026-07-31
What is identical across the pair
- Both are 25 billion CFU per capsule.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 zero-strain-designators-on-twelve-organisms
No ATCC, DSM, CNCM, NCIMB or CECT accession anywhere on the panel. Twelve disclosed doses that cannot be tied to any trial, because a species name does not identify a tested agent. This is not a search failure — it is unanswerable from the label.
The record: DSLD 281247, reconciled figure-for-figure with the archived brand panel — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 cfu-basis-unstated-on-a-refrigerated-product
Neither "at manufacture" nor "at expiry" appears anywhere. The full archived product page — overview, key features, storage, Supplement Facts, allergy statement, caution and the complete FAQ block — was searched for potency, expirat, until expir, manufactur and overage, and returned zero matches; the government transcription carries no potency-basis statement in any field either. On a product that requires refrigeration, the absence of a through-expiry guarantee is the more consequential of the two omissions, because cold-chain integrity is exactly what such a guarantee would have to cover.
The record: Archived product page 20251027025401 and DSLD 281247, both 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 3 intactic-delivery-claim-with-no-indexed-literature
InTactic® is the load-bearing differentiator in the brand's marketing — "acid-stable delivery technology … shields the microorganisms as they pass through the acidic environment of the stomach". That is a survival and delivery performance claim. "InTactic"[all] OR "Intactic"[all] returns zero PubMed records under either spelling, and the technical data sheet that might carry in-house data is behind a healthcare-professional login.
The record: PubMed E-utilities, two spellings, run 2026-07-31
Finding 4 third-party-quality-certifications-with-no-issuer
Plural, unnamed and unscoped on the label. Nothing can be checked at any register because no register is identified — unverifiable by construction rather than merely unverified.
The record: DSLD 281247, label statement verbatim — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 5 blend-weight-varies-across-three-sources
150 mg, 255 mg and 280 mg across three current or recent sources for the same organism list and the same 25 billion CFU. Not evidence of wrongdoing; evidence that the milligram figure on this panel tells a buyer nothing, and that at least two of the three printed panels are not simultaneously current.
The record: Archived brand page 20251027025401 against DSLD 281247 and DSLD 322463 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 6 twelve-strain-in-the-retail-channel-twelve-species-in-the-brands-own-voice
The retail listing says "12 Strain Probiotic Capsules". The brand's own site correctly says "12 probiotic species". It gets the distinction right in its own voice and wrong where most buyers meet it.
The record: Retail listing title against the archived brand page, both 2026-07-31
Finding 7 faq-health-claims-unconnected-to-the-formula
The FAQ says probiotics "Support mental health" and "Maintain heart health", then sits on a product page as purchase justification. Neither is supported anywhere on the page and neither has anything to do with the twelve organisms listed. The FAQ's only two citations are checkable and evidentially mismatched: Francavilla et al., Appl Environ Microbiol 2017;83(14):e00376-17 is a simulated-digestion in vitro study cited to support a human digestion claim, and the second is a book chapter (Gu & Li, doi 10.5772/63117) rather than a trial. Neither used this product.
The record: Archived product page 20251027025401 FAQ block, read 2026-07-31
Finding 8 defends-against-unwanted-microorganisms
"Protection Against Undesirable Organisms: Defends against unwanted microorganisms. †" is the closest thing to an anti-infective claim in its batch. It names no disease, which keeps it inside the line, and it is doing infection-prevention work in the reader's head with no cited evidence and no strain identity behind it.
The record: Archived product page 20251027025401, read 2026-07-31
Finding 9 hundred-cfu-per-serving-typo-on-a-cfu-page
The page states that the powder form "provides 100 CFU per serving" — one hundred colony-forming units, an obviously dropped "billion". Trivial in itself, and relevant as a signal about panel-copy quality assurance on a page where CFU figures are the entire value proposition.
The record: Archived product page 20251027025401, read 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 quality certifications" (issuer never named) status
- The label reads, verbatim: "Produced under a strict quality management system in compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and third-party quality certifications." Plural, unnamed, unscoped. No issuer, no programme, no certificate number, no analyte. There is nothing here that can be checked at any register, because no register is identified. This is weaker than a claim that could be failed to verify; it is a claim constructed so as not to be verifiable.
- Non-GMO (self-assertion) status
- No Non-GMO Project seal is claimed. An unverified self-assertion, and honestly not dressed up as a certification — which is worth crediting.
- The live brand page
- us.sfihealth.com product-detail URLs return HTTP 202 with a zero-byte body to automation, and the retail detail page returned only page chrome. Everything sourced to the brand's own copy — the overview, key features, storage line, claim wording and the FAQ block — was read from an Internet Archive snapshot dated 2025-10-27 and is scoped to it. The panel is independently reconciled against the federal record: DSLD 281247's per-species CFU list matches the archived Supplement Facts exactly, species for species and figure for figure.
- Any strain designator the brand may hold internally
- The product page's technical information block reads: "Technical information is available exclusively to registered healthcare professionals and their authorized patients. Please sign in or register." No account was created. Whatever designators sit behind that gate are not on the label.
- Which of three printed blend weights is current
- The archived brand page says 255 mg, DSLD 281247 (Klaire Labs, 120 ct) says 280 mg and DSLD 322463 (SFI Health, 60 ct) says 150 mg — a nearly twofold spread for an identical organism list and an identical 25 billion CFU claim. The plausible benign explanation is a change in culture concentration plus differing inulin fill, and it is not evidence of wrongdoing. It does mean the milligram figure on this panel carries no information for a buyer, and that at least two of those three printed panels are not simultaneously current.
- The reseller's out-of-fridge and overage claims
- A retailer page asserts that the manufacturer guarantees potency "for up to 7 days outside refrigeration" and formulates "with more than the guaranteed CFU". That is a reseller's characterisation. It appears nowhere in Klaire or SFI Health's own copy and nowhere on the label, and it is not published here as the brand's position.
- Whether any Klaire Labs research exists outside these query forms
- "Klaire Labs"[all] OR "ProThera"[all] OR "SFI Health"[all] returns 80 records, and that query was not adopted — the [all] field sweeps author surnames and affiliation strings, and no hit was confirmed to be about this product. The finding published here is narrower and defensible: there is no PubMed-indexed publication whose title or abstract names Ther-Biotic Complete or the InTactic delivery technology, under any of five spellings tested. It is not a claim that no research exists on Klaire Labs.
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.
This label does the single most useful thing a probiotic label can do, and then refuses to do the other one.
Twelve organisms. Twelve individually disclosed CFU figures — 6.0 billion, 5.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 2.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 — summing precisely to the 25 billion on the front of the bottle. It is still nominally called a “Probiotic Blend”, but because every component is individually quantified, nothing is hidden. That is the best dose transparency read in this batch and among the best in the whole project.
And not one strain designator. No ATCC, no DSM, no CNCM, no NCIMB, no CECT — anywhere. Which means zero of the twelve can be matched to a trial, not because the search failed but because a species name does not identify a tested agent. Twelve exact doses of twelve unidentified organisms.
The complementarity with the rest of its batch is almost comical: another product read the same day names six real strains and hides every dose. Bolt one panel’s dose column onto the other’s strain column and you would have the first fully checkable label in this project.
Three more things.
No potency basis, on a product that requires refrigeration. The full archived page — overview,
features, storage, panel, allergy statement, caution, the entire FAQ — was searched for potency,
expirat, until expir, manufactur and overage. Zero matches. The federal record carries none
either. Of the two possible omissions, the missing through-expiry guarantee is the more consequential
here, because cold-chain integrity is precisely what such a guarantee would have to cover.
InTactic® has no literature. It is the load-bearing differentiator in every piece of the marketing — “acid-stable delivery technology … shields the microorganisms as they pass through the acidic environment of the stomach” — which is a survival and delivery performance claim. Both spellings return zero PubMed records. The technical data sheet that might contain in-house evidence is behind a healthcare-professional login.
“Third-party quality certifications.” Plural, unnamed, unscoped, straight off the label. No issuer, no programme, no certificate number, no analyte. That is not a claim that failed verification; it is a claim built so that verification has nothing to grip.
Credit where it is due, and there is a fair amount. The per-species disclosure is genuinely excellent. The brand says “species,” not “strains,” in its own voice — and gets it wrong only in the retail channel. Allergen disclosure is comprehensive down to sesame. It ships with temperature-control packs, which is a real, cost-bearing quality practice. And its “Non-GMO” is an honest self-assertion rather than a certification in disguise.
The women’s SKU is the sting in the tail: same brand, same line, same panel format — and it drops from twelve named species with individual counts to two genus-level buckets. Meanwhile SFI Health runs a “Men’s Formulas” category with no men’s probiotic in it, and the retail listing for this product says what the brand actually means: “Gut Probiotics for Women and Men.”