One product, one panel, one record.
Solimo (Amazon Basics) Prebiotic & Probiotic Gummies, Blue Raspberry, 50 count x 2 — label audit
Three retrieval routes exist for a US supplement label — the seller's own page, the NIH label database and the Internet Archive — and for this product all three fail at once. The page bot-blocks automation, Amazon has filed 16 Solimo labels with NIH and none of them is this probiotic, and the only archive capture of the listing is a snapshot of Amazon's robot check.
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
- No NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database record is on file for this product in this teardown.
- 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 Reached 2026-07-31, after the founding cohort of 27 was frozen. It sits outside every D27 denominator the site publishes, and because no label surface was recovered it contributes no organism slots either.
- How deep this went
- Label not recovered The SKU was reached, but no label surface could be recovered. That is itself a finding about this category, and it is why this page exists rather than being quietly dropped.
- What did not survive verification
- Part of this page was refuted or could not be reproduced No label surface was recovered for this SKU, and this page is therefore marked rather than scored. All three routes to a US supplement label failed at the same time: amazon.com returns a bot-check page to every automated method attempted, no NIH label record was ever filed for this product (four queries, against 16 other Solimo records that do exist), and the sole Internet Archive capture of the listing preserved Amazon's robot check instead of the product. Everything known about the contents comes from third-party retail mirrors reproducing Amazon's own A+ bullet copy — two independent mirrors agreeing on the substantive strings, which is real corroboration and is still not a panel. Consequently this page publishes no CFU basis grade, no strain-designator count, no organism slots and no cost per day, because deriving any of those from a reseller's reproduction of a marketing bullet would mean inventing them. Two things follow that are worth stating plainly. First, the mirrored copy is unusually good — it gives an at-end-of-shelf-life basis, warns about its own likely side effect, and makes almost no health claim at all — and none of that can be confirmed against a label here, so none of it is scored in this product's favour either. Second, this is not primarily a finding about one house brand. A product with 17,718 ratings on the largest supplement retailer on earth has no machine-readable Supplement Facts panel available to any automated verification method, and that is the finding.
The Label Verifiability Score for this product
No score and no rank
No Label Verifiability Score exists for this product, and none is estimated. The score is a count of things printed on a label; no label surface for this SKU could be recovered, so there is no panel to count and nothing to score. This is not a low score and it is not a placeholder for one — the number does not exist, and inventing one would be the exact failure this site documents.
The product stays in the audit and stays on this site. It is listed, unranked, on the label audit, and it is absent from the ranking rather than placed at the bottom of it: an unanswered question is not a bad answer, and ranking it as though it were would be a number about our reach dressed up as a fact about the product.
| Component | Weight | What was counted, and where | Fraction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identity printed on the panel | 0.24 | No organism slot has been transcribed from this panel, so there is nothing to count. | Not answered |
| Per-organism amount printed | 0.20 | No organism slot has been transcribed from this panel, so there is nothing to count. | Not answered |
| What the CFU count is measured against | 0.22 | The potency basis was not cleared for this product. That is a gap in our teardown, not a finding that the label states none. | Not answered |
| Printed designators that lead to a human trial | 0.20 | No organism slot has been transcribed from this panel, so there is nothing to count. | Not answered |
| 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 |
No label surface for this SKU could be recovered, so there is no panel to score. It is listed and unranked. That a currently-sold product has no retrievable label is itself a finding about this category, which is why the SKU is not deleted.
The ranking of the 154 products that can be scored is on the home page, with what the score measures and what it does not.
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 | 2 billion CFU per serving of 2 gummies — recorded from mirrored Amazon A+ copy, not from a recovered panel |
| What that count is measured against | Not verified |
| Strain designators | Not verified |
| Organism slots transcribed here | 0 — the panel is not transcribed |
| Marketed as | Unisex |
The mirrored Amazon bullet reads, verbatim, "2 billion CFU (colony forming units at end of shelf life) of probiotics per serving (2 gummies) with chicory fiber prebiotics." Read at exactly the strength the evidence supports: that sentence comes from third-party retail mirrors that reproduce Amazon's own A+ bullet copy, corroborated across two independent mirrors, and not from a Supplement Facts panel. No panel was recovered, so the basis is recorded as not verified rather than as an at-expiry guarantee. If it holds, it is the honest form of the claim and better than either branded product in the same batch managed — but it cannot be checked against a label, and a claim that cannot be checked against a label is precisely what this page exists to say.
The panel’s own words on potency, verbatim.
The potency basis was not cleared for this product. This is a gap in our teardown, not a finding about the label.
Whether the panel prints strain designators was not cleared for this product. This is a gap in our teardown, not a finding about the label.
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.
- Internet Archive capture — 20250123173551 (opens in a new tab) captured The only Internet Archive capture of this ASIN, and it is a snapshot of Amazon's CAPTCHA page rather than of the product. Archived text, verbatim: "Enter the characters you see below · Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot." This is the dated artefact behind this page, and what it records is the retrieval failure itself. It is listed as the label evidence because it is the only dated artefact that exists: the live page returns a 3,781-byte bot-check to every automated method, no NIH label record was filed, and everything else known about this product comes from third-party retail mirrors reproducing Amazon's A+ bullet copy — corroborated across two independent mirrors, but not a label and not treated as one.
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.
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
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.
This brand sells no women’s counterpart to this product, so there is no diff to run.
Every finding on this page, with the record behind it
Finding 1 all-three-label-retrieval-routes-fail-simultaneously
The page bot-blocks automation, no NIH label record was filed, and the only Internet Archive capture of the ASIN preserved Amazon's robot check rather than the product. A product with 17,718 ratings — one of the most-reviewed probiotics on the largest supplement retailer on earth — has no machine-readable Supplement Facts panel available to any automated verification method. Its panel exists only as pixels behind a bot wall. That is not a defect of this brand; it is a structural statement about what "transparency" means in this category.
The record: Wayback 20250123173551 (a capture of Amazon's CAPTCHA page); four DSLD queries returning no probiotic record; live fetches of B0DH6GH4M9 and B012RFVHSO returning a 3,781-byte bot-check page, all 2026-07-31 — open it (opens in a new tab)
Finding 2 no-nih-label-filing-while-sixteen-other-solimo-labels-exist
Amazon has filed 16 Solimo supplement labels with NIH — Adult Multivitamin, Melatonin, Fish Oil, Prenatal & DHA and others — and none of them is this probiotic. The company knows how to file; it did not file this one. Say it that way rather than "no DSLD record exists for Solimo", which would be false.
The record: DSLD /search-filter queries q=Solimo (16 records, none a probiotic), q=Solimo prebiotic probiotic gummies (0 on brand), q=Amazon Basics (50 hits, none Amazon-owned), q=195515033428 (0 hits), all run 2026-07-31
Finding 3 species-only-disclosure-against-fifty-eight-b-coagulans-rcts
58 human RCTs exist on Bacillus coagulans. The label tells a buyer which of them applies to this product: none of them, because it does not say which strain it contains. This is the sharpest teaching example available, because a directly comparable branded gummy in the same batch contains the same species and does name its strain.
The record: "Bacillus coagulans" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 58; "Bacillus coagulans" AND "GBI-30" → 47; "Bacillus coagulans" AND "MTCC 5856" → 16; "MTCC 5856" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] → 3, all run 2026-07-31
Finding 4 no-certification-third-party-testing-claim-or-named-lab-found
Nothing to verify, and nothing asserted that would need verifying, in any retrievable source.
The record: Retail mirrors of Amazon A+ copy for B0DH6GH4M9 and B07GPFB6FJ, scanned for certifier tokens 2026-07-31
Finding 5 brand-identity-is-in-flux
The listing title still reads "Solimo" while the A+ copy reads "Amazon Basics … (Previously Solimo)", and the 17,718-rating count in the brief is a rollup that spans the rebrand and both pack sizes. The review number attaches to the ASIN, not to a formula.
The record: Mirrored Amazon listing title and A+ copy for B0DH6GH4M9, read 2026-07-31
Finding 6 the-retailer-is-also-the-manufacturer-of-record
The mirrored Amazon detail block gives the manufacturer as "Amazon.com Services LLC", on a product that Amazon also sells, ranks, reviews and search-orders. Not a defect in itself, but the usual retailer-as-check-on-brand does not exist here.
The record: Mirrored Amazon detail block for B0DH6GH4M9 — Manufacturer: Amazon.com Services LLC; Country of Origin: USA; Date First Available: October 26, 2018 — 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.
- What the CFU count is measured against
- The potency basis — manufacture, expiry, or nothing at all — was not cleared for this product.
- Whether the panel prints strain designators
- Not cleared for this product.
- The full Supplement Facts panel
- The panel has not been transcribed into this record, so no organism-level count on this page is a count of the label.
- 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 US retail price, and therefore the cost per day
- No current price could be verified. amazon.com returns a bot-check page to every automated method attempted, and camelcamelcamel returned a Cloudflare 403, so no price history was retrievable either. The only figure obtained is $9.57, quoted by a retail mirror as Amazon's price "as of Nov 18, 2024" — which is roughly twenty months stale, is for the single 50-count ASIN rather than the pack of two this page covers, and comes from a reseller rather than from Amazon. It implies about $0.38 a day at the stated 2-gummies-per-serving, 25 servings per bottle. It is recorded here only to show the rough price band and it may not be published as this product's price.
- The Supplement Facts panel
- Never obtained. Amazon serves it as a product image behind a bot wall, no NIH label record exists to cross-check against, and the sole Internet Archive capture of the ASIN is a snapshot of Amazon's CAPTCHA page — archived text verbatim, "Enter the characters you see below · Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot." The archive fallback that rescues most blocked products does not work on Amazon. Everything known about this product's contents comes from third-party retail mirrors of Amazon's own A+ bullets, which is a weaker evidentiary base than a panel and is treated as one.
- Any NIH label record
- Four independent queries were run against the Dietary Supplement Label Database. "Solimo prebiotic probiotic gummies" returned 0 records matching on brand; "Solimo" returned 16 Solimo records — Adult Multivitamin, Melatonin, Fish Oil, Prenatal & DHA and others — none of them a probiotic; "Amazon Basics" returned 50 hits, none an Amazon-owned brand; and the UPC visible in a retail mirror's URL, 195515033428, returned 0 hits. Stated at exactly the strength the evidence supports: this is not "DSLD is missing Solimo". Amazon files labels with NIH for its vitamins and has not filed one for this probiotic.
- A current price
- Amazon blocked; camelcamelcamel returned a Cloudflare 403. See the price note.
- Which Bacillus coagulans strain this is
- The mirrored copy names the organism to species only — "2 billion CFU bacillus coagulans per serving" — with no MTCC, GBI-30, ATCC, DSM or proprietary code. That withholds a specific and measurable amount of information: "Bacillus coagulans" AND randomized controlled trial[pt] returns 58 human RCTs, and none of them can be matched to this product. The species contains at least two separately commercialised, separately studied strains with substantial independent literatures — MTCC 5856 (LactoSpore, 16 records) and GBI-30 6086 (BC30, 47 records) — so "Bacillus coagulans, 2 billion CFU" is compatible with a strain that has three RCTs, a strain that has forty-seven, or a strain that has never been studied at all.
- Whether any certification or third-party testing claim exists
- None appears in any retrievable source — no NSF, no USP, no Non-GMO Project, no GMP claim, no "third-party tested" badge and no named laboratory. Because Amazon's own detail page and its images were unreachable, this is recorded as "none found in retrievable sources", never as "holds none". Assessed fairly, claiming nothing is not worse than claiming an unverifiable badge with no laboratory behind it; an absent claim cannot mislead. It does leave a buyer with nothing at all to check.
- What health claims the live listing actually makes
- The mirrored A+ bullets make essentially no health claim — no "supports digestion", no "immune support", no "gut health" — only flavour, format, dose and dietary exclusions, plus an unforced tolerability warning, "Reduce daily dosage if minor bloating or gas occurs." That assessment covers only the mirrored bullets. The full listing and its images were unreachable and may carry claims that were never seen.
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 page is a record of a failure to look, and the failure is the point.
There are three ways to read a US supplement label without holding the bottle: the seller’s own page, the NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database, and the Internet Archive. For this product all three fail at once.
The page returns a 3,781-byte robot check to every automated method. No NIH label record was ever filed — and that is the sharp version, not the vague one: four queries confirm that Amazon has filed 16 Solimo supplement labels with NIH, for its multivitamin, its melatonin, its fish oil, its prenatal, and that none of them is this probiotic. The company knows how to file. It did not file this one. And the only Internet Archive capture of the listing preserved Amazon’s CAPTCHA screen instead of the product: “Enter the characters you see below · Sorry, we just need to make sure you’re not a robot.”
So this product is marked, not scored. No CFU grade, no strain-designator count, no organism slots, no cost per day. Everything below comes from third-party retail mirrors that reproduce Amazon’s own A+ bullet copy, agreeing across two independent sources — real corroboration, and not a Supplement Facts panel.
What those mirrors say is worth reading, precisely because it cannot be confirmed. The copy claims 2 billion CFU “(colony forming units at end of shelf life)”, which would be the honest form of the claim and better than either branded product torn down alongside it managed. It warns, unprompted, “Reduce daily dosage if minor bloating or gas occurs” — a genuine disclosure of a likely side effect that no branded competitor in the batch offered. It makes almost no health claim at all: no “supports digestion”, no “immune support”, nothing to substantiate because nothing is asserted. And it names its organism to species only — Bacillus coagulans, no MTCC, no ATCC, no DSM, no proprietary code — against a literature of 58 human RCTs on that species, at least two of whose commercialised strains have substantial independent research files. “Bacillus coagulans, 2 billion CFU” is compatible with a strain that has three trials, a strain that has forty-seven, or a strain that has never been studied at all.
None of that gets scored here in either direction. What gets published is the structural fact underneath it: a product with 17,718 ratings, on the largest supplement retailer on earth, whose panel exists only as pixels behind a bot wall.