About
How this site reads a label, and why the reviewer line is empty
This page explains who writes myneuralisse.com, how a product gets read here, what this desk refuses to do, and why the reviewer line at the top of every page is an empty bracketed slot rather than a name.
This is an independent desk, not a shop. It reads the label at magnification and transcribes it character for character, lists every marketing claim beside the document it came from, fetches and quotes every citation rather than paraphrasing it, derives arithmetic only from figures that are actually printed — and publishes what is not published as plainly as what is. Seventeen gaps are listed on this site. The score it gives Neuralisse is 2.4 out of 5, built from six published criteria so the number can be audited rather than taken on trust.
- What this is
- An independent desk
- What it is not
- The seller or the maker
- Sources cited
- Nine, all opened
- Bodies read
- FDA, NIH ODS, NCCIH
- Numbered findings
- Fifteen
- Gaps listed
- Seventeen
- Score
- 2.4 out of 5
- Named reviewer
- None yet
How a product gets covered here
There is one process and it runs in the same order every time. It is written out here because a method a reader cannot inspect is indistinguishable from an opinion.
- 01Read the label at magnification and transcribe it character for characterThe flat artwork is opened at three times size and typed out, not summarised. Every line goes in as printed, including the parts that are awkward: the turmeric binomial on this label is set as Curcumalonga, with no space, and it is transcribed that way here. The label is read before the sales material, deliberately, so that the marketing is checked against the bottle rather than the other way round.
- 02List every marketing claim beside the document it came fromA claim is only worth anything with a provenance attached. The front panel of this bottle reads NERVE SUPPORT FORMULA. The Inside Neuralisse graphic renders the same bottle as NEUROPATHY SUPPORT FORMULA. Both are published, side by side, each labelled with where it appears, because the difference between them is the finding.
- 03Derive arithmetic only from figures that are actually printed, and show the workingOne figure on this panel is printed: 80 mg of magnesium at 19% of the Daily Value. Everything numerical on this site comes out of that figure, the 575 mg blend total, the six names and the FDA’s descending-order rule. Nothing comes out of an estimate, and every step is published so a reader can repeat it or find the error in it.
- 04Fetch every citation, read it, and quote it rather than paraphrase itNine sources are cited across this site and every one was opened. Quotations are copied from the page, not from a summary of the page, and the full quotation is reproduced so a reader can see what was left out of it. Two bodies supply all nine: the FDA and the National Institutes of Health, through its Office of Dietary Supplements and NCCIH.
- 05Read the two federal bodies and no journals, even when that costs the productWhere neither NCCIH nor NIH ODS publishes a fact sheet on an ingredient, this site reports nothing in either direction. On this label that silence covers alpha lipoic acid and butcher’s broom. There is a journal literature on both; selecting which papers to quote is exactly the step that turns an information page into a sales page, so the step is not taken.
- 06Examine the supplied evidence as a set, never one item at a timeTen reviews and ten portraits came with this product. A single review tells you almost nothing; ten in one column show a repeated grammar, and ten pictures in one grid show what they have in common. The most useful single step is to search an unusual phrase from one review across every other review set on file — which is how the finding on the reviews page was found.
- 07Publish what is not published, as plainly as what isSeventeen gaps are listed on this site, and they are recorded as not published rather than softened into something that reads better. No price appears in any document supplied. No guarantee length appears either. No Certificate of Analysis, no manufacturer, no country of origin. A missing fact that is named is a fact a reader can go and ask for.
- 08Score six criteria separately, and publish the rows rather than the verdictThe number this site gives a product is built from six published criteria, each scored out of five with a written reason. Publishing the rows means a reader can disagree with one of them rather than with the total. On this product two criteria score 4 — the highest marks in this series — and two score 1.
Two things in that sequence are worth drawing out. The transcription step comes before the marketing step, so the sales pack is always checked against the bottle. And the arithmetic step is constrained to printed figures only, which on this product turned out to be unusually productive: a single declared nutrient with a correct Daily Value percentage was enough to solve a proprietary blend that was designed not to be solvable.
Who reviews these pages?
Nobody yet. The reviewer half of the byline on every page of this site is an empty fill-in slot, and it stays empty until a named clinician or dietitian has actually read these pages. No name has been invented to fill it, and nothing is sent to a search engine claiming a medical review while it is empty.
Every page here carries a byline and every byline links to this section. The byline has two halves. The first is filled: this site is written by the The Neuralisse Editorial Desk, whose work is label analysis and fact-checking. The second half is the block below, and it is deliberately vacant.
Four empty slots. Filling them in the site’s data file fills the byline, the author box, the pre-footer check box and the footer on every page at once, and only then is a reviewer named in the page data.
The reviewer slot
This page has not yet been reviewed by a named clinician. The slot above is deliberately left vacant rather than filled with a name this desk cannot stand behind. The seller pack supplied a real podiatrist’s name to print here; nothing supplied shows that he read these pages, so his name is not used. When a named reviewer has read them, the name, credential and date will appear in that slot on every page.
The decision underneath that note is the point of this section, so it is stated without hedging. The seller’s own pack supplied the name of a real podiatrist to print in that bracket, and this desk does not use it. The reason is structural rather than personal. A name handed over by the seller of a product, to be printed on a page reviewing that product, is not an independent review of it. This desk did not commission the review, did not brief it, did not pay for it, and has seen nothing indicating that the podiatrist read these pages or agreed to be associated with them. Nothing here reflects on his competence or his standing; the point is only about who chose him and what he was asked to do, and the answer to both is the seller.
A medical review line is one of the easiest things on a supplement page to fake and one of the hardest for a reader to check. The cheapest version of it is a name and a credential supplied by somebody with an interest in the outcome, and a reader has no way of telling that apart from a real review. That is precisely why the slot here is left visibly empty: an empty bracket is honest about what it is, and a borrowed name is not.
The same rule applies in the other direction and is worth saying while the slot is still vacant. If a named clinician does read these pages, the name, the credential, the role and the date will appear in the four slots above and in the byline on every page — and the pages will not be rewritten to be kinder to the product as part of the arrangement. A review that can only be obtained by changing the findings is not a review.
The standing editorial rules
These apply to every page on this site, were set before this product was read, and are not negotiable product by product. Several of them cost this product something; two of them cost it a great deal.
- Never invent a fact. If no supplied document contains it, it does not exist on this site. Arithmetic may be derived from printed figures, and the working is always shown.
- The label wins over the marketing. Where the two disagree, both are printed and the label is identified as the product. On this bottle that rule is what separates nerve support formula from neuropathy support formula.
- Missing stays missing. A gap is recorded as not published and is never softened, filled with a typical figure, or quietly left out.
- No invented people. No doctor, no reviewer, no laboratory letter, no licence, no certification body, no address, no telephone number and no date is ever supplied by this desk.
- No price is printed anywhere. The seller pack’s own instruction was “Print live checkout prices. Do not guess.” No figure for a bottle, a pack or shipping appears in any document supplied, so none appears here. The same rule is applied to the guarantee, whose length is also unpublished.
- Never invent a milligram. Only the 80 mg of magnesium is printed. Every per-ingredient figure for the other five is a ceiling, not an amount, and is called that every single time it appears.
- No before-and-after photographs, for any product, ever. Such a photograph is unverifiable by construction.
- No claim about how a supplied photograph was produced. Ten portraits came with this product and all ten are published; where they came from is stated once, at the foot of the reviews page, and nowhere else.
- No rating and no review markup is sent to a search engine from this site, for this product or any other, because a star rating in machine-readable data is an assertion stripped of the caption underneath it.
- Square brackets are reserved for empty slots. If you see one on this site, it marks a value no human has supplied yet, and it is meant to be found.
The fifth and sixth of those are the two that cost this product most. A reader arriving from a search for a price gets no price here, because none was supplied. A reader arriving for a dose of alpha lipoic acid gets a ceiling and an explanation of why it is only a ceiling. Both of those are worse pages to read and better pages to trust.
How the score was built, criterion by criterion
Six criteria, each out of five, each with a written reason. The total is their average and nothing is weighted, so the arithmetic can be checked: 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 14, and 14 ÷ 6 = 2.33, which is published as 2.4.
Why two rows score four, which is the highest in this series
Label completeness and ingredient naming both earn four, and the reasons are concrete. The panel is real and complete, with a declared nutrient carrying a correct Daily Value percentage — 80 ÷ 420 = 19.05%, printed as 19% — a full Other Ingredients line, a complete caution block naming the dose limit, the age restriction, pregnancy, nursing, medication and medical conditions, a storage instruction, a seal warning, and a distributor with a city, a state, a ZIP, a telephone number and an email on the bottle. On naming: butcher’s broom gives a genus, a species and a plant part, and turmeric gives all three plus a standardisation at 95% curcuminoids, which is the most informative thing any label in this series has printed about an ingredient.
Why two rows score one
Formula transparency earns one because the single printed figure belongs to a declared nutrient rather than to any blend ingredient, and the arithmetic it forces is unflattering: about 98.7% of the blend is the magnesium chelate, leaving roughly 7.5 mg for the other five together. Price transparency earns one because no figure of any kind was supplied, for a bottle, a pack or shipping, and no guarantee length either. A buyer cannot know what they are paying or what they are agreeing to until the checkout screen loads.
Why claim accuracy and seller transparency both score two
Claim accuracy loses marks the label itself did not lose. The bottle is careful: three asterisked structure/function icons, a nerve support formula line and the FDA disclaimer printed in full. The marketing graphic then renders the same bottle as a neuropathy support formula, naming a condition. Seller transparency scores two rather than one because the place of business on the label is a genuine credit; against it stand two states, a second telephone number, three email addresses, an order line this desk has now seen on four unrelated brands, three supplied marks that appear nowhere on the bottle, and ten supplied reviews whose every sentence was also supplied for a product in a different category.
The arithmetic this desk is willing to do
Arithmetic is the only kind of claim on this site that a reader can check without trusting anybody, so it is published in full rather than summarised. The derivation below is the one that produced the first and largest finding about this product, and it is six steps long.
- 01Start with the one printed figureThe panel declares 80 mg of magnesium above the blend and says it comes from the magnesium glycinate from proprietary blend. That is an amount of the element, not of the compound.
- 02Check that the label’s own percentage agreesThe panel prints 19% of the Daily Value beside it. The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements gives the Daily Value for magnesium as 420 mg, and 80 ÷ 420 = 19.05%. The label’s arithmetic is correct, which confirms the 80 mg is elemental magnesium.
- 03Work out what the compound weighsMagnesium bisglycinate is Mg(C2H4NO2)2. Its molar mass is 172.42 g/mol, of which magnesium accounts for 24.305. The chelate is therefore 14.1% magnesium by weight.
- 04Divide80 ÷ 0.141 = 567.5 mg of magnesium glycinate. That is the weight of the first ingredient in the blend, and it is not a ceiling — it is forced by a printed figure.
- 05SubtractThe blend is 575 mg. 575 − 567.5 = 7.5 mg for alpha lipoic acid, butcher’s broom, L-carnitine, turmeric and coenzyme Q10 together. The first ingredient is 98.7% of the blend.
- 06Apply the descending-order rule to what is leftThe FDA requires blend ingredients “in descending order of predominance by weight”, so inside that 7.5 mg remainder item n cannot exceed 7.5 ÷ n: at most 7.5, 3.7, 2.5, 1.9 and 1.5 mg. Every one of those is a ceiling, not an amount.
Three things about that chain are worth stating. It rests on one chemical assumption — that magnesium glycinate on the label means ordinary magnesium bisglycinate at 14.1% elemental magnesium — and that assumption is tested with a published sensitivity table rather than asserted. The label’s own 19% is what confirms the reading, because a wrong percentage there would have broken the chain at step two. And every figure that comes out below the first is a ceiling, not an amount: the descending-order rule caps item n at the remainder divided by n, which is an upper bound and never a measurement.
What this desk will not do with arithmetic is equally fixed. It will not convert a ceiling into an amount. It will not infer a dose from a marketing graphic. It will not estimate a price, a guarantee length or a shipping charge from a comparable product. And it will not reason from a journal paper to a dose for an ingredient the two federal bodies it reads have not written about. The full derivation and the sensitivity table are on the label facts page.
How pictures and reviews are examined
Images and testimonials are the two kinds of evidence a reader is least able to check, so the rules about them are the strictest on this site and they produce the most uncomfortable pages.
- Supplied material is published, not withheld. All ten reviews and all ten portraits that came with this product appear in full on the reviews page. Leaving them out would protect them: a reader who never sees ten reviews in one column cannot see that ten of ten close with the same sentence shape.
- A supplied figure is printed as supplied and never republished as fact. The seller pack’s 4.3 out of 5, 421 written reviews, 2,913 orders and 90% recommending are all printed as supplied, with the arithmetic that shows they do not describe one population.
- Sets, never single items. One photograph tells you almost nothing. Ten in one grid at one size tell you about crop, framing, distance and lighting, which are decided by whoever took them.
- No claim about how a picture was produced. This desk reports what a set has in common and does not assert how any individual image came to exist, because that is not something it can check.
- Cross-set searching. Every review block received is kept, and an unusual phrase from one is searched against all the others. That single step produced the largest finding about this product: all ten openings and all ten closings supplied here were also supplied for a product in a different category.
- Six empty review slots, visibly empty. The reviews page carries six customer review cards with every field left as a fill-in slot. They are never filled from a seller pack, and a card is only filled when a review comes from an order this desk can match.
The last of those is the rule that costs this site most in the ordinary commercial sense, because six blank cards look worse than six quotations. They are also the only honest version of the page: a testimonial this desk cannot trace is evidence about marketing, not evidence about a product, and it is published in the section that says so.
How to tell this desk it is wrong
Corrections are wanted and they are acted on. The five steps below are not a gatekeeping procedure; they are the shortest route from noticing an error to seeing it fixed.
Quote the sentence and name the page
Not the topic, not the section, the sentence. A correction that identifies the exact words can be checked in a minute; a correction that says a page is wrong somewhere cannot be acted on at all. Write to [email protected].
Say what the correct version is, and where it comes from
A label photograph, a panel that differs from the transcription published here, a federal fact sheet, a document from the seller. The source matters more than the assertion: this desk cannot print a figure on the strength of being told it, whoever is doing the telling.
A label photograph beats everything else on this site
If the bottle in your hand differs from what is transcribed here — a different serving size, a different blend total, a different panel code, a different number of named ingredients — the label on your bottle wins. Photograph the panel flat and square on, and send it. That is the single most valuable correction anybody can supply.
What gets changed, and what gets noted
A factual error is corrected in the text and the correction is dated. A difference of interpretation is published alongside the original rather than replacing it. A figure that turns out to have been supplied rather than printed is relabelled as supplied. Nothing is quietly deleted.
What will not be changed, whoever asks
A name offered for the reviewer slot by anyone with an interest in the product. A price, a guarantee length or a dose supplied without a document behind it. A request to remove the reviews, the portraits or the cross-brand table, all three of which are published precisely because they are the finding.
One address, and what it cannot do
Corrections go to [email protected]. That is this editorial desk and nothing else: it cannot take an order, trace a parcel, cancel anything or issue a refund, and it will not pass a message to the seller. Anything about an order goes to the order desk on +1 (302) 200-3480 with the order ID. Every published route is set out on the contact page.
How this site is funded
Stated plainly, because a reader is entitled to know who pays for a page before weighing what it says. Myneuralisse is not the manufacturer, not the distributor and not the seller. This desk earns a commission when a reader buys through the checkout link on this site.
- It never changes the price you pay. The commission comes out of the seller’s side, not yours.
- It never changes what is printed. This page gives the product 2.4 out of 5 and publishes fifteen numbered findings against it, including the three most damaging ones on the site, all of which are easier to read with the commission in mind rather than hidden.
- No payment was received for a score, a review, a placement or a mention, and none would be accepted. Nothing on this site is sponsored content and no section of it was written to a brief from the seller.
- No price is printed anyway, which removes the most common commercial temptation on a page like this: there is no struck-through figure here, no discount claim and no urgency device, because no figure of any kind was supplied.
- The seller’s own material is quoted rather than reused. Where this site prints a sentence from the seller pack, it is in quotation marks and attributed to the pack, so a reader can tell marketing copy from editorial copy at a glance.
The honest summary of that arrangement is that it creates an incentive and this page is where the incentive is disclosed. The defence against it is not a promise of independence; it is the method at the top of this page, the published arithmetic, and the fact that every finding on this site is checkable against a document a reader can open for themselves.
What this site is not
What this site does
- Transcribes the label at magnification and publishes the transcription in full.
- Shows every piece of arithmetic, so a reader can repeat it or find the error in it.
- Quotes federal sources at length rather than paraphrasing them.
- Publishes the supplied reviews, portraits and figures as evidence, labelled as supplied.
- Names seventeen things that were not published, without softening any of them.
- Scores six criteria separately and publishes the reason for each row.
What this site is not
- Not a clinic. Nothing here diagnoses anything, and nerve symptoms a clinician has not explained are a reason to see one.
- Not the seller, the distributor or the manufacturer, and not able to see, change or cancel an order.
- Not a laboratory. No assay was run here and none was supplied; the arithmetic bounds what the label forces and no more.
- Not a review platform. This desk has no verified customers and publishes no rating or testimonial of its own.
- Not a price list. No figure for a bottle, a pack or shipping appears in any document supplied.
- Not medically reviewed yet. The reviewer slot is empty and says so on every page.
The one sentence that matters most on a page about nerve symptoms
Nerve symptoms that have not been explained by a clinician are a reason to see one, not a reason to buy a supplement. Numbness and tingling have many causes, some of which need treating and some of which get worse while they are being managed with a capsule. The label’s own caution says to consult a physician before use if you take a medication or have a medical condition, and that instruction is better advice than anything in the marketing around it.
What this desk does not know
A page about trustworthiness that lists only its strengths is not worth much. These are the limits of what has been done here, stated as plainly as the findings.
- What is actually in the capsule. No laboratory result was supplied and none was commissioned. The arithmetic on this site says what the label forces, which on this product is a great deal, and says nothing about what a laboratory would find.
- Whether the product helps anybody. No clinical evidence about this formula exists in anything supplied, and ingredient-level evidence is not product-level evidence.
- Who wrote the ten supplied reviews. It can be shown that the sentences were not written by the people named, because the same sentences were supplied for a product in another category. Who did write them is not in anything supplied.
- Why the label and the pack disagree about where the company is. The bottle says Colorado; the sales material gives two New York addresses. No explanation was supplied and none is invented here.
- What the guarantee is. The pack says only that it is as printed on the live checkout. No window, no condition and no length was supplied, so none is printed.
- Anything about alpha lipoic acid or butcher’s broom. Neither has a fact sheet at NCCIH or NIH ODS, so this site reports nothing about either in either direction.
Every item on that list is a gap this desk would close if a document closed it. Three of the six could be closed by the seller in an afternoon: a batch certificate with a per-ingredient assay, a printed guarantee term, and an explanation of the two states. The request that would close the first is written out on the verify page.
References
Nine sources are cited across this site and every one was opened and read. Two bodies supply all nine: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health through its Office of Dietary Supplements and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. One further source, the Department of Defense’s Operation Supplement Safety, is cited for what a proprietary blend label does and does not have to disclose.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide: Chapter IV. Nutrition Labeling.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Structure/Function Claims.
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Magnesium: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (2026). Magnesium: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals — nerve function.
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (2023). Carnitine: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (2025). Turmeric: Usefulness and Safety.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (2019). Coenzyme Q10.
- Operation Supplement Safety, U.S. Department of Defense (2026). Proprietary blends: What does this mean?.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). Questions and Answers on Dietary Supplements.
Where neither NCCIH nor NIH ODS publishes anything on an ingredient — which is the case for two of the six here — this site reports nothing rather than reaching for a source it would not stand behind. Absence of a federal fact sheet is absence of information, not a verdict on an ingredient in either direction.
The wordmark, and what a wordmark is not
Every asset supplied with a product is published somewhere on this site, captioned for what it is. This one is a wordmark: a typeface, a rule and a colour.
It is reproduced here rather than on a product page because it carries no information about the product. A wordmark is not a certification, not a test result and not a claim. Several products in this series have supplied marks that look like evidence and are not; this one at least does not pretend.
The three marks that do look like evidence — a GMP seal, a non-GMO seal and a money-back seal — are published on the testing page, where the point that none of them appears on the bottle belongs.
Read the blend row before you decide
Thirty capsules, one a day. The panel declares 80 mg of magnesium at 19% of the Daily Value, and a 575 mg blend of six ingredients. The magnesium declaration fixes the weight of the first ingredient at about 567.5 mg, which leaves roughly 7.5 mg for the other five together. No price appears anywhere but the checkout.
- Guarantee as printed at checkout
- 80 mg magnesium, 19% of the Daily Value
- Returns to 4 Times Square, Floor 22, New York, NY 10036, USA
No price appears in any document supplied to this desk, as of October 11, 2026, so none is printed here. The checkout screen is the only place a price exists. Questions first? Every published contact route is here.
Keep reading
Authorship and review
Who wrote and checked this page
What this page was checked against
- The label artwork, read at 2× and transcribed character for character. Where the label and the marketing disagree, the label is printed.
- The seller pack, quoted rather than paraphrased, and identified as marketing wherever it is used.
- The published sources listed in the references on this page. Every one was opened and read; none is cited from memory.
- The arithmetic, shown in full. Every per-ingredient figure other than the magnesium is a ceiling derived from one printed number, never a measured amount.
- Nothing else. Any fact that was not supplied is recorded as not published rather than filled in.
Last updated October 11, 2026. A highlighted slot is a value no human has supplied yet. Who reviews these pages?