Official product information
Three sources, one dated afternoon of reading, two companies printed on one bottle, and a list of the things this desk would not publish about a product it earns a commission on.
Quick answer
Every page here is written from three sources: the photographed bottle first, the material the seller supplied second, and federal consumer pages third. Where the bottle and the pack disagree, the bottle wins and the disagreement is printed. The largest of those disagreements is the distributor: the bottle names a company in Akron, Ohio and the supplied pack names two New York addresses, and nothing explains the relationship.
3 sources, and nothing else
A photographed bottle, a seller’s pack, and federal consumer pages read on one dated afternoon.
Every page on this site is written from three sources and nothing else: the photographed bottle, the material the seller supplied, and federal consumer pages opened and read on the date printed at the foot of the page. Where those disagree, the bottle wins, and the disagreement is reported rather than resolved quietly. On this product there are two such disagreements and both are on the page: the distributor, and the product name itself.
That method is deliberately narrow. This desk does not run a laboratory, interview buyers or hold the manufacturer’s batch records, and it does not pretend otherwise. What it can do is read a photographed label slowly, do the arithmetic the label makes possible, open the federal consumer pages that cover each ingredient, and report where the sources do not agree.
The product examined here is Sciatica Pro, sold as 60 capsules in a bottle at two capsules a day, which is thirty days. The Supplement Facts panel was transcribed from a photograph of the bottle. The packs, the marketing copy, the returns mechanics and the review block came from material the seller supplied. Everything else came from the federal consumer pages and the three named clinical trials listed in the sources at the foot of the page citing them, each one read on October 11, 2026, the date printed at the foot of every page here. No count of pages is claimed beyond what those reference lists actually contain.
10 of 10 amounts printed, so none is derived
Every figure on this site is either printed on the label or divided out of something that is, with the working shown beside it.
| Source | What it decides | How it is treated |
|---|---|---|
| The photographed bottle | What the product is: the ten rows and their printed amounts, the four percentages, the other-ingredients line, the caution paragraph, the storage and tamper-seal line, the disclaimer, the distributor block | Wins. Quoted exactly, including the wordmark it prints: the bottle says Sciatica PRO + and the supplied pack says Sciatica Pro. Both are printed and neither is corrected |
| The material the seller supplied | What the product is sold as: the three pack images, the marketing roundels, the office and returns addresses, the order line, the returns mechanics, the review block, a physician’s name | Reported as the seller’s position, labelled as such, and set beside the bottle wherever the two differ |
| Federal consumer pages, and three named trials | What is actually published about the ingredients, the condition and the regulation | Quoted verbatim from a stored string, never paraphrased inside quotation marks, with the publisher, the title, the domain and the date of reading printed in the references |
Order of precedence, in one line: photographed bottle first, the seller’s pack second, the federal consumer pages third — and where the bottle and the pack disagree, the bottle wins and the disagreement is printed rather than resolved.
One consequence runs through every page here, and on this product it is a happy one. No amount on this site is derived, bounded or estimated, because the panel prints all ten of them. There is no proprietary blend on this label: vitamin D3 at 20 mcg, vitamin B6 at 1.7 mg, folate at 383 mcg DFE from 230 mcg of folic acid, vitamin B12 at 2 mcg, alpha lipoic acid at 400 mg, benfotiamine at 150 mg, acetyl L-carnitine at 50 mg, and ashwagandha, broccoli and turmeric powders at 25 mg each. Ten rows, ten figures, about 677 mg of declared actives in a serving, and nothing for a reader to infer.
The second consequence is a rule about sentences rather than numbers. Where a printed amount is set against a studied amount on this site, the condition the trial ran in is named in the same sentence, every time. Alpha lipoic acid is 400 mg here against the 600 mg the SYDNEY 2 authors called optimal — “An oral dose of 600 mg once daily appears to provide the optimum risk-to-benefit ratio.” — in diabetic distal symmetric polyneuropathy. MedlinePlus on the condition this product is named after: “Sciatica occurs when there is pressure on or damage to the sciatic nerve.”. Metabolic nerve damage is not nerve compression, and no trial cited anywhere on this site was carried out in sciatica.
2 companies, two states, two telephone numbers
Akron, Ohio on the bottle. New York in the supplied pack. Nothing explains the relationship, so both are printed exactly as supplied.
Two different companies appear on this product, and this site does not resolve which one you are buying from. The bottle prints “Distributed By : Sciatica Pro+, Akron, OH 44301, (844) 469-3744, [email protected]”. The supplied pack gives a different operation entirely: an office at 419 Park Avenue South, Floor 7, New York, NY 10016, returns to 1166 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 7, New York, NY 10036, an order-support line on +1 (302) 200-3480 and order-support email [email protected]. Ohio on the bottle, New York in the pack. Neither surface mentions the other and nothing supplied to this desk explains the relationship between them. This site does not say one is wrong. It says there are two, and that the practical consequence is worth knowing before you need a refund: the number printed on the bottle in your hand is not the number the pack says to call about an order.
“Distributed By : Sciatica Pro+, Akron, OH 44301, (844) 469-3744, [email protected]”
That is the distributor block, printed on the label itself, exactly as photographed: a company name, a city, a state, a ZIP code, a telephone number and an email address on a domain of its own. It is the only contact information printed on the thing you will be holding.
Office: 419 Park Avenue South, Floor 7, New York, NY 10016, USA
Returns: 1166 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 7, New York, NY 10036, USA
Order support line: +1 (302) 200-3480
Order support email: [email protected]
A different operation entirely: two New York addresses on two different streets, a telephone number with a different area code, and an email address on a third domain. Nothing in the supplied material mentions the company printed on the bottle.
This is where an unexplained relationship stops being a curiosity. On the day you need something fixed, you are holding a bottle that prints one company, one city and one telephone number, and the paperwork that came with the order points at another company, another state and another number. The number on the bottle in your hand is not the number the supplied material says to call about an order. Ring the wrong one and you do not get a wrong answer, you get a delay, and a guarantee window of unknown length is running the whole time.
What was supplied about the mechanics, so that at least this part is unambiguous. A claim starts with a call to +1 (302) 200-3480 with the order ID. Return postage is paid by the buyer, tracked service advised. The parcel has to carry your full name, email address and order ID, because a bottle arriving with no order ID cannot be matched to a purchase. Returns go to 1166 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 7, New York, NY 10036, USA — the second of the two New York addresses, not the office. And a credited refund takes 3–5 business days after they credit it, then a further 5–10 days on the card.
Two things this site does not do with any of that. It does not say which company is the real one, and it does not say either of them is wrong. Nothing was supplied to explain the relationship between them, no register entry, no trading name, no agency agreement, so there is nothing here to report except the fact that there are two. The practical conclusion is yours to draw and it is a short one: screenshot the checkout, keep the order email, and ask the order desk in writing which company is answerable for a refund before you need one.
4 refusals, and what each one cost
A review block, a clinician’s name, every figure that costs money, and a conclusion nobody has the evidence to reach.
The more useful thing a site like this can publish is the list of things it would not. Each of the refusals below cost this site something measurable: a headline figure, a page of warm copy, structured-data eligibility, or the appearance of authority.
Ten named reviews arrived with the supplied material, with a photograph each, and
nothing in the set ties any of them to an order. So no customer quotation
appears anywhere on this site, no star rating is printed as a rating of the product, and there
is no AggregateRating or Review markup in any page’s structured
data. The ten images appear once, small, at the foot of the reviews page, under one line saying
they were supplied by the seller and have not been verified here.
A clinician’s name was supplied as this site’s medical reviewer. It is not published here, the reviewer byline ships visibly empty instead, and the editorial standards page sets out the reason in full.
No price, pack total, shipping cost or discount was supplied, and no guarantee length or start point either. The supplied material is explicit about the first of those, in its own words: “Print live checkout prices. Do not guess.”. That is the right instruction and this site follows it literally, so every place a money figure would go, the sentence says it is read at the checkout and tells you to read it there before you pay. The guarantee arrived as a pointer and nothing more: “Guarantee: As printed on the live checkout”.
21 CFR 101.93 defines a disease as “damage to an organ, part, structure, or system of the body such that it does not function properly.” and, at paragraph (g)(2)(iv)(A), lists “The name of the product;” among the ways a claim about a disease may be made. The product is called Sciatica Pro. This site sets the regulation and the name beside each other and stops there. It does not write that the product is illegal, mislabelled or in violation of anything: FDA has made no finding about this product and neither has this desk.
None of the four was supplied. The pack’s own instruction is “Print live checkout prices. Do not guess.”
The pack supplied a pointer and nothing else: “Guarantee: As printed on the live checkout”. No day count appears anywhere on this site.
A lot code, a certificate reference and a label revision were supplied. The document they refer to was not.
Two distributors appear and no manufacturer is named anywhere. The GMPc roundel names no facility and no certifying body.
4 of 4 percentages on the panel check out
Evidence and ownership are the findings here. Honesty is not one of them.
A site that publishes a critical finding owes the product the credit it has earned, in the same voice and on the same page. This label has earned a good deal of it, and the finding here is about evidence and ownership, not honesty.
Start with the panel, because it is unusual. Ten ingredients, ten printed amounts, no proprietary blend and nothing pooled. That is the difference between a label you can check and one you can only trust, and most labels in this category do not offer it. The four percentage-of-Daily-Value figures are arithmetically correct, including the folate row, which needed a two-unit conversion first: NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplements gives “240 mcg of folic acid and 400 mcg of folate are both equal to 400 mcg DFE”, a factor of 1.667, so 230 mcg of folic acid is 383 mcg DFE, and 383 divided by 400 is 96%. Vitamin B6 is held at 1.7 mg, exactly 100% of the Daily Value, on the one ingredient where ODS warns that “taking high amounts of vitamin B6 from supplements for a year or longer can cause severe nerve damage” — a formulator who wanted the label to look generous could have printed fifty times that figure and still sat under the federal upper intake level of 100 mg. The plant part is named on all three botanical rows. The capsule is declared as a vegetable capsule. A lot code, a certificate reference and a label revision are all printed. And the front of the bottle carries only “Clinically Studied Ingredients†” and “Supports Nerve Health†”, both daggered, with the disclaimer on the back.
This site does not describe this product as a scam. It describes three ingredient amounts that are fractions of the amounts their trials used, three trials that were all run in diabetic neuropathy rather than in sciatica, three rows at 25 mg with no federal amount to compare them against, two companies on one product with nothing to explain the relationship, a product named after a condition, and a review block that cannot be tied to an order. None of those is a claim that the label lies.
0 clinicians have reviewed these pages
A name came with the supplied material. Nothing supplied with it shows that the named clinician had read anything here, so it is not published.
This site has a medical review byline and it is not filled yet. It is printed that way at the foot of every page rather than left off, because a byline that says nothing is more honest than one that implies a clinician has read something they have not. A physician’s name came with the product’s marketing pack, described as having reviewed pages, posts, the bottle and the ingredients. These pages did not exist when that pack was written, so that cannot be true of them, and nothing supplied shows she has seen any of this. Her name is therefore not published anywhere on this site. When a reviewer is appointed, their name, their credential and the date they signed off will replace those four marked blanks on every page at once.
The mechanism is built rather than promised. The medical review block at the foot of every
page reads “Medically reviewed by Dr. Julia Buchfuhrer, MD, Physician”, with the four
blanks marked in yellow and keyed reviewer-name, reviewer-credentials,
reviewer-role and review-date. Those four are the only marked
blanks left anywhere on this site, because they are the only place where a person still
has to act before the line becomes true. The footer carries the same
statement at greater length. There is deliberately no reviewedBy node in
any page’s structured data, because a machine-readable claim of medical review
with nobody inside it is worse than silence. One record in the source drives all of it: fill in
a name, a credential, a role and a date, flip one flag, and the block, the footer, this section
and the structured data populate at once, on every page, in a single build.
What medical review would mean here is written down before anybody is appointed, so that the standard cannot move afterwards. It would mean a qualified clinician has read these pages and checked that what they say about the ten ingredients, the printed amounts, the condition and the federal record is accurate. It would not mean the reviewer endorses the product or has any opinion about whether you should buy it. Until then the four blanks stay visibly empty, and a reader can establish that in one line at the foot of any page here.
4 events that would trigger a re-review
Paid for the link, not for the verdict.
Now the part most sites bury, in one paragraph with nothing else in it. Mysciaticapro earns a commission when an order is placed through this site — the order button goes to the sales page at sciaticahealthtips.com — and no part of that arrangement decides what any page here says. Nobody at the seller’s desk reviewed, approved or saw these pages before publication; the commercial relationship buys the placement of a link and nothing else. The test is not this paragraph but the pages: a site writing to please a seller does not print that two different companies appear on one bottle, that every trial behind the formula was run in a different condition, or that not one of the ten supplied reviews is published here.
This review was completed and dated October 11, 2026. Four things would trigger a re-review and a new date at the top of the affected page. A label change: a new panel, a changed amount on any of the ten rows, a different percentage, or a different distributor block. A federal page change: NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplements, MedlinePlus, NINDS or FDA publishing, withdrawing or revising a page this site quotes. New documents: the certificate of analysis behind the reference string printed on the label, a named manufacturer, an explanation of the relationship between the two companies, or a trial of any of these ingredients in sciatica. And a verified review set. Corrections are made at the top of the affected page, with the date, to [email protected], open Mon–Fri 9:00am–5:00pm ET — an address that cannot see orders, tracking or refunds, where the order desk on +1 (302) 200-3480 can.
Questions
No manufacturer is named anywhere. The bottle prints a distributor: “Distributed By : Sciatica Pro+, Akron, OH 44301, (844) 469-3744, [email protected]”. A roundel on the label says GMPc FACILITY without naming the facility.
Because two appear and nothing supplied explains the relationship. The bottle names Sciatica Pro+, Akron, OH 44301. The pack gives a New York office at 419 Park Avenue South, a New York returns address on Avenue of the Americas, and a different phone and email. This site does not say one is wrong. It says there are two.
Mysciaticapro describes itself as a USA stocking retailer. No register or authorisation number was supplied to sit behind that phrase. The order button here goes to the sales page at sciaticahealthtips.com, which is where the price, the pack and the guarantee wording are binding.
Yes. A link from this site to the sales page may earn a commission. That is exactly why the editorial rules on this site are written down, dated and published rather than left to be assumed.
Nobody, yet, and the byline is printed empty on every page — the only marked blank on this site. A physician’s name came with the marketing pack, described as having reviewed pages, posts, the bottle and the ingredients. These pages did not exist when that pack was written, so that cannot be true of them, and her name is not published anywhere here.
References
60 capsules a bottle, two capsules a day, thirty days a bottle. Ten ingredients and ten printed amounts, no proprietary blend, and about 677 mg of declared actives a serving. Price and guarantee are printed on the live checkout, so read them there before you pay. Order support +1 (302) 200-3480.
Price and guarantee are read on the checkout page — screenshot it with the date before you pay · ships from inside the US · order support +1 (302) 200-3480
What this page was checked against
Every figure on this page is either printed on the label or derived from what is printed, with the derivation shown beside it. The medical review sits in the block alongside.
Medical review Dr. Julia Buchfuhrer
A slot stays marked until a real person fills it. Nothing on this site is signed by anybody who has not read it. Who reviews these pages?