Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the specific ingredients in IQ Blast Pro and their doses?
Executive Summary
IQ Blast Pro's claimed ingredient list and dosages are inconsistent across available sources: some pages list broad ingredient classes without doses, while other recent reviews (Nov 2, 2025 and Dec 28, 2024) assert specific botanicals and milligram amounts that conflict with each other. No single, authoritative product label or manufacturer-provided supplement facts table appears in the supplied materials, so the precise formulation and per-ingredient doses cannot be confirmed from the provided documents alone [1] [2] [3].
1. What promoters and listings claim — a messy patchwork of ingredient lists that don't agree
Commercial listings and product pages vary considerably in what they claim IQ Blast Pro contains: one seller-oriented description names citicoline, bacopa monnieri, piper nigrum, vitamins B6/B9/B12, L-theanine, maritime pine bark, phosphatidylserine, selenium and turmeric and specifies a dosage of two capsules per day but does not give per-ingredient milligram amounts [2]. Other recent reviews and aggregator pages instead list Ginkgo biloba, Bacopa monnieri, Lion's Mane mushroom, phosphatidylserine with explicit milligram claims — for example 120 mg Ginkgo, 300 mg Bacopa, 250 mg Lion's Mane, 150 mg phosphatidylserine — and repeat the two-capsule daily regimen while also asserting manufacturing in FDA-registered, GMP-certified facilities [3]. Several product fragments and marketplace entries provide no ingredient detail at all or focus on purchasing, price and legal boilerplate without the supplement facts table, leaving consumers without a single verified source for the exact composition [1] [4] [5].
2. Dates and provenance matter — compare the timelines and source types
The documents claiming specific ingredient lists span from late 2024 into November 2025, with a Dec 28, 2024 product page-like listing [2] and multiple November 2, 2025 reviews [3] [6] that repeat or expand ingredient claims. The most recent, dated evaluations (November 2, 2025) provide the most detailed milligram figures, but these are published on review sites and aggregators rather than on a captured manufacturer label in the supplied dataset, which raises the question of whether those milligram figures reflect the official supplement facts or are reviewer reconstructions [3]. Earlier marketplace snippets and FDA-related database entries included in the dataset do not corroborate the dose claims and sometimes omit ingredient information altogether, so the timeline shows movement from sparse marketplace data to more specific third-party reviews over time [1] [5] [4].
3. What is missing — why we cannot conclusively list verified doses
Across the provided analyses, no image or text of an official Supplement Facts panel from the manufacturer is present, and multiple listings explicitly omit per-ingredient milligrams, focusing instead on marketing copy, capsule counts, or manufacturing claims [1] [4] [7]. The result is that reviewer-claimed doses (e.g., Ginkgo 120 mg; Bacopa 300 mg; Lion's Mane 250 mg; phosphatidylserine 150 mg) appear in some sources but are not corroborated by an original product label in the dataset, meaning those figures cannot be verified as the manufacturer-declared dosages [3]. Regulatory or testing documentation that would confirm label accuracy, such as independent batch analysis or an FDA filing, is not present in these materials, so the risk of discrepancies — intentional or accidental — remains unresolved [2] [7].
4. Assessing reliability and potential agendas in the available sources
The dataset includes seller pages, product listings, and third-party review sites; commercial pages (Amazon, marketplace) tend to prioritize sales and often omit full supplement facts, while review articles may aim to inform but can also reproduce manufacturer claims or aggregate promotional copy without independent testing [1] [3] [2]. Some review pieces explicitly promote purchases from an “official website” to access guarantees, which suggests a potential commercial agenda to direct sales through sanctioned channels and raises a conflict-of-interest flag when those same pages supply the most detailed dose claims [3]. The Health Fraud Product Database entry included in the materials does not mention IQ Blast Pro but underscores the broader regulatory context and the importance of verified labeling and third-party testing when assessing supplements [5].
5. Bottom line and practical next steps for verification
Based on the supplied materials, a definitive, verified list of IQ Blast Pro ingredients with manufacturer-declared doses cannot be produced because the dataset lacks an official Supplement Facts panel or independent lab certificate. The most actionable next steps are to obtain either a high-resolution image of the product’s Supplement Facts from the bottle or the manufacturer’s website, a PDF of the product label, or a third-party Certificate of Analysis for a named batch; without one of those, the milligram figures in reviews remain unverified assertions [3] [2]. If you want, I can draft specific questions to send to the seller/manufacturer and list which documents will conclusively resolve the discrepancies.