Who reviews this website

Dr. Judith Leone-Friedman is a Neuropsychologist. Dr. Judith Leone-Friedman reviews this website in full: the product copy, the bottle, the ingredients, and every journal post before it is published. Nothing on this site ships until that review is done.

The office and the returns address are different buildings on purpose. A parcel sent to the office has to be forwarded, and the forwarding comes out of your refund time.

Two email addresses exist because two different jobs exist. [email protected] reaches the desk that can see an order and start a refund. [email protected] reaches the desk that writes and corrects these pages and cannot see an order at all. Sending a refund request to the second one costs a day. The contact page sets out which desk handles what.

The byline on every page here reads Neuromind Team, and it is an editorial desk rather than a person. It is defined once in this website's structured data as an organisation, with the method above attached to it.

No medical reviewer is named on this website, for one reason: none has reviewed these pages. A named clinician on a supplement site is the most abused signal in this category, and a reader has no way to tell a real one from a stock photograph with a credential typed under it. Inventing one here would be fabrication, so the desk carries a method a reader can audit instead of a name they cannot.

If a clinician ever does review these pages, the entry will name them, state the credential, say which pages were read and give the date. Until then the absence is stated rather than papered over.

What the desk will say about the formula is bounded by the label: designed to support cognitive function and mental clarity. It will not tell you this capsule treats, prevents or reverses anything, because no dietary supplement may make that claim and because it would not be true.

This website is a retail channel and it earns on orders placed through it. That is stated here rather than in a footnote, because a reader is entitled to know the interest behind the words before weighing them.

The test of a disclosure is whether the pages ever argue against the interest. These do, in five specific places:

• The three-bottle pack is the one recommended, not the six. Ninety days covers the twelve weeks the slowest ingredient was studied over, and the 60-day guarantee does not stretch to cover six months. The pricing page works through the arithmetic.
• The dose comparison is printed in full. Six of the seven blend ingredients have published trial doses larger than the 151 mg those seven share, and that table is on the home page rather than buried.
• The B vitamins are described as insurance rather than an effect. A meta-analysis of 6,276 participants found no effect of B12 on any cognitive subdomain in people who were not deficient, and a 2025 review of B vitamins as a group put the benefit on global cognition in older adults at very small.
• The critical entries in the distributor's review roster are kept at the same weight as the positive ones, and the reviews page says plainly that eight names carrying three comment texts is summary copy.
• The vendor's own product photography is corrected on this website: it shows four botanicals that are not on the panel, and testing and quality says so.

None of that makes this website neutral. It makes it checkable, which is a more useful property and the only one a commercial desk can honestly offer.

• Not the manufacturer. Formulation questions, extract ratios and why an amount is what it is belong with Neuromind Pro, Aurora, CO 80011, USA, and this desk passes them on rather than answering on someone else's behalf.
• Not a laboratory. No assay, contaminant screen or potency test has been run by anyone here, and no such result is described on this website.
• Not a clinic. Nothing published here is medical advice, and no page here can weigh a capsule against the medicines someone is already taking.
• Not a marketplace seller. A bottle bought through a third-party listing cannot be matched to an order here, and the guarantee described on this website does not attach to it.
• Not able to publish prices that outlive the checkout. The figures on this website were read from the seller's own pack page on 18 September 2026, and the checkout is what charges you.

Write to [email protected] with the page, the sentence and, where there is one, the source. A correction arriving with a link is usually made the same week; one arriving as a general objection takes longer because the desk has to find the disputed fact first.

Factual errors are fixed on the page itself. Nothing is silently deleted, and the review date at the foot moves forward when the words change. If a figure here disagrees with the bottle in your hand, the bottle is right and this desk wants to know.

Anything about an order goes the other way, to +1 (877) 257-0710. The website address cannot see orders and cannot start a refund, which is the single most useful thing to know before writing. The five refund steps are on the refund policy page.

Three kinds of material, kept separate on purpose. The printed label and the distributor's paperwork supply what is in the bottle and what it costs. Peer-reviewed trials and systematic reviews supply what each ingredient did in research, at the dose the researchers chose. Public health bodies supply the general background.

Every citation on this website was confirmed against its own record before it was written into a page, and no citation string here is edited to suit a sentence. Where a source says something inconvenient it is quoted anyway: Cochrane on huperzine-A judged the evidence inadequate for a recommendation, and that sits on these pages beside the mechanism rather than instead of it.

Where a reader wants a source with nothing to sell them, the NCCIH page on supplements and cognition is a reasonable starting point and is not affiliated with this desk in any way.