We were given a lot reference and a certificate number. We were not given the certificate, we have not seen the lot printed on a bottle, and we publish no document we have not read.
Written by the Breathizen editorial team·Last updated October 11, 2026·How this page was checked
The lot reference supplied to this desk for Breathizen is B-26/BR-1164 and the certificate-of-analysis reference is B-1164-26-BR. No certificate behind either reference was supplied, so none appears on this site: this desk publishes no laboratory document it has not been sent. We also cannot confirm that either string appears on the product, because no photograph of the back or the base of the bottle was supplied. No expiry or best-before date is published anywhere in what we hold. A GMP badge appears among the ten seals in the listing artwork, and no certifying body, certificate number or laboratory is named anywhere in the pack. A lot number identifies a production run so it can be traced and recalled; it is not evidence that the contents match a panel, and here there is no panel to match them to. To match a bottle to an order, call +1 (302) 200-3480 with your order ID and the lot printed on the bottle.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Lot reference | B-26/BR-1164 |
| CoA reference | B-1164-26-BR |
| The certificate itself | Not supplied to this desk |
| Testing laboratory | Not named |
| What was tested | Not published |
| Date of test | Not published |
| Lot seen on a physical bottle | No — no photograph of the back or base was supplied |
| Expiry or best-before | Not published anywhere we were given |
| GMP certifying body | Not named |
| GMP certificate number | Not published |
| Manufacturer or distributor | Not named on anything supplied |
| To match a bottle to an order | +1 (302) 200-3480, with the lot and the order ID |
A lot number identifies a production run. If something goes wrong with that run — a contamination, a mislabelling, an ingredient that was not what the supplier said — the lot number is what makes it possible to find every bottle from it and recall them.
That is a real function, and it is the whole of the function.
A lot number does not test anything. It does not tell you how much mullein leaf extract is in the liquid, or how much ginger, bromelain, lemon or cordyceps. Nor could it here: no amount is published for any of the five named ingredients and there is no Supplement Facts panel at all. A lot number is an index to a specification, and there is no published specification to index.
A certificate of analysis is the document that would do that job, and it is the one we do not have. A real one names the laboratory, the date, the method, the specification and the result for each thing tested. Without it, a CoA reference is a filing code for a document nobody has shown us.
There is a second absence here, and it is the one most pages would not admit to. We have not seen either string on the product. A lot code and a best-before go on the back or the base, and no photograph of the back or the base was supplied. So B-26/BR-1164 is a string in a brief rather than something read off a bottle.
We could print both references in a box with a green tick and most readers would take it for verification. We are not going to. A reference with no certificate and no photograph behind it is exactly as good as no reference.
A certificate of analysis naming a laboratory, a date, a method and a result, which we would reproduce in full including anything on it that did not flatter the product. A photograph of the back and base of the bottle would go up next to it. Send us either and it is on this page the same week.
A GMP badge — Good Manufacturing Practice — is one of the ten seals in the artwork supplied with this product. It is worth something, and less than its placement suggests.
GMP is a process standard. It says a facility documents and controls how it makes things: cleaning, calibration, record-keeping, batch documentation, staff training. A facility that does that reliably is more likely to produce what it says it produces.
It is not a test of this bottle. It does not verify a panel, and here there is no panel to verify. It is not an FDA approval either: the Food and Drug Administration does not approve dietary supplements for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed, so no supplement, including this one, is or can be FDA approved. A facility on an FDA register is listed, not inspected.
No certifying body is named and no certificate number appears anywhere in the pack. GMP certification is issued by identifiable organisations that maintain registers a reader can search. Without a name or a number there is no register to check this against, so the badge cannot be verified by you — or by us. The same is true of the other nine: not one of the ten seals names a certifying body, a certificate number or a laboratory.
And one point that favours most products does not favour this one. A seal printed on a bottle has been committed to by whoever printed the label; a seal in an advertisement has not. The front panel supplied to this desk carries no seals at all, and with no photograph of the back we cannot tell whether the GMP badge is on the product or only in the listing.
The only mark here with a policy behind it. The brief states the terms: a 60-day window from purchase, with the sales side also asking for at least 30 days of use before a claim. Return shipping is the buyer's cost and tracking is advised. It does not say whether an opened bottle qualifies or whether a six-pack can be partly returned. Refunds are quoted at 3–5 business days to credit, then 5–10 days to appear on the card.
No doctor is named anywhere in the pack supplied to this desk as the formulator of this product. A physician's name was supplied with the pack, but for a different role — to be printed as the medical reviewer of these pages, which he has not read. We have not printed it there either. An unnamed doctor is not a credential.
Good Manufacturing Practice is about how a facility runs, not about what is in this bottle. No certifying body and no certificate number is named. It is worth knowing what it is not: it is not a test of this batch, and it is not FDA approval, which no dietary supplement has.
A listing seal. We can read no country-of-origin wording on the bottle itself in any photograph supplied. It also says nothing about where the botanicals were grown — manufacture and sourcing are separate questions and only one is claimed here.
No certifying body is named, and on this product the claim cannot be checked even in principle: there is no other-ingredients list, so the carrier, preservative and any sweetener — the parts most likely to be at issue — are unknown.
Naturally is doing the work here: it suggests the ingredients never contained gluten rather than that the finished product was tested. No threshold, no test and no certifying body is named. If you are coeliac, that distinction is the whole question.
Same position as the gluten mark: a composition claim with no panel and no other-ingredients list to check it against, and no certifying body named.
Plausible on its face — the five named ingredients are all botanical or fungal. But a liquid needs a carrier and usually a preservative, and none of those is published, so the claim rests on the parts of the formula nobody has shown us.
Natural has no regulatory definition in this context. It is not a safety claim, not a purity claim and not a strength claim. Several of the most potent substances known are natural; so is water.
Pure names no standard, no contaminant tested for and no laboratory. The brief gives a certificate reference, B-1164-26-BR, against lot B-26/BR-1164. No certificate was supplied to this desk and we have not seen one, so we cannot tell you what it covers — heavy metals, microbials, potency, or nothing.
Five things. The first four are questions for the order desk and all of them should be asked in writing, by email to [email protected], so that the answer exists as a document rather than as something somebody said on the telephone. +1 (302) 200-3480 if you would rather start there.
Ask for the certificate of analysis for lot B-26/BR-1164, by its reference B-1164-26-BR. Ask for the document rather than confirmation that it exists, and ask what it covers: identity, potency, heavy metals, microbials.
Ask who manufactures it and who distributes it. No manufacturer or distributor is named anywhere in anything supplied to this desk — the line a label normally carries so that somebody can be held responsible.
Ask for the expiry or best-before, and for the lot, before the parcel ships. Neither is published anywhere in what we hold. On a bottle that lasts 100 days, bought six at a time, you are holding the last bottle for roughly twenty months — so a best-before inside that period is worth answering before you pay.
Ask what the amounts are, because a batch reference means nothing without a specification. Five ingredients are named and not one carries a milligram figure. The 10:1 on the mullein is a ratio, not a dose.
Then, when the bottle arrives: photograph the back and the base. That is the one thing you can do that we could not. Photograph the lot code, the best-before, any warning panel and any other-ingredients list while the printing is sharp, and compare them with what is published here. If the bottle says something different from this site, the bottle is right and we are out of date: write to [email protected] and we will correct the page and say that we did. If it carries a panel, an amount or a certifying body we have recorded as not published, a reader with a bottle is the only person who can close that gap.
It carries the order ID, which matches a bottle to a purchase, and the purchase date the 60-day refund window runs from. Two different jobs, one email.
Because a lot number and a certificate reference look like evidence, and a reader who sees them deserves to know what sits behind them. Here the honest answer is a pair of reference strings and no laboratory document.
A laboratory name and address. A date. A sample identifier tying the document to a specific batch. A list of what was tested for. The method used for each test. The result of each test, with units. And a signature or an authorising name.
None of those exists in anything we were given for this product. What we have is a reference string of the shape a certificate number takes, B-1164-26-BR, handed over in a brief with no laboratory, no date, no method and no result attached to it. There is also a lot number, B-26/BR-1164, which is a production reference and a genuinely useful thing — but a lot number is not a test.
So this page prints the strings and says what they are. The alternative — putting them under a heading like Lab Verified — would convert an absence of evidence into the appearance of it, which is the commonest dishonesty in this category.
It matters more here than on most products. With no Supplement Facts panel and no amount published for any of the five ingredients, a certificate would not be a second opinion on the label — it would be the only one. If one is ever published, this page will carry it, with the laboratory named and the date printed.
A reference number is given — B-1164-26-BR, against lot B-26/BR-1164 — and no certificate was supplied to this desk. We have not seen one, so we cannot tell you whether it covers heavy metals, microbials, potency, or none of those. Ask the order desk for it, in writing.
Nothing supplied to this desk says so. A GMP seal is not a third-party test of a batch, and a certificate reference without a certificate is not a result.
You do not, and neither do we. A certificate reference is given — B-1164-26-BR — and no certificate was supplied, so we cannot tell you what was tested for or what was found. Ask the order desk for the certificate of analysis for lot B-26/BR-1164, in writing.
Not published in anything supplied to this desk. The brief says the lot and best-before are on the base of the bottle when the bottle shows them. No photograph of the base was supplied, so we have not seen either. On a 100-day bottle bought six at a time, the best-before is worth checking the moment the box arrives.
Good Manufacturing Practice describes how a facility operates, not what is in this bottle and not whether this batch was tested. No certifying body and no certificate number is named on this listing. It is also not FDA approval, which no supplement has.
One bottle is 100 days against a 60-day window, so no pack can be finished inside it. The smallest is still the smallest bet: $89, $0.89 a day, and the only one that does not commit you to years of a product whose amounts are not published.
The struck-through figures are $179, $537 and $1,074 — which is $179 multiplied by one, three and six. A crossed-out price is a claim about what something used to sell for, and no date is given on which this product sold at $179 a bottle. We print the struck figures because they are on the offer, and we print this note beside them because a reader deserves to know they are arithmetic rather than history. · window runs from purchase · no subscription · not for under 18, pregnancy or nursingWritten and fact-checked by The Breathizenres Editorial Desk, last updated October 11, 2026. A highlighted slot means that value has not been supplied yet and nothing has been invented in its place — why the reviewer line is empty.
