Who reviews this website
Dr. Carrie Lam, MD is a Physician. Dr. Carrie Lam, MD 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.
Dr. Carrie Lam, MD
Physician.
Reviews the content, the bottle, the ingredients and every post on this website.
Official product information
About Sodaslimdaily
Who publishes this site, the five rules every page here is written under, the six findings those rules produced — and the commendation this label has earned.
Written and reviewed by the SodaSlim Editorial Desk · Last updated September 24, 2026
Quick answer
This site is published by a retail desk describing itself as a U.S. stocking partner for SodaSlim, working from the wrap label, three listing cards and a supplied pack. The label wins over the marketing, nothing is invented, no unverifiable quote is published, and no rating appears anywhere. The fifth rule kept six supplied images off this site entirely. The panel itself is the best-documented in this series.
The publisher
Who publishes this site
A retail desk with a product information section, and the three documents it works from.
This site is published by Sodaslimdaily, which describes itself in its own words as a U.S. stocking partner for SodaSlim. The seller’s own wording is “U.S. stocking partner for SodaSlim”. It describes a reseller arrangement. It is not a licence, no US agency issues one for selling dietary supplements, and no register or number is named in the material we were given.
Two things follow from that, and both are limits rather than credentials. We are a desk and not a laboratory: nothing on this site is a test result, because no test was run by us and no certificate of analysis was supplied to us. And we are neither the brand nor the manufacturer, so every finding here is one anybody holding the same documents could have reached.
What was supplied to this desk, and what was not
Three things, and the limits of this site are the limits of that material. A high-resolution photograph of the wrap label, which is where the Supplement Facts panel, the suggested-use line, the caution panel, the storage line, the FDA disclaimer, the three printed marks and the distributor address all come from. Three listing cards, which is where the morning instruction and the “what it supports” copy come from. And a detailed marketing pack holding the seals, the six bonus titles, the guarantee window, the order desk number, a lot and certificate reference, and a review block.
What was not supplied is a longer list: no pack price, no certificate of analysis, no manufacturer, no street address for the distributor, no named formulator or clinician, no expiry date, no visible lot code on the photograph, and no trial of this formula at any amount over any period. Every one of those reads “not published” on this site rather than being estimated into existence, which is why several pages here are shorter on numbers than a sales page would be.
Editorial rules
The five rules these pages are written under
Four govern words. The fifth governs six images that never ran.
Five rules govern what appears on these pages. Four of them govern words. The fifth governs pictures, and on this product it turned out to be the expensive one.
1. The label wins over the marketing
Where the printed label and the promotional material disagree, this site prints the label and says which is which. A Supplement Facts panel, an other-ingredients line and a caution panel are regulated statements about what is in a product; a roundel, a listing card and a free ebook cover are pictures and phrases somebody chose. On this product that rule produces an unusual result, because the label is the honest half: it claims only support, it declares its caffeine, and it names a vegetable capsule. The marketing is where the trouble is.
2. No fact is invented, estimated or rounded into existence
If a figure was not supplied, it does not appear here in any form. That is why no price is printed anywhere on this site and every one reads “shown at checkout”, and why the batch page says plainly that the supplied pack describes its own lot and certificate references as draft labels rather than lab proof. An estimate that turns out wrong at the checkout is worse than an admission.
3. No customer quote is published unless it survives being read
None of the supplied testimony survived. The pack calls its own review block layout copy, four of eight named buyers carry the same sentence word for word, and three more share a second. So no buyer is quoted here, and the reviews page explains that decision at length rather than quietly omitting the block.
4. No aggregate rating appears anywhere, in text or in markup
There is no star average of ours on this site, no reproduction of anybody else’s as though it were ours, and no rating or review structured data in any page’s markup. The seller’s figures appear once, on the reviews page, labelled as the seller’s. The only score we stand behind is the editorial scorecard, and it is ours in full.
5. A supplied image that would manufacture a customer, an endorsement or a citation is not published at all
This is the rule that cost the most, and on this product it ruled out six of them. Not resized, not captioned as stock, not reproduced small: left out entirely, and left out of the image folder as well. Here they are, itemised, because a rule applied invisibly is indistinguishable from an omission.
The six
One. A set of three studio portraits presented as customers, whose own supplied filenames describe them as the same person in different clothes. Two. A pair of strips styled as instant photographs, showing those same three people again in changed clothes and a different room, each holding the bottle up as though they had taken the picture themselves. Three. A single headshot on white, filed under a person’s full name, in the format a sales page puts directly above a quotation. Four. A row of five journal and newspaper wordmarks — the New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, the International Journal of Obesity, The Boston Globe and the American Physiological Society — with no caption and no citation anywhere near it. Five. A stock photograph of an unnamed older man in a white coat pointing at the bottle, supplied to sit beside a “doctor formulated” mark, when no clinician is named anywhere in the material. Six. A photograph of two professional fitness models, which beside a weight-management product functions as an implied result whatever the caption says.
A caption reading “stock photography” would not have fixed any of them, because a picture is read first and a caption second. The three people-images would manufacture buyers who do not exist. The logo row would manufacture a citation: no study of this product appears in any of those five publications, and none of them has said anything about it. The white coat would manufacture an endorsement. The fitness models would manufacture a result the label itself is careful never to promise.
Six findings
The editorial record on this product
Each one is a statement about a document we were given, and each is checkable against it.
Those rules produce findings, and on this product they produced six. They are set out in full on the pages that deal with each, and collected here in the order of how much a reader loses by not knowing them.
1. The customer photographs are of models, and the filenames say so
The supplied asset pack contains a set of customer photographs, and the pack named them itself. Three portraits arrived with the filenames same-person-different-clothes-1, same-person-different-clothes-2 and same-person-different-clothes. Two further images, styled as a strip of polaroids captioned as real buyers, show the same three people again — different clothes, a different room, each holding the bottle up to the camera as though they had photographed themselves at home. A fourth headshot is filed under a person’s full name on a plain white background. None of these images appears anywhere on this site. Publishing them would manufacture customers who do not exist, and the filenames make it impossible to pretend otherwise.
2. Five journal and newspaper wordmarks with no citation
One supplied image is a row of five wordmarks: the New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, the International Journal of Obesity, The Boston Globe and the American Physiological Society. There is no caption on it and no citation with it. No study of SodaSlim appears in any of those publications, and none of them has said anything about this product. A logo row reads as an endorsement whatever the small print says, and there is nothing behind this one, so it is not published here.
3. 138 mg of caffeine, in a capsule you are told to take every morning
The panel declares caffeine anhydrous at 138 mg per capsule, and the green tea extract adds up to about 3.9 mg more (its standardisation says “<3% caffeine” of 130 mg). Call it about 142 mg a capsule. MedlinePlus puts an 8-ounce cup of coffee at 95–200 mg, so one capsule is a cup of coffee in a capsule — which is neither alarming nor trivial. FDA cites 400 mg a day as an amount “not generally associated with negative effects” in healthy adults, and notes there is “wide variation in both how sensitive people are to the effects of caffeine and how fast they eliminate it from the body”. The label declares “Contains Caffeine”, which is correct and useful. What it does not do is tell you the number is a third of a day’s allowance before you have had breakfast.
4. Two of the five ingredients carry published liver-injury reports
Two of the five ingredients in this capsule carry published reports of liver injury, and they arrive together. Green tea extract, per NCCIH: “Although uncommon, liver injury has been reported in some people who used green tea products, primarily green tea extracts in tablet or capsule form.” NCCIH adds that people with a particular genetic variant appear especially susceptible, and that between 5 and 15 per cent of Americans carry it. Garcinia cambogia, per NCCIH: “Numerous reports of liver toxicity have been reported in people who were taking garcinia cambogia products”, and “Several cases of liver damage have been reported. Some of these cases were severe, but this appears to be uncommon.” Neither of those is a reason to panic about one capsule. Both are reasons to know what you are taking and to stop if you feel unwell.
5. The federal verdicts, row by row
NIH ODS publishes a consumer fact sheet on dietary supplements for weight loss, and it covers every ingredient on this panel. Row by row: green coffee bean extract “might help you lose a small amount of weight”; garcinia cambogia “has little to no effect on weight loss”; green tea extract “might help you lose a small amount of weight”; raspberry ketone’s “effects on body weight are unknown” and it “hasn’t been studied enough to tell if it’s safe”; and caffeine “might help you lose a little weight or gain less weight over time”, with the note that tolerance develops. NCCIH is blunter: “The science doesn’t support the use of acai berry, bitter orange, or green tea supplements for weight loss. None of these supplements has been shown to produce meaningful weight loss in scientific studies.” And on the category as a whole, ODS: “there’s little scientific evidence that weight-loss supplements work.”
6. Six bonus ebooks that claim more than the bottle does
Six digital bonuses arrive with the larger packs, and their titles are worth reading against a label that never promises a result. “Accelerated Metabolism” and “10-Day Metabolic Challenge” both describe a change in rate; the bottle says “metabolic support”. “Facial Rejuvenation” is about skin, which the panel has nothing to do with at all. The others are a “Renova Flora Protocol”, a “Sleep Live Better” guide and a “Personalized Usage Guide”. Nobody has to substantiate the title of a free download.
The commendation
Credit where it is due, and we are not burying it
The best thing about this product is the panel, and it is why the rest of this site can be written at all.
A site printing only its criticisms is one-sided, and this bottle earns a commendation that most of its shelf does not. We are saying it here rather than at the bottom of a page, because it is the most useful thing on the label.
This is the best-documented Supplement Facts panel in this series. Five ingredients, five published amounts, no proprietary blend — and three printed standardisations, which is the part almost nothing in this category bothers with. The green coffee bean row reads 50% chlorogenic acids, so 130 mg of extract carries about 65 mg of the compound the research is about. The garcinia row reads 50% HCA, so about 65 mg of HCA. The green tea row goes further still — 98% polyphenols, 75% catechins, 45% EGCG and under 3% caffeine — which puts about 58.5 mg of EGCG in the capsule and also tells you where the extra few milligrams of caffeine come from. Without a standardisation a milligram figure on a botanical describes weight rather than activity. With one, a reader can do arithmetic, and on this label a reader can do it three times.
The consequence cuts directly against our own findings, and it should be said in the same paragraph. Every criticism on this site is only possible because the panel publishes enough to make it: we can say that the garcinia row sits at a fraction of the studied amount, and that a capsule carries about a third of the caffeine figure FDA cites for a day, because the label prints both numbers. On a competitor pooling the same five ingredients into one blend total, neither sentence could be written, and that product would look better here for being less honest.
Four more things the label gets right
“Contains Caffeine” is printed as its own statement, which is exactly what a label carrying 138 mg of it should do. The capsule is hypromellose, a vegetable capsule, so the vegetarian mark in the supplied pack is genuinely supported by the ingredient line — and on a capsule product the shell is usually where a vegetarian claim is lost. The caution panel is real, naming under-18s, pregnancy, nursing and medication rather than gesturing at them. And all four front-of-label claims are support claims, every one carrying an asterisk that resolves to the FDA disclaimer printed on the same wrap: support, helps support, promotes. None of them says the product causes weight loss, because a supplement label may not, and this one does not try. The listing card even names five ingredients on a panel that declares five — they agree.
Look down the amount column. Four of the five rows are exactly 130 mg. Only the caffeine differs, at 138. Five ingredients chosen on their merits would not land on the same number four times; a pre-made blend divided into equal parts would. It is an observation rather than an accusation, but it is the kind of pattern worth noticing on any panel.
Money and mistakes
How this site is paid, and how to correct it
A commission, a disclosure in plain sight, and an email address that reaches a person.
The order button points at the brand’s own information and sales page, where the checkout is operated by BuyGoods. This site earns a commission if you buy through it. That does not change your price. We do not print the address as text anywhere, and the earnings disclosure is on the disclaimer page.
That arrangement creates an interest in you pressing the order button, which is exactly why the disclosure is here in a paragraph rather than in a footnote. What it does not create is an interest in you buying something unsuitable: a refund claimed inside the sixty-day window costs this desk the commission anyway, and you are reading a commissioned site that has just told you the customer photographs are of models.
How a fact gets onto a page here
In one of three ways, and in this order. The Supplement Facts panel and the rest of the wrap come first, transcribed from the photograph. The supplied pack and the listing cards come second, and are always attributed to the seller when they are the only source — the morning instruction is the clearest example, because the bottle does not say it. Federal consumer pages come third, wherever one exists: thirteen of them, from the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, MedlinePlus and the FDA. Each was opened and read on September 24, 2026, and each page that draws on one lists it at the foot.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, we would rather know than be left alone. Email [email protected] — website desk - pages, typos, privacy and press, Monday to Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm ET — and say which page and which sentence. If the bottle in your hand disagrees with something written here, the bottle wins, and a correction is faster than an argument.
Which question goes to which desk → · Why no reviews are published → · Every seal, read against the label →
References
Sources for this page
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Structure/Function Claims. www.fda.gov. Accessed September 24, 2026.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dietary Supplements. www.fda.gov. Accessed September 24, 2026.
- Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. Dietary Supplements: What You Need to Know. ods.od.nih.gov. Accessed September 24, 2026.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, NIH. Using Dietary Supplements Wisely. www.nccih.nih.gov. Accessed September 24, 2026.
- Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health. Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss: Fact Sheet for Consumers. ods.od.nih.gov. Accessed September 24, 2026.
Next
Keep reading
Why there are no reviews
Layout copy, three faces, and a star split that does not add up.
Read it →Twelve seals against the label
Two of them misspelled, and one the ingredient line genuinely supports.
Read it →The whole label, panel by panel
What every finding on this site was transcribed from.
Read it →See SodaSlim on the official sales page
Thirty capsules a bottle, one capsule a day, so a bottle is exactly thirty days. Five ingredients, five published amounts, no proprietary blend, and three rows carrying a printed standardisation. 138 mg of caffeine a capsule — count it against your day before you start. No pack price was supplied to this desk, so read the figure on the sales page before you pay. Sixty days from the date of purchase to change your mind.
Price shown at checkout · 60-day window from the date of purchase · ships from inside the US · the label’s own support line is +1 (302) 200-3480