A closer look at the research, the formulations and the questions worth asking.
Prepared for Mark Ewell, independent THREE Brand Ambassador. Mark may earn compensation from purchases through his referral links. This is an ambassador-supported educational resource, not an independent certification or a medical recommendation.
A FAIR COMPARISON STARTS WITH THE EVIDENCE
Why include THREE in a serious supplement comparison
THREE has a documented research record worth examining: named branded-formulation laboratory reports, a published cell-study paper, relevant human ingredient research, and reference listings for the Simple Six products. This library makes those sources easier to inspect and explains what each can establish. A useful comparison starts with the health or nutrition question, the exact formula and dose, and the kind of evidence needed to answer it.
Start with the evidence
Explore the six product summaries, then read the source notes. Each source is identified as a laboratory study, a human ingredient study, a human finished-product study record, a label or a reference listing. Manufacturing documentation is considered separately. Research on one ingredient, formula version or population should not automatically be applied to another.
What the current record supports
The published work supports a substantive formulation and laboratory-research discussion. Human studies of particular ingredients can help explain the rationale for a formula. The reviewed sources do not establish that the current six-product regimen outperforms every alternative or is necessary for every person. The purpose of this resource is to make a fair evaluation possible, including favorable findings and unanswered questions.
Confirm the named ambassador before purchasing. Individual needs, medicines, allergies and existing supplement use matter; discuss suitability with a qualified health professional.
THE SIMPLE SIX
Six formulas. Read the evidence for each.
Éternel research and formulation
Éternel’s formulation approach includes resveratrol and other ingredients. Branded laboratory work appears in the absorption and gene-expression reports. The May 2026 fact sheet describes a vegan formulation that differs materially from the older version, including a changed blend. Evidence connecting the older tested formula to the reformulation is needed before assigning the older results to today’s product. The available laboratory work does not establish extended human lifespan.
Vitalité is a multi-ingredient nutritional formula with published label information and branded laboratory research. Its formulation was included in the 2023 Caco-2 report and the 2025 liver-cell gene-expression paper. Those studies provide laboratory observations, rather than a trial of health outcomes in people taking the current retail product. Read the label for actual nutrient amounts; an absorption-model result cannot substitute for the amount of EPA or DHA supplied.
Collagène has a published marine-collagen blend label, a PDR entry and branded laboratory research. Human studies of specific collagen preparations offer relevant evidence about skin-related outcomes. Their peptide composition, amount and continuous dosing schedules must be compared with the actual Collagène formula and recommended schedule. They are not automatically clinical trials of Collagène.
Purifí has a published ingredient label, a PDR entry and results in the branded Caco-2 laboratory report. This is useful source material for examining the formulation. The assay measures model behavior, not toxin removal or a clinical detoxification benefit. The video and report give different values for Purifí; the disputed percentage is omitted pending reconciliation.
Revíve has branded laboratory research on permeability, gene expression and a superoxide-related assay. Relevant human research also exists for a specified Boswellia extract, one of the types of ingredients in its formulation. That human study tested a particular extract and dose, not the Revíve blend. The superoxide result is a laboratory observation and should not be presented as a measured reduction in patients’ inflammation, pain or recovery time.
Imúne combines nutrients and other ingredients, including a quercetin delivery system with relevant human pharmacokinetic research. A registered Indonesian pilot also names Imune, comparing a vitamin D combination with vitamin D alone. Its accessible registry provides a study design but no numerical results. The product version and full formula must be matched before applying the record to a current US bottle. The separate study slide in Dr. Dan’s presentation has not yet been conclusively linked to that registry.
June 2023, Stephens and Gubler. Six formulations were tested in Caco-2 intestinal cells for one hour, with three assay replicates per product and two curcumin controls. No people participated. Products used differing concentrations; the control was not a matched competing formula. The findings describe that model, not human absorption percentages or a head-to-head clinical advantage. Author affiliations include Wasatch Scientific and THREE; independent funding was not established.
Published 14 January 2025, Davis, Davis and Gubler. Four branded products were studied in THLE-2 liver cells over 24 hours; RT-PCR measured six gene transcripts. THREE supplied products and funding, and a company employee was an author. The paper contributes mechanistic evidence; it does not measure human cognition, lifespan or disease outcomes. Formula-version matching remains essential.
March 2024, Gubler and Davis. A WST-1 assay in THLE-2 cells reported a superoxide-related effect at 150 micrograms/mL. The report does not provide a treated-person sample or clear replicate count. Its funding disclosure was not established in this review. Clinical benefits cannot be calculated from this cell-assay result.
UMIN000062041, disclosed June 2026. Randomized, participant-blinded, eight-week pilot in Indonesian adult women with low vitamin D; 61 enrolled. It compares D3 plus zinc/quercetin phytosome with D3 alone. Atma Jaya is sponsor; THREE’s Indonesian entity is funder. Primary outcome: vitamin D status. The record says completed and unpublished, with no numeric results. Registration follows the recorded study dates; full formula equivalence and the presentation-slide match are unresolved.
Riva and colleagues, online 2018, journal issue 2019. Randomized single-dose crossover in 12 healthy adults comparing quercetin preparations. Higher blood exposure was measured with the tested phytosome preparation. Indena funded the study and employed all authors. It supports preparation-specific human absorption research, not infection prevention. Imúne’s undisclosed individual quercetin amount prevents assigning that study’s numerical effect to its retail dose.
2019 placebo-controlled pilot, 48 knee-osteoarthritis patients randomized and 42 completing 120 days. A specified extract at 169.33 mg twice daily showed favorable symptom/function findings. Small sample and analysis limitations affect certainty; authors had manufacturer affiliations. Funding must be confirmed from the full paper before a separate funding claim. The study does not test Revíve’s complete blend.
Kim and colleagues, 2018. Sixty-four women were randomized; 53 completed 12 weeks of a specified 1-g daily preparation or placebo. Skin hydration and wrinkle-related measures favored collagen. Attrition, per-protocol analysis and industry affiliations merit context. The paper declared no external funding or conflicts. Preparation and schedule differ from Collagène’s marketed regimen.
All six Simple Six products have named PDR reference entries, linked on the product pages. Listing supplies a reference destination, not FDA approval, a medical recommendation or proof of superiority. For manufacturing, distinguish a named facility’s certification from a finished-product certification and from a specific lot’s test results. A certificate copy with an old date is not proof of present renewal or lapse. Current standing and exact scope must be verified before publishing a certification claim.
This resource draws on the 31 October 2026 nutrition evidence review and full-recording Dr. Dan dossier, with targeted primary-source verification. It is not an exhaustive systematic review, a laboratory retest or an independent audit of underlying datasets. Missing public results are recorded as gaps rather than evidence that research does not exist.
EXPLORE WITH MARK
Mark Ewell
Independent THREE Brand Ambassador
I help people explore THREE products and the research behind them. I commissioned this evidence resource so readers can follow original studies, understand what was tested and ask better questions before deciding. My role is product education and ambassador support; the cited scientists and research institutions remain the authors of their studies.