NeuroAxis Review: An Honest Audit of My Own Formula

Nerve Health · Nerve Support Supplement Review

I formulated this supplement, which makes me the wrong person to review it. So here is the ingredient panel against the published trial doses anyway, including the places where my own formula falls short.

I am the worst possible person to review this product, and I am going to write the review anyway.

I formulated NeuroAxis. I designed the studies on the formula that preceded it, I enrolled the patients, I authored both papers, and I have a financial interest in every bottle that sells. There is no version of this article in which I am a neutral party, and I am not going to perform one for you.

What I can do instead is the thing almost no supplement company will do. I am going to put my own ingredient panel next to the published clinical trial doses, line by line, and tell you where it matches and where it falls short. Along the way: the rationale behind the formula, what two small trials on its predecessor actually showed, the role of each ingredient, the safety considerations that matter, and which neuropathy populations are and are not a good fit.

It falls short in two places. Two of the twelve ingredients sit below the dose used in the trials most often cited for them, a third sits at the lower of two studied doses, and I will show you exactly which ones and explain the tradeoff I made. If you came looking for a page that tells you every decision in this formula is optimal, this is not that page.

That honesty is not a marketing posture. It is the only thing that makes a review written by the formulator worth reading at all.

One clarification before we start. Several unrelated clinics, rehabilitation practices, and ADHD specialists operate under similar names in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Romania. This article is about the Dr. Fitz Nutrition nerve support supplement and has nothing to do with those organizations.

What Years of Nerve Surgery Taught Me About the Tissue Around the Nerve

I spent years operating on peripheral nerves, more than three thousand procedures across my surgical career. That work is what produced this formula, and not in the way people usually assume.

When I released a carpal tunnel, I was solving a mechanical problem. A nerve was being compressed, and I decompressed it. That part is straightforward, and the operation is good at it. What the operation cannot do is anything at all about the environment the nerve then has to recover inside.

Two patients with identical compression on the same imaging, the same operation, the same surgeon, would recover on completely different timelines. The variable was rarely the surgery. It was metabolic. Blood sugar control, inflammatory load, nutritional status, mitochondrial capacity in a tissue that is extraordinarily expensive to run. Peripheral nerves burn enormous amounts of ATP maintaining the ion gradients that make signal conduction possible, and when that energy supply is compromised the nerve starts underperforming long before anything shows up as structural damage.

So I would finish an operation having fixed the mechanics perfectly, and send the patient home into the same metabolic conditions that had helped produce the problem. That gap is what I went looking for a product to fill.

What I found on the shelf was discouraging. Cyanocobalamin instead of methylcobalamin. Racemic lipoic acid at a fraction of a studied dose. Thiamine hydrochloride, which crosses into nerve tissue poorly, instead of a fat-soluble derivative that does it well. Curcumin with no absorption strategy at all, which means curcumin that largely never arrives. Panels that read impressively and dosed like an afterthought.

I built NeuroAxis to close that gap. Whether I closed it well is what the rest of this page is for.

The Only Filter That Matters When You Read a Nerve Supplement Label

Most nerve supplement comparisons are ingredient-list comparisons. Does it have alpha-lipoic acid, yes or no. Does it have B12, yes or no. That comparison is close to useless, because an ingredient list tells you what is in the bottle and tells you nothing about whether the amount resembles anything that has ever been studied.

There are three ways a nerve supplement fails, and all three are invisible if you only read ingredient names.

It uses the wrong form. Cyanocobalamin is the cheap synthetic form of B12 and has to be converted before nerve tissue can use it. Methylcobalamin is the coenzyme form that participates directly in the methylation reactions myelin synthesis depends on. Standard thiamine hydrochloride is water-soluble and crosses the blood-nerve barrier poorly. Benfotiamine is a fat-soluble derivative with far better tissue uptake. These are not marketing distinctions, and a label listing "vitamin B12" without naming the form is usually telling you which one it is by omission.

It dilutes the dose. This is the most common failure by a wide margin. A product lists alpha-lipoic acid, which has real trial evidence behind it, and contains 50 mg of it when the trials used 600 mg. The ingredient is present. The dose is decorative.

It never addresses absorption. Curcumin faces two well-characterized barriers: poor solubility in the gut, and rapid conjugation by glucuronidation before it reaches circulation. Curcumin without a bioavailability strategy is mostly a label ingredient.

So the filter is simple, and you can apply it to any dietary supplement including mine. Take the milligram amounts on the panel and put them next to the doses used in the published trials. It disqualifies a remarkable number of products in about ninety seconds.

Here is that comparison run on my own formula.

The NeuroAxis Panel Against the Published Trial Doses

The full daily dose is six tablets. Every amount below is the daily total across those six tablets, not a per-tablet or per-serving figure. You can take all six at once or split them into two servings of three, whichever you will actually stick to. I take mine as a single dose before training.

The panel above is the amounts. This is the set of decisions behind them, and it is where two products listing the same ingredient stop being the same product.

Where the Formula Matches the Evidence

R-alpha lipoic acid at 600 mg. The SYDNEY 2 trial randomized 181 patients with distal symmetric polyneuropathy to oral lipoic acid at 600, 1,200, or 1,800 mg daily or placebo for five weeks. Total Symptom Score fell by roughly half in all three active arms compared with 32 percent on placebo, and the authors concluded that 600 mg once daily provided the optimum risk-to-benefit ratio, with higher doses adding nausea rather than benefit (Ziegler et al., Diabetes Care, 2006). My full evidence review of this compound is here.

Now the honest caveat. Those trials used racemic lipoic acid, a 50/50 mixture of the R and S isomers. NeuroAxis uses R-alpha lipoic acid, which is the isomer human mitochondrial enzymes actually use. The mechanistic argument for the R form is sound. The head-to-head human trial proving R-ALA outperforms racemic in neuropathy outcomes does not exist. I use the R isomer because I think it is the metabolically relevant molecule, and you should file that as a reasoned bet rather than a proven upgrade.

Methylcobalamin at 2,000 mcg. Above the roughly 1,500 mcg daily used in most of the methylcobalamin literature. B12 has a wide safety margin and poor absorption at the gut, which is the argument for dosing generously. The more important point is the form, and I have written the full case for methylcobalamin over cyanocobalamin separately.

Curcumin with BioPerine. The reference pharmacokinetic work in humans used 20 mg of piperine against a 2 g curcumin load, a 1:100 ratio, and attributed the effect largely to inhibition of glucuronidation in the gut and liver. NeuroAxis uses 10 mg of piperine against 500 mg of curcumin, a 1:50 ratio, so it is twice as piperine-rich per unit of curcumin rather than proportionally identical. One caution that belongs on any product containing piperine: piperine also inhibits CYP3A4, so anyone taking medications metabolized through that pathway should raise it with their prescriber before starting.

Where My Own Formula Sits Below the Trial Dose

This is the section I would skip if I were writing marketing copy.

Acetyl-L-carnitine at 600 mg is the biggest gap. The pooled analysis of two 52-week randomized placebo-controlled trials in chronic diabetic neuropathy tested 500 mg and 1,000 mg three times daily, meaning 1,500 and 3,000 mg per day, in 1,257 intention-to-treat patients. It reported improvements in sural nerve fiber numbers and regenerating nerve fiber clusters, along with improved vibratory perception, with pain improving significantly in the 1,000 mg three times daily arm (Sima et al., Diabetes Care, 2005). NeuroAxis contains 600 mg daily, which is below both studied arms. One safety note worth carrying: acetyl-L-carnitine can increase bleeding risk with warfarin, so that combination belongs in a conversation with your prescriber.

Two things belong next to that finding, and leaving them out would make this section dishonest in the opposite direction. Nerve conduction velocities and amplitudes did not improve in those trials. And the 2019 Cochrane review of acetyl-L-carnitine in diabetic neuropathy rated the evidence very low certainty, citing high risk of bias in both trials, selective and incomplete outcome reporting, and sural nerve biopsies available for only a fraction of randomized participants (Rolim et al., Cochrane, 2019). I dissect my own two studies later on this page, so I am not going to accept somebody else's uncritically. The regeneration finding is interesting and it is not settled.

Coenzyme Q10 at 150 mg is under the studied dose. The randomized double-blind trial in diabetic polyneuropathy used 400 mg daily for twelve weeks and reported improvement in neuropathy symptom and impairment scores, sural sensory amplitude, and nerve conduction velocities, along with reduced lipid peroxidation (Hernández-Ojeda et al., Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications, 2012). It was a small trial, 24 patients against 25 controls. NeuroAxis has 150 mg.

Benfotiamine at 300 mg is the lower of the two studied arms. The BENDIP trial randomized 165 patients with symmetrical distal diabetic polyneuropathy to benfotiamine 600 mg daily, 300 mg daily, or placebo for six weeks, with 133 analyzed in the intention-to-treat population after attrition. Neuropathy Symptom Score differed significantly between groups in the per-protocol population (p = 0.033) and came in just above significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (p = 0.055), and the authors noted the improvement was more pronounced at the higher dose (Stracke et al., Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes, 2008). NeuroAxis uses the 300 mg arm, so this one was studied at the dose in the bottle, just not at the dose that performed best.

And one thing that is not in the formula at all. Magnesium is absent. It matters for glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity, and low magnesium status is common in the same population this formula is aimed at. It is a reasonable thing to ask your physician about separately rather than something I can quietly claim the panel covers.

So why did I build it that way?

Because a twelve-ingredient formula and a single-ingredient monotherapy are solving different problems, and they run into a hard physical constraint: pill burden. Dosing acetyl-L-carnitine at 3,000 mg alone would consume most of a six-tablet daily allotment. Putting every ingredient at its maximal studied monotherapy dose would produce a regimen of roughly twenty tablets a day that nobody takes past week three, and adherence failure is not a theoretical risk in this category, it is the normal outcome.

The design decision was to hold the two ingredients with the strongest and most dose-sensitive symptom data, lipoic acid and methylcobalamin, at or above their studied doses, and to carry the mitochondrial ingredients at supportive rather than maximal levels alongside them.

You are entitled to disagree with that tradeoff. If your interest is specifically acetyl-L-carnitine at the amount Sima used, that is 3,000 mg per day, and a standalone product is how you would get there. My formula does not. That is a real answer to a real question, and a review that could not produce it would not be worth writing.

The One Place Where More Is Actively Worse

Vitamin B6 is the ingredient where the entire industry has the incentive backwards, and it deserves its own warning.

Pyridoxine at high doses is itself neurotoxic and can cause a sensory neuropathy. This is not a theoretical risk. It is well documented enough that the European Food Safety Authority identified 50 mg per day as its reference point when it reassessed B6 in 2023, and Australia's regulator is moving oral preparations above 50 mg daily behind the pharmacy counter. An aggressively dosed B-complex can produce the exact symptom the person bought it to relieve, and I saw patients arrive convinced their neuropathy was worsening when the relevant exposure was sitting in their supplement drawer.

NeuroAxis holds B6 at 10 mg. On a label, next to a competitor listing 100 mg with a bigger number and a bolder claim, the smaller number looks like the weaker product. It is the opposite. It is the one place in this category where restraint is the clinically correct decision, and it is worth checking the B6 number on anything you are currently taking regardless of what you conclude about my formula.

The one nutrient on the nerve shelf where the dose-response curve turns back down on itself.

The Four Systems the Formula Is Organized Around

The panel above is built around four biological systems rather than around a list of popular ingredients. What follows is the design rationale, not a claim about clinical outcomes.

Myelin structure. Myelin, the insulating sheath wrapped around nerve fibers by Schwann cells, is what makes fast saltatory conduction possible. Building and repairing it depends on B vitamins in their bioactive forms, which is the job of the methylcobalamin, benfotiamine, and B6 layer.

Cellular energy. Peripheral nerves are metabolically expensive, and mitochondrial dysfunction is a documented feature of diabetic and age-related neuropathy. CoQ10 works in the electron transport chain, and acetyl-L-carnitine facilitates fatty acid transport into mitochondria.

Oxidative balance. Chronic hyperglycemia drives nerve injury partly through the polyol pathway, advanced glycation end product formation, and oxidative stress. Lipoic acid and NAC, which is a precursor to the body's own glutathione, target that layer, and curcumin contributes antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity alongside them. The mechanism is covered in depth in how high blood sugar damages nerves.

Tissue environment. Bromelain and serrapeptase are the ingredients people question most, and they are the most directly surgical decision in the formula. Nerve recovery does not happen in isolation. It happens inside surrounding tissue, and the state of that tissue, its inflammatory load and its edema, is not background detail. It is something I watched matter for years.

What the Two Trials Actually Showed, and What They Do Not

Here is where I have to be most careful, because this is the claim most easily oversold.

First, a correction to how this often gets described online. The two published trials were run on NeuroGen, the predecessor formulation, not on NeuroAxis under its current name. Same core architecture, same six-tablet daily protocol, earlier formula. Anyone telling you there are two peer-reviewed trials on NeuroAxis specifically is overstating it, and I would rather correct that myself than have you find it.

Both were single-surgeon studies in patients undergoing endoscopic carpal tunnel release, with the supplement started five days before surgery and continued for three weeks after. A surgical nerve injury is a useful model precisely because the timing and the mechanism are known.

A known injury, at a known moment, in a known nerve. That is why the surgical model was useful, and also why it does not transfer cleanly to diabetic neuropathy.

The 2014 study enrolled 61 patients, 15 taking the supplement and 46 controls. Pillar pain on the visual analog scale at roughly two weeks was 1.13 in the supplement group versus 4.05 in controls (p < 0.005). Forty-six percent of the supplement group were completely free of pillar pain compared with 9 percent of controls, and 53 percent required no pain medication versus 35 percent.

The 2022 study enrolled 64 patients with electromyographically confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome who had failed conservative care, 18 taking the supplement and 46 controls, and used the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire. At roughly two weeks the supplement group improved 1.51 points on symptoms and 0.98 on function, against 0.98 and 0.38 in controls, with the between-group difference reaching p < 0.005 and exceeding the published minimal clinically important difference.

Those are real numbers. Now here is what they do not establish.

They were not randomized. Controls were sequential and partly self-selected, which means the groups may differ in ways nobody measured. Patients who agree to take a supplement before surgery may differ systematically from patients who do not.

The supplement arms were small. Fifteen patients and eighteen patients. Effect sizes from groups that size are unstable, and the honest expectation is that a larger trial would produce a smaller effect.

Single surgeon, single center, and that surgeon was me. I designed the formula, ran the studies, enrolled the patients, and authored both papers. Every structural safeguard that exists to keep a formulator's enthusiasm out of a result was absent.

The follow-up was two weeks. This tells you something about the early postoperative period. It tells you nothing about three months or a year.

And they may not be two independent studies. Both papers report exactly 46 controls, eight years apart. If that is the same control cohort carried across both analyses, and I am checking the underlying records, then "two published trials" overstates how much separate evidence exists here. I would rather raise that myself than let somebody else find it.

One more piece of context on the 2022 numbers. Controls improved too, by 0.98 on symptoms and 0.38 on function. Most people recover from carpal tunnel release, because the operation works. The question was never whether recovery happens. It was whether the supplement group crossed the threshold for a clinically meaningful change earlier, which on those published thresholds it did and the control group did not.

And the population was post-surgical carpal tunnel. Not diabetic neuropathy, not idiopathic small fiber neuropathy, not chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. If you have distal symmetric polyneuropathy from twenty years of type 2 diabetes, these two studies are not about you. The rationale in that situation rests on the ingredient-level evidence in the section above, which is a weaker form of support and should be described as one. My broader review of whether nerve support supplements are effective goes further into that distinction.

So what do they support? They are consistent with the idea that this combination, at these doses, in this surgical model, was associated with better early recovery than no supplement. That is hypothesis-generating research published in a small journal. It is more formula-level data than nearly anything else on the shelf has, and it is a long way from the standard a drug approval rests on. Both of those things are true at the same time.

What I Am Studying Next, and Why I Am Not Claiming It Yet

Both published studies used a surgical model. The obvious question is whether any of this extends to the population that asks me about it most, which is people with peripheral neuropathy who have never had an operation. I do not have that data. I am working to get it.

Here is the honest account of why. Since the formula has been in wider use I have had a steady stream of unsolicited reports, including from other physicians who contacted me after their own patients started taking it. That is not nothing. Clinicians are busy and they do not generally write to a supplement formulator without a reason. It is also not a substitute for a randomized controlled trial.

It is exactly the kind of evidence that has embarrassed this field repeatedly, and I would be a hypocrite to spend two thousand words dismantling my own trials and then ask you to accept testimonials. In the randomized trial of IVIG for idiopathic small fiber neuropathy, 30 percent of patients improved on saline. Thirty percent, on salt water, in a properly blinded study. When a third of people improve on nothing, a collection of compelling individual stories is mathematically guaranteed and tells you almost nothing about whether the intervention works. Enthusiastic reports from good physicians are subject to the same arithmetic, which is precisely why pain research runs on randomized trials instead of anecdotes.

So what I actually have is a hypothesis, and it is a specific one worth stating plainly. The formula was built on the premise that these compounds work on four different systems at once and that the combination does more than the sum of the individual parts. That premise has never been tested. Demonstrating true synergy requires a factorial design, meaning arms that isolate the individual ingredients against the combination, and no study of this formula has done that. Every single-ingredient trial cited on this page tells you about that ingredient in isolation, which is useful and is not the same question.

That is the study I want to run, in a neuropathy population rather than a surgical one, with randomization and a control group I did not select. Until it exists, what I can tell you is that the mechanistic rationale is sound, the ingredient-level evidence is real, the formula-level evidence is limited to two small surgical studies, and the neuropathy question is genuinely open.

I would rather tell you that than sell you a conclusion I have not earned.

Why the Supplement Is the Smallest of Three Pillars

This is the part I would put first if search engines rewarded it, because it is the thing I actually believe and the reason the product exists in the shape it does.

A capsule cannot outrun a metabolic environment that is still injuring the nerve. I watched that play out for years in postoperative recovery, and it holds just as firmly in neuropathy that never involved an operation. So I build everything around three pillars, and the supplement is deliberately the third of them, not the first.

Pillar one is nutrition. Nerve tissue does not experience your A1C, it experiences your glucose excursions. Two people with identical A1C values can have completely different post-meal curves, and it is the spikes that drive the polyol pathway, advanced glycation end product formation, and oxidative stress in nerve tissue. Practically that means the shape of the meal: protein and fiber before starch, a reduced refined carbohydrate load, adequate protein, and enough of the micronutrients nerve metabolism runs on. No supplement compensates for a diet that keeps producing the injury.

Pillar two is lifestyle intervention. Structured aerobic exercise, sleep treated as a real variable rather than an afterthought, and alcohol named honestly as a direct peripheral neurotoxin. I want to be precise about why this pillar outranks the one I sell: in the human studies where a biopsy needle went back into skin and counted more nerve fibers than it found the first time, the intervention was diet and exercise. Not a drug. Not a supplement. That is the strongest tissue-level evidence in this entire field, and it belongs to the pillar that costs nothing.

Pillar three is the nutrient layer. That is where NeuroAxis sits. It is aimed at the metabolic and mitochondrial environment the nerve is trying to recover inside, which is a target nothing in your medicine cabinet addresses. It is a real layer, and it is the third one. Running it while the first two go unaddressed is the most common way people waste money in this category.

This is why every bottle includes the protocol guide rather than just a supplement facts panel. If I sold you the capsules and said nothing about the other two pillars, I would be selling you the least effective third of what actually works, and I would know it.

Who This Is Actually For, and Who Should Skip It

It fits reasonably well if you are the kind of patient the research was done in, which is someone who has had nerve decompression surgery. If you have diabetic or idiopathic peripheral neuropathy with a confirmed diagnosis and a known driver that you are already addressing, it fits as the nutrient layer alongside that work, with physical activity doing a great deal of the heavy lifting. If you have type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, or insulin resistance and you want to support nerve health before symptoms develop while keeping blood sugar in a healthy range, the mechanistic case is reasonable. And if you have already researched your way to acetyl-L-carnitine, CoQ10, and methylcobalamin individually, a combined formula at these doses may be simpler than assembling six bottles, with the acetyl-L-carnitine caveat above.

You should skip it, or at least wait, in several situations, and I would rather say so than sell you something that will not help.

If you have tingling or numbness and no diagnosis, the workup comes first. Something is causing it, and the identity of that something determines whether disease-modifying treatment exists in your case. No supplement substitutes for finding out. If your B12 deficiency is severe or from malabsorption, you may need injections rather than oral supplementation, which is a conversation with your physician. If your neuropathy is autoimmune, chemotherapy-induced, or hereditary, the nutrient layer is a minor character in that story. And if blood sugar is the driver and glycemic control is not being addressed, this formula is a poor substitute for the thing that would actually change the trajectory.

What to Expect and When

Nothing here reverses established structural nerve damage, and I am not going to imply otherwise. Axonal regeneration proceeds at roughly a millimeter per day under good conditions, which is a biological constraint no capsule changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does NeuroAxis actually work?

For post-surgical carpal tunnel recovery, two small non-randomized trials on the predecessor formula found better early outcomes than no supplement, with the significant caveat that I ran those trials. For diabetic or idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, including what most readers mean when they ask about painful diabetic neuropathy, the case rests on ingredient-level evidence rather than direct formula trials. That evidence is real for lipoic acid, benfotiamine, methylcobalamin, and acetyl-L-carnitine, and it is mostly drawn from small studies. It is not a treatment for neuropathy and it does not reverse structural nerve damage.

Are there studies underway in peripheral neuropathy rather than surgery?

That is the next research priority. Both published studies used a post-surgical carpal tunnel model, and the open question is whether anything extends to non-surgical peripheral neuropathy, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The formula was designed on the premise that four pathways addressed together do more than the ingredients do separately, and demonstrating that requires a factorial design that has not been run. Until it is, the multi-pathway premise is a hypothesis rather than a finding, and the same caution applies to broader neuropathic pain populations.

How is NeuroAxis different from a pharmacy nerve supplement?

Three things. Active ingredient forms, methylcobalamin rather than cyanocobalamin and benfotiamine rather than thiamine hydrochloride. Doses that were chosen against published trials rather than against a price target, with the exceptions disclosed above. And B6 deliberately held at 10 mg, where much of the category goes high.

What is in NeuroAxis and how much?

Daily totals across six tablets: R-alpha lipoic acid 600 mg, N-acetyl cysteine 900 mg, acetyl-L-carnitine 600 mg, curcumin 500 mg, benfotiamine 300 mg, CoQ10 150 mg, methylcobalamin 2,000 mcg, vitamin B6 10 mg, vitamin D3 800 IU, bromelain 600 GDU, serrapeptase 40,000 SU, and BioPerine 10 mg. As with any dietary supplement, do not stack casually. Review the full panel against everything else you take with a pharmacist or prescriber, since supplements and herbal products can affect how medications work.

How long does NeuroAxis take to work?

Give it three months before drawing conclusions. The surgical studies looked at two weeks in an acute injury model, which is a different situation from chronic neuropathy. Longstanding symptoms respond more slowly than recent ones. I have written separately on how long nerve supplements take to work, and on why most people judge far too early.

Is R-alpha lipoic acid better than regular alpha-lipoic acid?

R-ALA is the isomer human mitochondrial enzymes use, so the mechanistic argument favors it. The clinical trial evidence in neuropathy was generated with racemic lipoic acid, and no robust head-to-head human trial has confirmed R-ALA superiority for neuropathy outcomes. Treat it as a reasoned formulation choice, not a proven upgrade.

Why is the vitamin B6 dose so low?

Because high-dose pyridoxine is neurotoxic and can cause sensory neuropathy. The form in NeuroAxis is pyridoxine hydrochloride, the same form implicated in those case reports, which is precisely why the amount is the thing that matters. Ten milligrams a day is a deliberate decision to stay below the US (100 mg), Australian (50 mg) and European (12 mg) daily upper limits, and a higher number on a competitor's label is not a better product. B6 risk is cumulative across everything you take, so check the B6 in any other supplements too.

Can I take NeuroAxis with gabapentin, pregabalin, or duloxetine?

They act on different targets, the medications on the pain signal and the nutrients on the metabolic environment, so they are not competing interventions and the nutrient layer does not replace medication. Bring the actual panel to your prescriber or pharmacist before combining anything, particularly given the piperine and CYP3A4 interaction noted above, the acetyl-L-carnitine interaction with warfarin, and the relevance of bromelain and serrapeptase if you take blood thinners. Fewer side effects than a medication is not the same as no side effects and no interactions.

Is there a money-back guarantee?

First-time purchases carry a 60-day money-back guarantee, and the bottle includes the 160-page NeuroAxis Protocol guide.

The Bottom Line

I would rather you understand the formula than buy it.

What NeuroAxis is: a twelve-ingredient nerve support formula built around active vitamin forms, dosed against published clinical trials in most cases and deliberately under them in two, with B6 held low for a specific safety reason, and with two small non-randomized trials on its predecessor formulation in a post-surgical population, conducted by me.

What it is not: a treatment for neuropathy, a substitute for a diagnostic workup, a replacement for glycemic control, or a product with the kind of evidence base that the phrase "clinically proven" is meant to evoke.

If you have a diagnosis, you know your driver, and you are addressing it, this is a reasonable nutrient layer to run alongside that work rather than a standalone answer. If you do not have a diagnosis, the most valuable thing on this page is not the product. It is the recommendation to go get one.

Next Steps for Your Nerve Health

If you are still working out what is driving your symptoms, the most useful next move is a conversation rather than another bottle. The free 10-minute call is the fastest way to work out which layer your effort belongs in. If you already know your driver and you are addressing it, NeuroAxis is the formulation I built for the nutrient layer described above, and the Nerve Health Blueprint covers the rest in more depth than an article reasonably can.

About the Author

Dr. Michael Fitzmaurice, MD is a fellowship-trained peripheral nerve surgeon with a background in nerve physiology, metabolic health, and applied exercise physiology. Through years of surgical practice, during which he performed more than 3,000 peripheral nerve procedures, he has observed the close relationship between metabolic health, cellular energy production, and nervous system function. His work focuses on how physical activity, recovery biology, and nutrition-informed strategies relate to long-term nerve and metabolic health.

He oversees Dr. Fitz Nutrition, an education-first initiative translating evidence-informed research into thoughtfully designed formulations for nerve and metabolic health, and believes that patients who understand the science make better decisions about their care.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Clinical trial dosing information is presented as published in the literature and is not a dosing recommendation. Alpha-lipoic acid may cause seizures in thiamine-deficient individuals and should be reviewed with a qualified healthcare provider if deficiency is a concern. Dr. Fitzmaurice formulated, and has a financial interest in, the supplement discussed above, and is the author of both studies referenced. Individual results vary. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider regarding your individual medical situation.