What we commit to as an independent review resource — and what that means in practice for the content you read here.
There is a meaningful difference between "this ingredient has been studied" and "this ingredient has demonstrated clinical efficacy in well-designed randomized trials." We try to use language that reflects which category applies. Traditional use, in-vitro findings, and animal studies are identified as such. We do not conflate promising early research with established clinical evidence.
When a study is referenced on this site, the citation links to the PubMed or NIH record — not to another supplement review site, a press release, or a manufacturer's claims page. If a primary source link becomes unavailable, the associated claim is reviewed before the link is replaced.
This site operates as an affiliate. When you place an order through a link on this site, we receive a commission. This is disclosed in the footer of every page, in the affiliate disclosure statement at the bottom of the homepage, and here. We believe readers make better decisions with this information visible rather than buried.
When we describe a dose in connection with a study, we are referencing the dose used in that published study. We verify this against the Supplement Facts panel. If the dose on the label differs meaningfully from the dose used in supporting research, we note that discrepancy rather than omitting it.
We do not attribute content to unnamed medical boards, stock-photo physicians, or vague expert panels. The content on this site reflects research review and editorial judgment by the team that runs this hub. We are not physicians. Nothing on this site is medical advice.
If content on this site is shown to be factually incorrect — a study mischaracterized, a dose figure wrong, a claim unsupported — the correction is made to the live page with a note indicating what changed. Claims are not quietly deleted or reworded without acknowledgment.