Editorial guidelines.

These guidelines apply to every piece of published content. They are binding and they take precedence over any consideration of visibility.

Last substantive review 6 August 2026

Source hierarchy

systematic reviews and meta-analyses of good quality
recommendations from authorities and professional societies
controlled trials, randomised wherever possible
observational studies
experimental and mechanistic work
institutional sources
standard reference works
clearly labelled secondary sources

Commercial sources are never used as the main evidence for a benefit. A manufacturer’s brochure can document a composition, never an effect.

Citation rules

Every statement of weight is supported, and the support sits close to the statement.
Digital Object Identifiers are checked, not copied out.
The retraction status of a publication is verified; retracted work is either removed or explicitly labelled as such.
No circular citation: we cite the work that collected the data, not the page that mentions it.
Where an abstract is not enough to draw a conclusion, the full text is read or the statement goes.
Preprints are labelled as preprints.
For web pages that change, the date of access is given.
A bibliography contains only work that was actually used in the text.

Language and calibration

The verb carries the burden of proof. ‘Lowers’ presupposes consistent, robust evidence. ‘Is associated with’ belongs to observational data. ‘Could’ and ‘individual studies suggest’ belong to weak evidence. Where nothing was found, nothing is claimed.

The running text is written for lay readers. Statistical notation, raw effect sizes and academic abbreviations stay in the source list and in the structured data. Concrete figures stay in the text, because they carry understanding.

Separation of species

Human and animal data are never mixed. Every statement names the species in which it was obtained. A page that compares species carries its transferability block visibly. A link from an equine page to a human page is admissible only where the biological mechanism is explicitly shared, where the target page explains the differences, and where the link text suggests no clinical equivalence.

Conflicts of interest

Contributions are produced without consideration from third parties.
Anyone who works on a piece of content discloses ties to manufacturers, associations or clients that bear on the subject.
A study funded by an interested party is not excluded for that reason, but the funding is named.
There is no paid linking, in either direction.

What we do not publish

individual medical or veterinary advice
dosage details and administration schedules
promises of cure, treatment or prevention for a food or a supplement
testimonials presented as evidence of efficacy
images that suggest an effect the text does not support
automatically generated pages without substantive value or without human review