How we read the evidence
Keep the product, the claim and the supporting record together.
Identify the finished product
We distinguish conventional approved medicines from compounded preparations. Evidence for one named medicine does not establish approval, equivalence or identical results for a different mixture or route. A mechanism explanation does not replace a study of the actual product.
Keep limitations next to the claim
Source dates and qualifications matter. We preserve contradictory public descriptions, starting-price limits and gaps in exact-product evidence. A claim repeated by a provider remains attributed to that provider; repetition does not verify it.
Describe the review method honestly
This is document research, not firsthand treatment testing, a patient survey or clinician sign-off. We do not create patient stories, invent professional approval, or convert commercial position into clinical superiority.
Separate payment units
An advertised pack, monthly equivalent and recurring charge answer different questions. We describe the published terms without inventing a use frequency or a guaranteed personal bill. Checkout, prescribing and fulfillment remain untested unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Make sources usable
Each article has inline source anchors, a closing source list and related reading. The source register shows which articles use each record. The banner placement and referral relationship are explained in the commercial disclosure.