EDITORIAL INTEGRITY
Fact-Checking Policy
Health misinformation can cause real harm. This policy explains how we verify every factual claim we publish, how we handle corrections, and how we source the evidence behind our content.
Science-first
All claims backed by peer-reviewed research
Cited sources
Every factual claim linked to original research
Transparent corrections
Errors corrected visibly with change notes
No sponsor influence
Brands cannot influence factual content
Why fact-checking matters for supplement content
Health supplement content exists in a category Google classifies as “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL), meaning errors or misinformation can have real consequences for real people. Someone who makes a health decision based on inaccurate information may waste money, experience side effects, delay appropriate medical care, or be exposed to genuine risk.
We take this responsibility seriously. The supplement industry already has a major credibility problem, rife with exaggerated claims, cherry-picked studies, and review sites that function as sales pages in disguise. Our commitment to rigorous fact-checking is what separates ConsumerHealthInsight from that ecosystem.
ConsumerHealthInsight Editorial Policy
Our editorial standard: if we cannot find a credible, citable source for a factual claim, we do not publish that claim. Full stop.
Our source hierarchy
Not all evidence is equal. We use a tiered source hierarchy that mirrors the evidence pyramid used in evidence-based medicine. The higher the tier, the more weight the evidence carries in our analysis.
| Tier | Source Type & Examples | Trust Level |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 – Primary | Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals. Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, NEJM, JAMA, The Lancet. | Highest |
| Tier 2 – Secondary | Government health agencies and independent health bodies. Sources: NIH, WHO, NHS, FDA, EFSA, Mayo Clinic research pages. | High |
| Tier 3 – Tertiary | Credible health journalism and expert consensus statements. Sources: Harvard Health Publishing, Cleveland Clinic, WebMD (cited authors only), Examine.com. | Moderate |
| Tier 4 – Excluded | Anecdotal reports, manufacturer claims, press releases, uncited blog posts, social media, forums, or any source with a financial interest in the claim being true. | Not Used |
When only Tier 3 sources are available, we explicitly note in the article that stronger evidence is lacking. We never present moderate-quality evidence as if it were conclusive.
How we assess different types of claims
Different kinds of claims require different levels of evidence. We categorise claims into three types:
Published with citation
Claims backed by Tier 1 or Tier 2 evidence. Cited with a direct link to the study or source. Example: “Magnesium glycinate has been shown to improve sleep quality in adults with insomnia [study link].”
Published with caveat
Claims backed only by Tier 3 evidence or early-stage research. We include language such as “preliminary evidence suggests” or “some research indicates” to convey appropriate uncertainty.
Not published
Claims backed only by manufacturer marketing, testimonials, or no traceable source. These claims are not published. If a manufacturer makes claims we cannot verify, we note this as a concern in the review.
Contested claims
Where credible experts disagree, we present both positions fairly, explain the nature of the disagreement, and do not take a definitive stance beyond what the balance of evidence supports.
Our fact-checking process
Before publication
Every article on ConsumerHealthInsight goes through a pre-publication fact-check before it goes live. This includes:
- Verifying that every factual claim about ingredient effects has a cited, accessible source
- Confirming that the cited study actually supports the claim being made (not just adjacent to it)
- Checking that the study population and conditions are relevant to the supplement use case being discussed
- Verifying product information (ingredients, doses, price) directly against the manufacturer’s current label or website
- Checking that any statistics cited are current and attributed correctly
- Confirming that medical and safety information aligns with NHS, NIH, or equivalent guidance
After publication
Fact-checking does not stop at publication. We monitor our content on an ongoing basis through:
- Scheduled 6-month accuracy reviews of all published content
- Google Alerts for significant new research on key ingredients we cover
- Monitoring for product formula changes that would affect our ingredient analysis
- Reader feedback, we treat all factual challenges seriously
- Annual full audit of all pages to catch outdated statistics or changed regulatory positions
Corrections policy
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them promptly and transparently. We do not silently edit published content, every factual correction is documented. We do not offer to remove corrections in exchange for commercial arrangements. Our corrections record is a badge of honesty, not a liability.
Honest limitations
We believe in being honest about what we are and aren’t. Here are the genuine limitations of our fact-checking process:
- We are not doctors or registered dietitians. Our analysis is research-based, but it is not the same as a clinical consultation. We always recommend professional medical advice before using any supplement.
- We cannot test products ourselves. We analyse labels, not conduct independent lab testing. We note when third-party testing is available, but we cannot verify it independently.
- Research evolves. A claim that is accurate today may be revised by new evidence tomorrow. We do our best to keep content current, but there will always be a lag.
- Proprietary blends limit our analysis. When a manufacturer does not disclose individual ingredient doses, our analysis of dosage adequacy is necessarily incomplete. We flag this prominently.
- We cover a large volume of content. Despite our processes, errors may occasionally appear. We rely on our readers as a vital line of quality control.
Report a factual error
If you believe something we’ve published is factually incorrect, please tell us. We take all reports seriously and respond to every one.
When reporting an error, the most helpful information to include is: the URL of the article, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and (if possible) a source that contradicts our claim.
Use our contact form or email consumerhealthinsight@gmail.com