How we research products
Manufacturer information is checked first
We read the seller's own product pages to establish what is actually being sold: ingredient names, stated purpose, format and terms. Anything we attribute to the manufacturer comes from those published materials.
Claims are separated from evidence
A statement made by a seller is labelled as a claim. A finding from published research is labelled as research. Our own reading is labelled as an editorial take. These three never blend into a single sentence.
Scientific sources are consulted where relevant
For health and biology, we prioritise PubMed-indexed literature, NIH resources including the Office of Dietary Supplements and NIDCR, the CDC, the FDA and major professional dental bodies. Sources are linked so readers can check them.
Testimonials are never treated as clinical evidence
Customer quotes published by a seller are marketing material. We do not reproduce them, count them, or convert them into a rating.
Gaps are stated, not filled
Where dosing is undisclosed or a trial does not exist, we say so. We do not estimate figures, infer results, or imply certainty that the record does not support.
Affiliate relationships are disclosed
Every page that carries a commissionable link says so, and the links themselves are marked as sponsored so search engines can identify them.
Sourcing standards
When we describe what research says, we prefer, in order: systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, guidance from national health bodies and professional dental associations, and then narrative reviews or laboratory work clearly labelled as preliminary.
We do not cite other affiliate sites, content farms, or press releases as evidence of a health effect. Where a source is a manufacturer, it is identified as one.
The claim-and-evidence rule
Two phrasings appear repeatedly on this site, and the difference between them is deliberate. "According to DentaVive's product information…" introduces a manufacturer claim. "Research on this ingredient suggests…" introduces published findings. We never use the second construction to describe something only the first supports.
What we don't publish
No fabricated personal testing. No invented experts or credentials. No manufactured ratings, review counts or star scores. No before-and-after narratives we did not observe. No claim that a supplement cures, treats or prevents a disease.
Review and update cycle
Product pages carry a published date and a last-reviewed date. We re-check product pages at least twice a year, and sooner if a formulation change, a significant new study or a reader correction warrants it. When a page changes materially, the last-reviewed date moves. The current site-wide review date is September 6, 2026.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, we want to fix it. Send the specific passage and, where possible, the source that contradicts it through our contact page. Substantive factual corrections are made promptly and the last-reviewed date is updated. We do not quietly delete pages to resolve criticism.
Independence
No manufacturer reviews, approves or pays for our editorial content. Affiliate commissions fund the site, and the arrangement is structured so that our conclusions can be — and often are — unfavourable to a sale. Read the affiliate disclosure for the full picture.
Use of AI tools
We may use software tools during drafting and editing. Every published page is reviewed by a human editor against this policy, and factual statements are checked against the sources cited. Responsibility for the content is ours.
The limits of what we do
We publish consumer product analysis and general educational information. We do not diagnose, treat or advise on individual health situations, and nothing here substitutes for a qualified professional who can examine you. See our medical disclaimer.