Source Policy

Wrong or incomplete information about health, nutrition and lifestyle can affect people's decisions. We aim to use reliable, current, scientifically grounded sources — and to show readers clearly where our information comes from.

Which sources we use

Our priority when choosing sources is scientific reliability. We prioritise: the World Health Organization (WHO), the NIH, the CDC, the NHS, the EFSA, European and national health authorities, academic studies indexed in PubMed, peer-reviewed journals, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, universities and academic institutions, specialist associations, and guidelines from official health bodies.

Where possible we compare information across several reliable sources rather than relying on a single one.

How we assess a source's reliability

• Who published it? We weigh the publisher's competence in health, science or the relevant field.
• Is it based on scientific evidence? We look for support from academic studies or official guidelines.
• Is it current? Health knowledge changes, so we favour up-to-date sources.
• Is the method sound? Participant numbers, study type, method and consistency with other studies matter.
• Is there a conflict of interest? Commercial funding doesn't automatically invalidate a study, but it is taken into account.

The strength of scientific evidence

Not every study offers evidence of the same strength. Where possible we favour higher levels of evidence.

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses — can provide strong evidence by evaluating many studies together.
• Randomised controlled trials — important for assessing the effects of an intervention.
• Observational studies — can show an association but do not always prove cause and effect.
• Laboratory and animal studies — valuable for research but not directly applicable to humans.

We don't draw firm conclusions from a single study

One study is rarely the final answer. We aim to assess the overall trend of the research and the current scientific consensus. Where results conflict, we say so plainly rather than hiding scientific uncertainty from readers.

How we cite sources in articles

We aim to list the important scientific and official sources at the end of each article, under a “Sources” heading, with direct links where possible. Our approach is not “trust us” but “here is the source, you can check it yourself”.

News sites, social media, brand sources

News sites, blogs and social media posts are not treated on their own as scientific health sources; we go to the original study behind a headline. Health claims made by a product manufacturer on its own site are not accepted as an impartial scientific source.

AI is not a source

We may use AI tools while producing content, but answers from AI models are not accepted as a scientific source. Information from AI is not used as a health claim unless verified against WHO, NIH, EFSA, academic research or other reliable sources.

When we can't reach a source

If a health claim cannot be verified against a reliable source, we try not to present it as a certain fact, and may state that there is not enough reliable scientific evidence to support it. Being able to say “we don't know” is more valuable than presenting an unproven claim as fact.