Fact-Checking Policy | Men’s Health Authority

In short

Every factual claim on this site falls into one of four buckets: something we verified against a primary source, something a seller claims, something we could not confirm, or something that is our opinion. The page tells you which. Where a fact could not be verified, we say so on the page rather than filling the gap with something plausible — that gap-filling is how most supplement misinformation gets made.

Correction — 4 September 2026

An earlier version of this page described fact-checking performed by “our research team.” There is no research team — this site is written and checked by one named person. The plural came from a set of fabricated staff profiles that have since been removed (see who actually runs this site).

More importantly: an audit in August and September 2026 found that this policy was not being followed. Reviews on this site had contained invented customer testimonials, a fictional medical reviewer, unverifiable dose tables and numeric scores implying measurements nobody took. Those pages have been rebuilt from verified labels and the corrections are published on each page. A fact-checking policy that had been quietly ignored is worth less than one that admits it was.

The Four Categories

Separating these is the whole job. Most misleading supplement content comes from letting one slide into another.

Category	How it appears on the page
Verified fact	Stated directly, with a linked source — a PubMed record, an NIH fact sheet, or the seller’s own published panel. Label, price and guarantee facts carry the date we checked them.
Seller claim	Attributed to the seller in the sentence itself — “the seller advertises”, “the sales page describes.” Never written as though it were a finding.
Could not be confirmed	Said plainly, often as a publisher note. “Dose not disclosed” is the most common form. We do not substitute a figure from another review site.
Our opinion	Verdicts and judgements, labelled as editorial opinion, with the reasoning shown so you can disagree with it.

What We Check, and How

Ingredients and doses — from the seller’s published Supplement Facts panel, recorded per serving. If no panel is published, the review says so and that becomes a finding in its own right.
Research claims — traced to human trials or systematic reviews, with the dose the study used stated alongside. We prefer large, well-designed, independently funded trials over small industry-funded ones, and we say when the best evidence contradicts the earlier evidence.
Prices, shipping and guarantees — read off the seller’s checkout on a specific date, printed with that date, with an instruction to confirm before ordering. These change often.
Seller identity — company name, returns address, payment processor. When none is published, we report that absence.
Safety and interactions — against NIH, NCCIH, LiverTox and ODS material, in every review including favourable ones.
Links — checked to confirm the source says what we say it says.

Sources We Rely On

PubMed-indexed human trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements fact sheets
NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
NIH LiverTox for hepatotoxicity signals
Clinical guidelines from bodies such as the American College of Physicians
The seller’s own published label, pricing and terms — treated as a seller claim, not as verification

What we do not treat as a source: other supplement review sites, affiliate marketing material, press releases issued by the seller, unattributed “studies show” claims, and testimonials of any kind. Competing review pages in this category routinely publish confident dose tables that do not match the seller — we have documented specific instances of this in our reviews.

When the Evidence Is Weak or Mixed

We say so, in the sentence where the claim appears. Some specific habits:

An ingredient with promising early trials and a failed large trial is described that way — not by citing only the promising ones.
Laboratory or animal findings are never described as though they were human evidence.
Where an ingredient’s studied dose is far above what a product contains, we give both numbers and let the comparison speak.
Where a physical constraint makes a claimed dose implausible — for example grams of ingredients in a 2 ml liquid serving — we show the arithmetic.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, we want to fix it. Every review carries a dated update log recording what changed and what was re-verified, and corrections are published on the page rather than silently edited in.

Report an error: team@menshealthauthority.com. Useful things to include: the page, the specific claim, and what you believe the correct information is — a photograph of the Supplement Facts panel on a bottle you actually hold is the single most useful correction anyone can send us.

Sellers: send the current panel and we will re-verify against it. We will correct any factual error. We will not remove an accurate negative assessment.

Our review process — the step-by-step method behind every product review
Editorial guidelines — how content is written and maintained
Who runs this site — and what it deliberately does not have

Page last updated: 4 September 2026 — rewritten in full. References to a non-existent “research team” removed; the four-category claim framework added; and the failures found in the August–September 2026 audit documented rather than omitted.

Affiliate disclosure: Men’s Health Authority earns commissions on some links, at no additional cost to the reader. Medical disclaimer: content on this site is general education, not medical advice, and is not reviewed by a medical professional. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before starting any supplement, particularly if you take prescription medication.