In short
Correction — 4 September 2026
An earlier version of this page referred to “our research team” and “our researchers.” There is no research team. This site is written by one person. The plural was inherited from a set of fabricated staff profiles that have since been removed — see who actually runs this site. This page has been rewritten to describe the real arrangement.
Who Writes Here
One person: Malkiat Singh, founder and editor. Every article carries his byline and links to his author page. There is no anonymous editorial pool, no ghost-written filler under a house name, and no invented contributors.
He holds no clinical qualification. Not a doctor, pharmacist, dietitian, nutritionist or researcher. No article here is reviewed by a medical professional before publication, and we state that plainly on every page rather than implying otherwise. What we offer is careful reading of labels and published research by someone accountable for getting it right.
How Articles Are Sourced
| Rule | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Primary sources first | Peer-reviewed human trials, systematic reviews, and government health bodies (NIH, ODS, NCCIH, Cochrane). We link the source so you can check it, usually to a PubMed record. |
| The dose travels with the claim | When we cite research on an ingredient, we state the dose that research used. An effect at 320 mg is not evidence for a product containing 84 mg, and we do not let it read as though it were. |
| Seller material is labelled as such | Anything from a sales page is reported as a seller claim, attributed, never as a finding. |
| No copying other review sites | Dose tables on competing review pages are frequently invented. We take amounts from the seller’s own published panel or we write “dose not disclosed.” |
| Dated verification | Labels, prices and guarantee terms are recorded against a specific date, printed on the page, with an instruction to confirm at checkout. |
| Unverified items are marked | Where we could not independently confirm something, the page says so rather than presenting it as established. |
What We Will Not Publish
These are absolute. If you find any of them here, it is an error and we want to hear about it.
- Invented people — no fabricated testimonials, no fictional staff, no made-up credentials, no imaginary medical reviewers.
- Fabricated testing — we have never run a trial, panel or cohort, and we will not claim to have.
- Numeric scores — verdicts are given in words, because we never took a measurement. See our review process.
- AggregateRating or reviewCount markup — there are no reviews to aggregate, and star ratings nobody gave are a lie told to search engines as well as readers.
- Doses we could not verify, presented as if we had.
- Disease claims — no supplement here treats, cures or prevents anything.
- Doorway pages — one product, one review. We do not build near-duplicate pages to catch keyword variations.
Independence and Money
This site earns affiliate commissions, often more than $100 on a multi-bottle order. That is a real conflict of interest and you should weigh it.
Our safeguards: affiliate links are disclosed on the page and marked rel="nofollow sponsored"; calls to action are neutral (“View seller price”, not “Claim your discount before stock runs out”); commission rates never affect a verdict or a ranking; we do not accept payment for placement, for a rewrite, or for removing a review; and we publish negative verdicts on products we are paid to promote — several reviews here tell you not to buy.
The real check on our bias is that we show our working. Every review lists the doses, the studies and the gaps, so you can reject our conclusion and still use the facts.
Health Content Standards
- We name the situations where a symptom needs a doctor rather than a supplement — urinary symptoms in men over 50, chronic insomnia, raised blood sugar, suspected sleep apnoea — even though saying so costs us sales.
- We flag drug interactions and documented safety signals in every review, including favourable ones.
- We do not use scare tactics, invented urgency, or “doctors hate this” framing.
- We do not imply that a supplement substitutes for diagnosis, prescription treatment or a medical appointment.
Updates and Corrections
Reviews carry an update log recording what changed, when, and what was re-verified, plus a next re-check date. Reviews are re-checked at least quarterly and sooner when a formula, price or guarantee changes. When we get something wrong, the correction is published on the page itself — as it is at the top of this one — not quietly edited away.
Corrections, questions and label disputes: team@menshealthauthority.com
Sellers who believe a review misrepresents their product should send the current Supplement Facts panel and we will re-verify against it. We will correct any factual error. We will not remove an accurate negative assessment.
Related Pages
- Our review process — the step-by-step method behind every product review
- Fact-checking policy — how individual claims are verified
- Who runs this site — and what it deliberately does not have
- Affiliate disclosure · Medical disclaimer