FactoWiki Research Team

FactoWiki's content is produced by the FactoWiki Research Team — the collective editorial group responsible for researching, writing and fact-checking everything on the site. We publish under a team identity, not invented individual personas, because we would rather be honest about how the work is actually done than dress it up with fabricated credentials.

Who we are

The FactoWiki Research Team is the editorial collective behind FactoWiki. Rather than attributing articles to a single named 'doctor' — a common practice in this industry that often involves invented or loosely-connected personas — we publish as a team and are transparent that we are an independent editorial group, not a medical practice. We are not doctors, and we do not present ourselves as your healthcare providers. What we offer is careful, sourced research written in plain language, with the limits of that research stated honestly.

What we review

The team researches and maintains four kinds of content: ingredient guides (what a supplement ingredient is, what the evidence says, and its safety and interactions); product reviews of supplements, including their disclosed formulas and claims; head-to-head comparisons; and health-answer articles on common questions. Across all of it, our aim is the same — to describe what is genuinely known, flag what is not, and never overstate a benefit.

Our editorial standards

We work to a consistent set of standards: we prioritise high-quality evidence (such as systematic reviews and randomised trials) over marketing claims; we use cautious, structure-and-function language rather than disease claims; we name the limitations and failures of ingredients, not just their promises; and we keep our commercial relationships separate from our conclusions. When the honest answer is 'this probably doesn't work' or 'see a doctor', that is what we write. Our full approach is set out in our editorial policy and how we review pages.

How we check sources

We build our content from reputable, independent sources — peer-reviewed research via PubMed, and authoritative bodies such as the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, MedlinePlus and the FDA — rather than from sellers' own marketing. We favour original sources over aggregators, note when evidence is weak, industry-funded or preliminary, and avoid citing sources we cannot verify. We do not invent citations, study results, reviewer credentials or customer reviews.

Our research process

Every page follows the same path. We start with a specific question or claim, then gather independent evidence — peer-reviewed studies via PubMed first, supported by authoritative bodies such as the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, MedlinePlus and the FDA. We weight that evidence by quality, giving systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials far more weight than anecdotes, animal studies or a manufacturer's own data. We then draft in plain language, state the caveats and uncertainties as we go, fact-check the draft back against its sources, and have it reviewed before publishing. Pages are scheduled for periodic re-review so that when the evidence moves, the page moves with it.

How we check product claims

For a product review, marketing is the last thing we look at, not the first. We read the actual Supplement Facts panel, compare each active ingredient against the dose used in research, and flag proprietary blends that hide those doses. We separate what a vendor asserts from what the evidence supports, and we test each headline claim against the trial record — frequently finding that a 'clinically proven' ingredient is present below its researched dose, or that the finished blend has never been studied at all. We never restate a seller's 'cure', 'treat' or 'reverse' language as fact.

How affiliate links are handled

We may earn a commission when a reader buys through some of the product links on our review pages, and we disclose that plainly. Two rules keep it honest: our commercial relationships never change our conclusions, and we still name the weaknesses, undisclosed doses and failure points of products we earn from — a review that only flatters a paid product is worthless. We keep buy links on product pages and deliberately off our head-to-head comparisons, where a link could bias the verdict. The full arrangement is set out in our affiliate disclosure.

Why we avoid 'cure' and miracle claims

Supplements are not medicines. Legally and ethically they cannot be presented as able to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, so we use cautious structure-and-function language — 'may support' rather than 'fixes' — and we say so when the honest answer is that something probably does not work. We do not fabricate study results, citations, reviewer credentials, customer reviews or before-and-after claims. We take this line because real health decisions are made on the back of these pages, and hype dressed as fact can cause genuine harm.

Medical disclaimer

FactoWiki provides general educational information only. It is not medical advice and does not replace consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Supplements are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Always speak with a doctor before starting any supplement, especially if you are pregnant or nursing, taking medication or managing a health condition. See our full medical disclaimer.

What we are — and what we are not

Being clear about our limits is part of being trustworthy. We are an independent editorial group that researches and explains the evidence on supplements; we are not doctors, not a laboratory, and not your healthcare provider. We do not test products in a lab, and we cannot account for your individual medical history, medications or circumstances — only a professional who knows you can do that. We have no stake in whether you buy any particular supplement, and where we earn a commission we say so. When the evidence is genuinely uncertain, we would rather tell you that than manufacture false confidence. That honesty about what we don't know is, we think, more useful than the certainty the rest of this industry often sells.

Contact and corrections

We take accuracy seriously and welcome corrections. If you spot an error, please contact us with the page and the specific detail, and we will review it under our correction policy.