Sources and evidence policy

Source hierarchy

We prefer current guidance from recognized public-health and medical bodies, followed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials, individual randomized trials, and strong observational research where trials cannot answer the question. Mechanistic or animal work may explain a hypothesis but is not generalized to proven human outcomes.

Competitor articles, social posts, search volume, and keyword tools are not medical evidence. They can reveal a question people ask; they cannot substantiate the answer.

From study to sentence

A responsible claim should preserve who was studied, what was compared, how long it lasted, how large an observed difference was, and what remains uncertain. If findings conflict or the evidence is indirect, the page must say so. Absence of evidence is not converted into a benefit claim.

Current publication boundary

Published Blimbi articles cite their sources next to the claims they support and list them on the page. The science page summarizes the sources we have reviewed and the questions that remain open.

Articles on higher-risk topics, such as diabetes, medicines, side effects, older adults, or metabolic claims, are reviewed and signed off by the Blimbi editorial team against the sources cited on the page, as described in the editorial policy. The editorial team is not made up of doctors, registered dietitians, or other medical professionals, and its sign-off is not a medical review.

Blimbi articles are educational and are not medical advice. This page is not a substitute for citations, and it is not used to make uncited health-outcome claims.