Public methodology
Our analysis combines editorial criteria, commercial transparency and continuous revision. We do not accept payment for scores or verdicts.
We select relevant offers and verify who sells them, how they charge and what information is publicly available.
We compare claims, composition or features against public sources, manufacturer disclosures and reasonable limits.
We assess clarity, checkout access, support responsiveness, refund window and potential additional costs.
We publish benefits, limitations, the right user profile and the commercial disclosure - explicitly, on every review.
Prices, guarantees and offer details can change on the manufacturer's side without notice. We periodically revisit reviews, but the official page always overrides anything stated here.
Every reviewed product is rated 0-10 on five weighted criteria. The overall editorial score shown on each review (out of 5) is the weighted average of those five ratings divided by two. The score reflects disclosure quality and buying conditions - not clinical effectiveness, which we are not positioned to test or verify.
Hard-cap policy: when a product's core sales claim is factually false or contradicts basic, settled science (for example, a claimed disease cure, a claim to predict independent random events, or a fabricated scientific mechanism), we do not let the weighted average absorb that failure - we cap the score directly and, in the most serious cases, remove the product from the catalog rather than publish a middling grade. A weighted average alone can't fail a product hard enough for that kind of claim, so we don't rely on it alone.