Editorial Policy and Verification Methodology

Every claim on this site traces to one of three things: a page the seller published, a study we can cite, or a regulator's statement. Where an amount cannot be verified against a label, we say so rather than repeating it as fact.

How we rule on a claim

1. Look for a Supplement Facts panel first. If none exists, every amount is labelled "advertised" throughout, without exception.
2. Convert extract ratios before comparing. A raw-equivalent figure and a weight of standardised extract are different claims and must never be compared directly.
3. Check the plant part. Nettle root and nettle leaf have different evidence. So do many botanicals, and marketing frequently swaps them.
4. Check the endpoint. Saw palmetto research concerns urinary symptoms, not performance. Borrowing evidence across endpoints is the most common move in this category.
5. Check elemental vs compound weight for every mineral.
6. Compare the pages against each other. Where two sellers of the same product disagree, that disagreement is itself a finding.
7. Lead with the safety issue. A male-enhancement product gets the nitrate warning and the FDA adulteration context near the top, not buried at the bottom.
8. Pharmacist review. Interaction and safety wording is checked by a board-certified pharmacotherapy specialist.
9. Date it. Every page carries published and updated dates.

Why we never estimate an unpublished amount

It would be easy to write "probably around 200 mg of extract" and it would read authoritatively. It would also be invented. Where a figure is not published we print that it is not published, and we use what can be checked — the arithmetic of a capsule's capacity, the difference between a ratio and a weight — to reason about it instead.

Sourcing standards

We cite primary sources — government health agencies, peer-reviewed indexes and regulator guidance. We do not cite other affiliate pages, and we never treat a seller's claim as evidence for itself. The sources we rely on most:

• FDA — tainted sexual enhancement products
• NIH Office of Dietary Supplements — Boron
• NCCIH — Saw Palmetto
• NCCIH — Stinging Nettle
• PubMed — Tambi 2012, Eurycoma longifolia
• NIDDK — erectile dysfunction
• FDA — dietary supplements
• FTC — health products compliance guidance

On describing competing pages

Where we describe what another Horsewood page publishes, we describe only what is verifiable on that page at the time of writing — the amounts it prints, the badges it displays, the filenames it serves images from, the wording of its FAQ. We draw no conclusion about anyone's intent.

Corrections

If a figure, price or policy statement here is wrong, tell us through the contact page and we will correct it and note the change. If you have a photograph of the actual Supplement Facts panel from a bottle you received, we would particularly like to see it — it would improve this site more than anything else could.

What our reviews are not

They are not medical advice and not a substitute for seeing a doctor. They are not clinical trials of the finished product — no such trial exists, and we say so. And they are never a reason to delay assessment of erectile difficulty, which is frequently an early sign of cardiovascular disease.

Independence

We earn affiliate commission on qualifying purchases. No manufacturer reviews, approves or pays for our content. The critical findings published here — the missing panel, the seven contradictions, the dose gaps, the nitrate warning — are findings a brand-controlled page would have deleted.