Supplement Evidence Report
Current evidence-label distribution across the public research library, with transparent scope and caveats.
Writer & journalist media kit
Start with the underlying research asset, not a promotional pitch. These resources are designed to make scope, methodology, caveats, source trails, data downloads, and reusable visuals easy to inspect before you cite The Hippie Scientist.
Current evidence-label distribution across the public research library, with transparent scope and caveats.
Machine-readable aggregate/source data for reproducible analysis where the public dataset permits reuse.
Structured JSON for programmatic inspection, with the Evidence Report providing scope and interpretation context.
How evidence is categorized, how conflicts are handled, and what the grades are intended to mean.
A fast way to inspect evidence strength for individual research topics before quoting a claim.
Trace study-level records and source context before turning a site summary into a reported claim.
Reusable visual research assets. Follow the attribution and source-guide requirements shown with each published graphic.
Review material corrections and use evidence changes as reporting hooks only after the underlying reason is verified.
For aggregate statistics, cite the named Evidence Report and include the date you accessed it. The dataset changes as records are reviewed.
For a claim about a specific ingredient, cite the ingredient page and preferably the primary study or review linked beside that claim.
Do not describe Hippie Scientist evidence grades as medical guidelines or externally validated clinical ratings. They are a transparent editorial framework.
When reusing a chart or infographic, preserve its attribution, qualifiers, and link to the source page so readers can inspect the underlying context.
Corrections, missing primary studies, reproducible data issues, evidence changes, outdated statistics, and genuinely broken research-resource links are welcome. Product placement offers do not change evidence grades.
Use the contact page and identify the article, deadline, and exact statistic or research object you need verified. Requests are easier to answer accurately when the required source trail is explicit.
Reporter responses should return the underlying source object, scope, methodology, and caveats. If a number or scientific claim cannot be verified before a deadline, the project should say that rather than supplying an unverified quote. The same rule applies to evidence-change pitches and replacement statistics offered during outreach.
Tool context
Evidence-report data, methodology, citation guidance, reusable graphics, and contact routes for writers covering supplements and botanical research. Tool and utility pages are meant to support research decisions, not replace the full evidence review. Use the results as a triage layer that points you toward the profile, guide, or safety topic that deserves closer reading.
For Research resources you can verify and cite, the most useful approach is conservative: check one question at a time, compare the result against the full profile, and avoid assuming that an automated output proves safety, effectiveness, or correct dosing.
If the question involves prescription medications, pregnancy, breastfeeding, chronic disease, surgery, addiction risk, or a child, the next step should include a clinician or pharmacist rather than relying only on a supplement website.