Source Standards
The evidence hierarchy and source standards behind every Fair Witness grade.
Fair Witness commits to a transparent evidence hierarchy. This page describes how we evaluate sources, grade claims, cite evidence, and handle refresh and correction. We synthesize the research literature with named clinical review — and we tell you how strong the evidence actually is, including when it's weak.
Evidence Hierarchy
We grade evidence in five tiers, surfaced inline in our content so you always know how strong a claim is:
- Tier 1 — Peer-reviewed systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human populations.
- Tier 2 — Single RCTs and observational/cohort studies in human populations.
- Tier 3 — Clinical practice guidelines, expert clinical observation (our Medical Director's clinical-experience notes), and case reports.
- Tier 4 — Mainstream medical secondary sources and reputable journalistic synthesis (used when no higher-tier evidence exists on a specific question).
- Tier 5 — Community anecdote and forum reports — used only when explicitly framed as such, never as a basis for a claim.
For every peptide, we make the human-vs-animal evidence split explicit and quantified. If a compound has been studied in 36 papers but only 1 of them in humans, we tell you that — because it changes what the evidence means for your decision. We also surface, prominently, whether a compound is FDA-approved for any indication or is research-only.
How We Cite
- We cite primary literature — the studies themselves — not "summaries of summaries" or other blogs.
- Citations are inline (author + year) with a full reference list and hyperlinks to primary sources where available.
- Each citation identifies its evidence tier.
- For "is it safe / approved / legal" questions, we cite the authoritative public sources directly (PubMed, FDA, anti-doping agencies) rather than paraphrasing them.
How We Hedge
We hedge by evidence tier, and we say so plainly:
- Tier 1 claims are stated directly, with citation.
- Tier 2 claims are hedged with an evidence-quality note ("preliminary human evidence suggests…").
- Tier 3 claims are framed as clinical observation or guideline — never as established fact ("in clinical practice, Dr. Walters has observed…").
- Tier 4 claims are attributed to their source.
- Tier 5 anecdote is framed as a report, with the caveat that it has not been studied rigorously.
When the honest answer is "we don't know yet," we say that.
Reader-Autonomy Framing
We don't prescribe. We synthesize the research so you can have an informed conversation with your clinician. Whether a given peptide is appropriate for your situation is a decision for you and a licensed practitioner — and sometimes the honest read of the evidence is "not yet" or "probably not worth it for you." We'll tell you that too.
Refresh Policy
We refresh each piece on a regular cadence (every six months) and out-of-cycle when significant new research or a regulatory change warrants it. Refreshed pieces carry a visible changelog at the top so you can see exactly what changed and when.
Correction Policy
If we get something wrong, we fix it in the open: a correction notice at the top of the piece, a changelog entry, and — when an error materially changed the substance — a cross-linked correction record. If you spot an error, tell us (see Reader Feedback).
Reader Feedback
You can flag a source concern, a citation question, or a correction request at [contact channel — operator to fill]. We read these and respond.