What I got wrong,
and what it says now

The FDN-P comparison table claimed FDN-Ps “always” find root causes and use “functional ranges”, and described other practitioners in ways I can’t source; it now says what each does without ranking them. The athlete testing page gave a ferritin 60 / saturation 45% threshold with no source; it now reads results against the lab range, with targets set from your own results, and its line on low iron and endurance now cites two trial reviews and says the benefit in athletes was mainly in those with very low iron stores. Corrected: What is an FDN-P?, Athlete testing.

Seven pages described albumin as showing “protein status” or protein adequacy; they now say it reflects inflammation, liver synthesis, losses and fluid balance (ASPEN position paper, Evans 2020, PMID 33125793), and that protein adequacy is judged from intake against a g/kg target and from strength. Corrected: Athlete testing, Amino acids, GLP-1, HbA1c, Metabolic Natures, Pre-surgical, Targeted assessments.

Was

The headline said lion’s mane “makes your brain make its own growth factor”. The page suggested it for brain fog and mental fatigue once other causes were ruled out, cited only the Mori 2009 trial, and gave the trial’s daily amount twice.

Problem

The growth-factor effect has been shown in cells and animals, not in people. No trial has tested lion’s mane for brain fog or focus. Several newer trials, mostly null in healthy younger adults, weren’t mentioned. And this site doesn’t give doses on public pages.

Now

New headline, “Lion’s Mane: An Interesting Mechanism, Thin Human Evidence”. A grade for each use (memory in older adults: mixed; healthy younger adults: mostly null; brain fog, focus and ADHD: none), seven more studies with links, no doses, and a safety section.

Found while checking the article against a new Instagram post on lion’s mane, 9 November. Corrected: Lion’s Mane.

Was

The electrolytes post called unrefined salt “adrenal support” and, for salt craving with low blood pressure, suggested liquorice root and an “adrenal support protocol”. Another post read salt craving as a sign about the “mineralocorticoid axis”. The HPA axis and bioidentical hormone posts said a DUTCH test should come before HRT.

Problem

Salt craving with dizziness or low blood pressure can be a sign of adrenal insufficiency (Addison’s disease), which a GP diagnoses with blood tests. Whole liquorice raises blood pressure and lowers potassium. NICE NG23 treats HRT as a first-line option for menopausal symptoms, with no test needed first.

Now

Electrolytes and adrenal posts: removed salt and liquorice as “adrenal support”; salt craving with dizziness or low blood pressure now goes to the GP first. HRT pages: testing is no longer described as a step before HRT (NICE NG23).

Found in a search of the site for safety wording, 8 November. Corrected: Electrolytes, Follow the Money, HPA axis, Bioidentical hormones.

Was

The fertility post gave supplement amounts and a pre-IVF protocol for both partners. It said vitamin D-sufficient women had “34% higher clinical pregnancy rates” (attributed to “Łukaszuk”), that CoQ10 and inositol had strong evidence, that men should take an antioxidant protocol, that people with MTHFR variants need methylfolate instead of folic acid, and that TSH should be kept below 2.5 mIU/L. The mental-health post gave an EPA dose, presented omega-3 and vitamin D as proven for depression, called a 2017 magnesium trial “as effective as antidepressants”, and said lithium “depletes sodium”. The dental implant page said vitamin D, K2, zinc, magnesium and inflammation were the main determinants of success, and the aesthetics page said raised CRP makes filler break down faster.

Problem

I couldn’t find the “34%” meta-analysis; the nearest review is of cohort studies, and two randomised trials found that giving vitamin D before IVF didn’t improve results (SUNDRO 2021; Hu 2026). The CoQ10 and inositol trials are small and haven’t shown more live births. The largest trials of antioxidants for men found no benefit for live birth (FAZST 2020; MOXI 2020). The US fertility society’s 2024 guideline found TSH of 2.5–4 mIU/L isn’t linked to more miscarriage. For depression, the Cochrane review judged the omega-3 benefit very low certainty and unlikely to be clinically meaningful, a large trial of vitamin D found no effect, and the 2017 magnesium trial was open-label against no treatment. A low-salt diet raises lithium levels, not the reverse (NHS). For implants, smoking, gum disease and diabetes are the clearest risks. I found no study linking CRP to faster filler breakdown.

Now

Both posts are rebuilt as graded posts with no supplement amounts: “Before IVF: What Nutrition Can and Can’t Do” and “Before You Start an Antidepressant: What Nutrition Can and Can’t Do”. They follow NHS folic acid and vitamin D advice, read TSH against the lab range, and carry a crisis line. The dental implant, aesthetics and wound-healing pages give each claim a grade and a source, and their supplement protocols are replaced by a written plan.

Found in an evidence pass on the rest of the Before Your Procedure series. Also corrected: Part 4, dental implant assessment, aesthetics assessment, wound-healing diagram. Read the corrected IVF post →

Was

Parts 3–7 of the Appliance of Science series and its index page carried badges such as “NICE recommended”, “Stanford validated”, “Exceeds pharmacological effect” and “Measurable on DUTCH”, and boxes of exercise and light doses. The light post called light therapy “NICE-recommended” for depression. The soleus post said the effect came from push-ups “during eating and for 1–2 hours afterwards” and was larger than most drugs. The isometric post said the evidence was “unambiguous” and beat “most antihypertensive drug classes in head-to-head comparison”. The gravitostat post said rodents wore weighted vests and that human studies showed “meaningful, not marginal” weight loss. The breathwork post and the index recommended taping your mouth at night. The index cited a “30-year study of 147,000 adults” showing a 27% lower risk of neurological death from resistance training.

Problem

NICE NG222 (recommendation 1.4.39) tells clinicians to advise people with winter depression that the evidence for light therapy is uncertain; it doesn’t recommend it. The soleus study used a three-hour glucose tolerance test, not a meal, in 15 people (Hamilton 2022). No trial has compared isometric exercise with blood pressure drugs head to head, and other analyses give smaller figures than the 2023 one. The animal gravitostat work used implanted weights, and the one human trial found 1.37% more weight loss than a light vest over three weeks (Ohlsson 2020). A 2025 review of mouth taping found only 10 small studies and a risk of harm with a blocked nose (Rhee 2025). I couldn’t find the 147,000-adult study on PubMed. The badges and doses overstated what had been tested, and I don’t give doses on public pages.

Now

Each part now has a grade key, a grade for each claim, a table and a Sources list with PubMed links. The badges, dose boxes, drug comparisons and mouth-taping advice are removed; study conditions appear only as what a study tested. Part 6 is retitled Isometric Exercise: Holding Still to Lower Blood Pressure. The index has one entry per part, linking Parts 1, 2 and 8 to the graded cold, heat and fasting posts, and drops the unverified study.

Found in a planned evidence pass of the series. Also corrected: Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7. Read the corrected series index →

Was

The dental implant assessment page said implants have a “5–10% failure rate”, “substantially reduced by nutritional preparation”, and that “multiple studies show significantly higher implant failure rates in vitamin D-deficient patients”. The wound-healing diagram said “ferritin below 30 µg/L is functionally inadequate for collagen synthesis even without anaemia”, gave protein amounts in grams per kilogram, and said vitamin D deficiency “significantly increases post-operative infection risk”. The aesthetics assessment page said the “NHS normal lower limit of 13–15 µg/L is clinically inadequate for optimal collagen synthesis”. The pre-surgical assessment page, corrected earlier today, said a ferritin below 30 µg/L “points to iron deficiency even with normal haemoglobin (Mast 1998)”. The free first module of the clinical manual applied the same 30 µg/L cut-off to a client with a normal blood count and called it iron deficiency.

Problem

In a review of 107 studies, about 3% of implants failed in non-smokers and 6% in smokers (Chrcanovic 2015); nothing on the page showed that nutritional preparation lowers that. The vitamin D reviews disagree and the evidence is observational (Miron 2025; Alsulaimani 2022; Bazal-Bonelli 2022). Mast 1998 studied anaemic patients: a ferritin of 30 µg/L (30 ng/mL) or less picked out iron deficiency far more reliably than the old cut-off of 12 µg/L (12 ng/mL). It didn’t study people with normal haemoglobin, healing or skin, and I misquoted it in this morning’s correction. The protein amounts had no source on the page, and I don’t give amounts on public pages.

Now

The implant page gives the Chrcanovic figures and the graded vitamin D wording from Before a Dental Implant. The diagram and the surgery and aesthetics pages now say what Mast 1998 found, with both units. The protein amounts are removed and the diagram points to the “How much?” table in Injured? What Food Can and Can’t Do for Healing. The vitamin D infection claim is labelled observational. Links to the series use the new titles. The free manual module now treats a low-30s ferritin with a normal blood count as a reason to look further, not a diagnosis.

Found while checking the assessment pages against the rebuilt Before Your Procedure posts. Also corrected: pre-surgical assessment, aesthetics assessment, wound-healing diagram, free manual module. Read the corrected implant page →

Was

Two posts, on nutrition before surgery and before a dental implant, gave supplement amounts (vitamin C, zinc, magnesium, collagen and protein targets). The surgery post said high-dose omega-3 “should be stopped 1–2 weeks before surgery”. It called zinc “the most consistently documented nutritional deficiency affecting surgical outcomes” and said a ferritin of 12 µg/L “will impair healing”. The implant post said “multiple studies” showed higher failure rates with low vitamin D and quoted a 5–10% failure rate.

Problem

None of the amounts was sourced on the page, and I don’t give supplement doses on public pages. In a trial of 1,516 people having heart surgery, fish oil didn’t increase bleeding (Akintoye 2018); what to stop before an operation is for your surgical team to decide. Extra vitamin C and zinc haven’t been shown to speed healing in people who aren’t deficient (ter Riet 1995; Behrend 2019; Wilkinson 2014). The vitamin D reviews disagree and the evidence is observational. In a review of 107 studies, about 3% of implants failed in non-smokers and 6% in smokers (Chrcanovic 2015).

Now

Both posts are rewritten as graded posts in a renamed series, Before Your Procedure, with no supplement amounts, a grade for each claim and a Sources list. The surgery post says to tell your surgical team about every supplement and follow their instructions. The implant post adds smoking, gum disease, diabetes and bone medicines, each with a source.

Found in a planned evidence pass of the series. Also corrected: Before a Dental Implant. Read the corrected surgery post →

Was

Three parts of the Appliance of Science series: fasting (Part 8), cold exposure (Part 1) and heat and sauna (Part 2). They said fasting does things beyond eating fewer calories, that cold water raises dopamine for hours and lowers inflammation, and carried “Multiple RCTs · Clinically validated” badges.

Problem

The evidence doesn’t support those claims. Fasting trials mostly show no benefit beyond the same calorie cut; the cold dopamine study used an hour in 14°C water and didn’t measure how long the rise lasted; inflammation markers rose short-term after cold dips in a 2025 review of trials; and the badges overstated what had been tested.

Now

The three old pages now redirect to graded posts: Fasting: Who It Helps, Who It Harms, Cold Plunges: Who They Help, Who They Harm and Heat, Cold and Infrared. The other parts of the series link to the new pages.

Found while checking for overlap before publishing the graded fasting post. Read the graded fasting post →

Was

Sauna users going 2–3 times a week “had 22% lower cardiovascular mortality” and 4–7 times “40% lower”, “replicated across multiple analyses”. Two 20-minute sessions “can increase growth hormone by 200–500%”. Far-infrared: “multiple Japanese RCTs showing … reduced mortality in CHF patients”. An “evidence-based sauna protocol” with temperatures, times and fluid amounts.

Problem

The 22% figure was for sudden cardiac death, and its confidence interval included no difference; none of the Kuopio figures was labelled as observational. I couldn’t find a source for the growth hormone figure. The far-infrared survival data come from one small study that wasn’t randomised; the randomised trials lasted two weeks or less and didn’t measure deaths. The protocol presented observational habits as advice.

Now

The Kuopio findings are given as the paper reports them and labelled observational, with the later study that included women. Growth hormone is described as one small 1986 study. The far-infrared section is rewritten to Kihara 2009 and the short trials. The protocol is replaced by what the Kuopio men reported, with no fluid amounts. The page has a Sources list and grades.

Found in a planned evidence pass of the page. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Cold water immersion (14°C water for 1–3 minutes) produces a 300–500% increase in plasma noradrenaline concentration that is sustained for 2–4 hours post-exposure.” A dopamine rise of about 250% that “persists for 2–4 hours”. Cold water “reduces acute inflammatory markers”.

Problem

The study behind these figures (Šrámek 2000) kept people in 14°C water for an hour, not 1–3 minutes. It found noradrenaline up 530% and dopamine up 250%, and it didn’t measure how long the rise lasted. A 2025 review of 11 randomised trials found inflammation markers rose straight after a cold dip and an hour later (Cain 2025).

Now

The cold section gives Šrámek 2000 as it is, the inflammation and recovery findings (Cain 2025; Moore 2022; Roberts 2015) and the brown fat study (Søberg 2021), and links to the graded post on cold plunges.

Found while writing Cold Plunges: Who They Help, Who They Harm. Read the corrected page →

Was

“[Vitamin D] reduces post-operative infection risk. Deficiency associated with significantly higher complication rates.” Also: zinc deficiency is “the most consistently documented nutritional deficiency affecting surgical outcomes”; post-operative protein needs “rise to 1.5–2g per kg”; a ferritin of 14 µg/L is “clinically inadequate for healing”; none of these markers “are assessed in the standard NHS pre-operative pathway”.

Problem

No trial has shown that vitamin D before surgery prevents infections; the evidence is observational. The zinc, protein-dose and ferritin statements had no source on the page. A full blood count is part of NICE’s routine tests before major surgery.

Now

The vitamin D card gives the observational findings (Farsakoury 2026; Papadopoulos 2025) and says supplementation before surgery hasn’t been tested. Each other claim is sourced, softened or removed, the protein figure is gone, and the page has a Sources list.

Found in a planned evidence pass of the page. Read the corrected page →

Was

“A 2022 meta-analysis in BMJ confirmed that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory infections … in adults with baseline deficiency. The VITAL trial data confirmed cardiovascular and cancer risk reduction benefits in deficient populations.”

Problem

The cited paper (Jolliffe 2021) was in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, not the BMJ, and found no difference by starting vitamin D level; the BMJ analysis that did was Martineau 2017. The latest analysis of 40 trials (Jolliffe 2025) found no statistically significant reduction overall. VITAL found no reduction in cancer or major cardiovascular events (Manson 2019), and it didn’t select people with low vitamin D.

Now

The paragraph cites Martineau 2017, Jolliffe 2025 and VITAL with what each actually found, and says plainly that vitamin D isn’t proven protection against colds. The same 2025 result has been added to the vitamin D supplement-of-the-month, “everyone is told” and insufficiency posts.

Found while adding the 2025 vitamin D update across the site. Read the corrected page →

Was

“A standard blood panel measures vitamin D well and some of the others less reliably.”

Problem

A standard panel doesn’t include most of the six immune nutrients the post lists, and plasma zinc drops during infections, so a low result around a cold is hard to read.

Now

The post says a standard panel doesn’t include most of them, that vitamin D can be added and is measured well, and why plasma zinc is unreliable during or just after a cold, matching the zinc article.

Found in a planned check of the post. Read the corrected page →

Was

The MycoTOX page sold the test (£398) for damp-building exposure, and the testing pages listed it as “the investigation of choice” for water damage, fatigue and brain fog. The heavy metals post said blood tests miss most metal burden because metals leave the blood within hours or days, credited this to the CDC, and presented hair analysis and organic acids markers as the better way to find it.

Problem

Most mycotoxin exposure comes from food, no study validates a urine level as a diagnosis of mould illness, and the German clinical guideline on indoor mould says the test shouldn’t be used for that (AWMF 2023). No organic acids marker is validated as a sign of mould or metal exposure; one of the “mould” markers mainly reflects coffee and dried fruit. Blood lead is the standard lead test (blood lead has a mean life of about 35 days, and bone stores feed back into it), and urine cadmium reflects long-term burden. When one person’s hair was sent to six labs, results differed more than tenfold for 12 minerals (Seidel 2001).

Now

The MycoTOX page explains what the test measures, why I no longer offer it for mould at home, how to read a result you already have, and what to do instead. The testing pages no longer sell it for this. The heavy metals post sets out the established test for each metal, explains why I don’t use provoked testing, and grades hair analysis and organic acids markers honestly, including the hair test I offer. The HTMA page now carries the same reliability finding, and the EnviroTOX page no longer offers MycoTOX on its own for mould; it says the mycotoxin part of that panel shows exposure only.

Found after the mould post rewrite. Read the MycoTOX page →

Was

The second IBS trial (Singh 2025, PMID 39894284) was described as using “a new research test rather than a commercial panel”.

Problem

The test it used, inFoods IBS, is made and sold by Biomerica, so it isn’t only a research test. What sets it apart from the panels I use is its design: 18 foods chosen for IBS, against more than 200.

Now

The 2025 trial used a purpose-built 18-food IgG test for IBS made by Biomerica (inFoods IBS), not the broad 200-plus-food panels sold for general use, including the one I use. So its positive result can’t be assumed to carry over to those panels. Also not stated before: Biomerica funded the trial, and four authors consult for it. The grade stays mixed.

Found while checking the trial for Metabolic Natures, Volume 2. Read the corrected page →

Was

The IgG elimination trial (Atkinson 2004) was described as “the one randomised trial”, with its result given only as a 10% greater fall in symptom score (26% in people who stuck to the diet fully).

Problem

The percentages hid how small the overall effect was, and the pages didn’t say who ran the tests. It is also no longer the only trial: a second sham-controlled trial in IBS was published in 2025 (Singh 2025, PMID 39894284).

Now

Across everyone in the trial, the true diet beat the sham diet by 39 points on a 500-point symptom scale, short of the 50 points the authors counted as a clinically meaningful change. In people who stuck to the diet fully, the difference was 98 points. The IgG tests were run, and the diet sheets drawn up, by YorkTest Laboratories, a company that sells IgG food tests. The paper gives no funding or conflict-of-interest statement. The second trial is described too, with the caveat that it used a new research test rather than a commercial panel. The grade stays mixed.

Found when the trial was read in full for the Metabolic Natures book. Read the corrected page →

Was

The dental exposures post recommended a supplement protocol around dental work (chlorella, vitamin C, NAC, selenium, modified citrus pectin, with doses) and called provoked urine testing (DMSA or DMPS) the most reliable mercury test. The heavy metals post called provoked testing the most sensitive measure of body burden. The HTMA page said oxidation type “determines which dietary approach will produce the best clinical outcome”, and the personalised medicine post said metabolic typing was “not an evidence problem”. The binders post described its one trial as covering “heavy metals”; the Non-Negotiables post gave vitamin D deficiency as below 75 nmol/L; and a medication post credited a 2012 PPI warning to the European Medicines Agency.

Problem

No trial has tested those supplements for reducing harm from dental work. The American College of Medical Toxicology recommends against provoked urine testing, because chelators raise urine metals in anyone and there are no valid ranges (ACMT 2017). No trial shows that diet matched to oxidation type improves outcomes. The zeolite trial tested one lead tracer in 42 people, with authors from the maker. UK deficiency is below 25 nmol/L (10 ng/mL) (SACN 2016). The 2012 warning was the MHRA’s. The dental post also gave an unsourced “19–34%” heart-risk figure and described the chlorhexidine study as placebo-controlled.

Now

The dental post lists what’s worth asking your dentist, grades the supplements as untested with no doses, cites the chlorhexidine study and the American Heart Association review accurately, and explains why I don’t use provoked testing. The heavy metals, HTMA and test bundle pages now point to standard blood or urine tests. The HTMA, products and personalised medicine pages describe oxidation type and metabolic typing as a starting point, not a tested rule. The binders, Non-Negotiables and medication posts are corrected as above.

Found while checking the set after the mould and CoQ10 corrections. Read the dental post →

Was

“The Gap: Cholesterol and Statins”, “Medication Nutrient Depletion” and “Drug–Nutrient Interactions” said statin-related CoQ10 depletion explains muscle pain and fatigue, recommended ubiquinol 100–200 mg daily for anyone on a long-term statin, and recommended checking CoQ10 levels in everyone taking one.

Problem

Statins do lower blood CoQ10, but that it causes muscle symptoms hasn’t been shown. In blinded trials, more than 90% of muscle complaints on statins weren’t caused by the statin (CTT 2022), and trials of CoQ10 for them disagree. No CoQ10 level has been defined as too low on a statin. Doses belong with the evidence that tested them, on the CoQ10 page, not as a blanket recommendation.

Now

Each page says statins lower CoQ10, grades the link to symptoms as mechanistic and the CoQ10 trials as mixed, suggests a time-limited trial with a symptom diary after talking to your prescriber if symptoms persist, and links to the CoQ10 page for the trials and doses. Routine CoQ10 testing is no longer recommended.

Found when the CoQ10 page was corrected on 6 October. Read the CoQ10 page →

Was

Two posts, “Mould, Mycotoxins, and Chronic Illness” and “The Mould Nobody’s Talking About”, said about 24% of people carry HLA-DR genes that stop them clearing mycotoxins, that mycotoxins build up in tissue, that glyphosate worsens mould toxicity, that a sauna “challenge” improves urine testing, that cholestyramine has the strongest evidence, and that recovery needs binders in a “correct sequence”. Several other pages repeated parts of this, including the “Non-Negotiables” post, which recommended binders during weight loss.

Problem

I found no population study behind the 24% figure, only case reports. No human study links glyphosate to mycotoxin clearance, and no evidence supports challenge testing. The only placebo-controlled cholestyramine data is a two-week trial in 13 people (Shoemaker & House 2006), and the German clinical guideline on indoor mould says mycotoxin testing of blood or urine shouldn’t be used for diagnosis (AWMF 2023). Ochratoxin A does stay in the blood for weeks, but “builds up in kidney cells” comes from animal work. For weight loss, pollutant levels in the blood rise while the total in the body falls (Kim 2011), and no trial shows binders help.

Now

One rewritten post at /blog-mould-mycotoxins; the other address redirects to it. It separates what’s strong (damp and mould worsen asthma and breathing) from what isn’t established, grades each claim, starts with fixing the building, and says I sell the MycoTOX test. The audio episode notes, the test bundles, gut testing options and Non-Negotiables pages were corrected to match, and the MycoTOX page now cites the German guideline.

Found while checking pages that repeated claims removed from the MycoTOX page on 6 October. Read the rewritten post →

Was

Presented the test as finding a “mycotoxin syndrome” and “body burden”, said mycotoxins accumulate over years, recommended creatine “loading” to mobilise toxins before the test, and described binders, glutathione and “drainage” as the standard protocol. The table listed toxins the panel doesn’t measure (aflatoxin B1, B2, G1/G2, deoxynivalenol, fumonisins). It also linked the test to post-COVID recovery and mast cell problems, and said EnviroTOX tests heavy metals.

Problem

Most people have some mycotoxins in their body, mostly from food (McKeon 2024), and no published study validates a urine level as a diagnosis of mould illness. Mosaic’s own instructions don’t include creatine loading. The binder and drainage protocols haven’t been tested in trials. EnviroTOX doesn’t include heavy metals.

Now

The page starts with fixing the building, including the new Scottish rules on landlord repairs. It explains that a result shows exposure, not illness, lists the 11 mycotoxins the lab actually measures, follows the lab’s preparation instructions, grades binders and drainage as untested, and states that I sell the test. The EnviroTOX page’s panel list was corrected to match.

Found in a review prompted by an enquiry about mould at home. Read the corrected page →

Was

Titled “The Supplement Every Statin Patient Should Be Taking”, with evidence rated “High”. It said the Caso 2007 trial used 600 mg a day, and that CoQ10 lowers systolic blood pressure by about 11 mmHg. Doses were recommended for statin users and over-50s, a brand was named, and a client example was included.

Problem

Three meta-analyses of CoQ10 for statin muscle symptoms disagree (Kennedy 2020: no benefit; Qu 2018 and Kovacic 2025: some benefit). The largest analysis of statin trials found more than 90% of muscle complaints on statins weren’t caused by the statin (CTT 2022). Caso 2007 used 100 mg a day. The 11 mmHg figure came mostly from open-label studies, and a Cochrane review found no significant effect.

Now

Retitled “CoQ10 and Statins: What the Trials Show” and graded mixed. CoQ10 is now “worth a trial with a symptom diary if muscle symptoms persist, after talking to your prescriber”. Doses appear only in a “How much: what the trials used” block. The blood-pressure claim, the brand and the client example are removed.

Found when grading a published critique of statins against DH’s own pages. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Cohen’s cold studies showed that chronic stress tripled susceptibility”; Kiecolt-Glaser’s wound study described as being in medical students; oxygen readings of 93–94 described with no guidance; a home nebuliser solution with NAC and vitamin C described without a caution; testing described as something that “would have shown” the problem; menstrual synchrony and biophotons offered as evidence of biological communication; extended commentary on the social climate of 2020–21.

Problem

Colds rose from about 27% to 47% across stress levels in Cohen 1991, not threefold. The wound study was in 11 dental students. NHS home-oximetry guidance said to contact a GP or 111 at 93–94% and call 999 at 92% or less. Inhaled NAC can cause bronchospasm. The testing claims are untested. The commentary didn’t serve the health points.

Now

Figures corrected and cited. An NHS oxygen-reading box, a “not a recommendation” caution, “I didn’t test”, and the obvious alternative explanation are added. The testing claims are graded, and the commentary is removed. The post now focuses on what helps: sleep, movement, food, people, naming the stressor, and targeted supplements after testing.

Found in the June–July quality review, and at Stephen’s request. Read the corrected page →

Was

“The Gao et al. (2003) RCT — advanced lung cancer patients — showed significant NK cell activation”. Reishi described as hepatoprotective and recommended for raised GGT and impaired oestrogen detoxification, with no mention of liver injury. Cholesterol (“the same pathway as statins”), cortisol and sleep claims ungraded; minimum ganoderic acid and beta-glucan percentages; two named brands.

Problem

Gao 2003 was an uncontrolled study in mixed advanced cancers, not a randomised trial in lung cancer. The team’s 2005 lung-cancer study found no significant change in NK activity. There are case reports of liver injury with reishi powder, one fatal. A Cochrane review found no effect on cholesterol, HbA1c or blood pressure. The sleep and cortisol evidence is in animals. The percentages had no source.

Now

Each use is graded with its trials named. The liver case reports and stop signs are added, and reishi is no longer suggested for raised liver enzymes. A “How much: what the trials used” block (5.4 g a day of a polysaccharide extract for 8 weeks; no official upper limit) is added, along with a supplier disclosure. The brands and percentages are removed.

Found while correcting the medicinal mushrooms guide. Read the corrected page →

Was

“RCT evidence for VO₂ max improvement in older adults” and “testosterone support through Leydig cell stimulation” for cordyceps. Daily doses for five species. A table rating named brands as “clinical” or “wellness”. No studies were named.

Problem

In the trial usually cited (Chen 2010, 20 older adults), VO₂ max did not change in either group; two exercise thresholds did. The testosterone evidence is in mouse cells and mice, and points both ways. The doses had no trial, population or duration attached. The brand ratings weren’t backed by testing I could cite, and the page didn’t disclose that Detective Health works with mushroom suppliers.

Now

Each species is graded, with its trials named and linked, and doses appear only in the Fungi of the Month editions. The cordyceps claims are corrected. Reishi liver-injury case reports are added. The brand table is replaced by a label checklist, and a supplier disclosure is added.

Found in the June–July quality review. Read the corrected page →

Was

“4× more likely to develop clinical cold with fewer than 6 hours sleep vs 7+ hours (Cohen, SLEEP 2009)”; “3× higher infection rate” with chronic stress (Cohen 1991); “29% fewer sick days” with cold showers (Buijze 2016). Also, that healthcare workers show “remarkable resistance” to infection, and that a smoker’s lung cancer was due to “the terrain”, not the exposure.

Problem

The 4× figure is from Prather 2015, not Cohen 2009, and its confidence interval runs from about 1.1 to 18. Cohen 1991 found colds rising from about 27% to 47% across stress levels, not 3×. Buijze found 29% less sickness absence from work, but no difference in days of illness. Healthcare workers had higher, not lower, COVID-19 infection rates. Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

Now

Each figure is cited to the right paper with its actual numbers and uncertainty. Unsourced numbers are removed or graded. A line now says exposure still matters, and the smoking section says plainly that smoking causes lung cancer. The testing suggestions are graded as not trial-tested, and Part Two is linked at the end.

Found in the June–July quality review. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Approximately a 30% increased risk of stroke or coronary artery disease”, cited to Holt-Lunstad 2015. Unnamed “Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 2022” citations for the cortisol and dementia claims. “The highest rates of reported loneliness are in young adults aged 18 to 24”, uncited.

Problem

Holt-Lunstad 2015 is about mortality. The heart and stroke figures are from Valtorta 2016. The 2022 Frontiers item is an editorial with no data. The UK figure is for 16 to 24-year-olds (ONS, 2018).

Now

Each figure is cited to its own study with a link. The cortisol claim is cited to Hawkley & Cacioppo 2010, and dementia to Kuiper 2015. The age figure is cited to ONS. All of it is graded as observational. A section arguing about pandemic policy is replaced by a cited, neutral line.

Found in the June–July quality review. Read the corrected page →

Was

A title and chain of reasoning presenting liver congestion as a cause of back pain; that visceral manipulation “can restore normal valve tone” at the ileocaecal valve; and raised ALT/AST explained by the liver’s position.

Problem

The chain from organ to back pain is a model, not a tested finding, and the valve claim had no source. Raised liver enzymes have many medical causes that need a GP.

Now

Retitled “The Body as Nested Bags: A Model for Thinking About Back Pain”. The page is graded as mechanistic and untested, the valve claim is removed, the ALT/AST section points to the GP, and an NHS box on back-pain red flags is added.

Found in the June–July quality review. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Remove the identified high-reactivity foods completely for a minimum of four to six weeks”, then reintroduce by “eating a significant amount of each food on the reintroduction day”. The test page said 6–8 weeks for Class 2 and 8–12 for Class 3; the allergy comparison post said three weeks. Food IgG was described as causing “chronic, low-grade inflammation” 2 to 72 hours after eating, and anti-gliadin IgA as identifying non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.

Problem

Three different elimination periods on three pages, none matching the first randomised trial in IBS, which used 12 weeks (Atkinson 2004). The delayed-inflammation mechanism is untested, and there is no validated blood test for non-coeliac gluten sensitivity.

Now

One protocol, worded the same as in client reports: a 12-week trial, then one food back every 3 days (small portion, normal portion, none), with a symptom diary, and no routine retest. Evidence graded mixed. The mechanism is graded mechanistic and untested, the anti-gliadin claim is removed, and a coeliac test before removing gluten is added. The old blog post now redirects to the test page.

Found when the IgG protocol agreed for client reports was checked against the public pages. Read the corrected page →

Was

Stomach acid “declines progressively from around thirty onwards”; heartburn is “more commonly a sign of insufficient acid”; betaine HCl with a starting dose and a capsule-by-capsule titration “until a mild warmth is felt”; apple cider vinegar before meals; low stomach acid as “the most important single upstream cause of SIBO”.

Problem

In healthy people without gastric atrophy, acid output is preserved or higher with age (Goldschmiedt 1991; Katelaris 1993; Hurwitz 1997). People with reflux have the same or more acid, not less (Gardner 2003). There are no trials of betaine HCl for any symptom; the warmth test has never been validated; and the SIBO claim is untested.

Now

Rewritten as “Low stomach acid: what’s real, what isn’t, and how to check”. Causes are atrophic gastritis, surgery and acid-suppressing drugs; the check is a pepsinogen/gastrin-17/H. pylori blood screen. All doses and the titration are removed, each claim is graded, and PPIs get the same treatment, including rebound on stopping.

Found when the page was checked against the reflux and stomach acid register. Read the corrected page →

Was

“A 2025 study found that 90.5% of patients with functional abdominal bloating showed significant gut dysbiosis… dysbiosis as a driver of bloating is now well-established.” A section headed “Why testing changes everything”. Low stomach acid as the first driver. No warning signs.

Problem

The study (Akkoyunlu 2025) had 42 people and no control group, so it can’t show dysbiosis is more common in bloating. The 2025 European consensus says tests are unnecessary without alarm signs (Melchior 2025).

Now

The study is cited with its limits. The consensus is given in full, including its first-line treatments. The testing section is now “Where testing fits”, graded not trial-tested. A GP red-flags box, including persistent bloating in women over 50, is added.

Found in the June–July quality pass. Read the corrected page →

Was

“FSH above 40 IU/L on two tests twelve months apart confirms ovarian failure.” Subclinical hypothyroidism “elevates SHBG”. NICE NG23 “updated 2019”. A DUTCH test before and three months after starting HRT as a “minimum clinical standard”, with MTHFR testing. No section on breast cancer.

Problem

Over 45, NICE diagnoses menopause from symptoms without FSH (NG23, updated November 2024); under 40, one FSH above 25 IU/L is needed (ESHRE 2024). Thyroid hormone raises SHBG, so an underactive thyroid lowers it. There is no evidence for DUTCH or MTHFR testing as a standard before HRT.

Now

Diagnosis follows NICE and the 2024 guideline. The SHBG line is removed. DUTCH is described as optional context, graded not trial-tested. A sourced breast cancer section (Collaborative Group 2019) and both halves of the timing evidence (Boardman 2015) are added. The opening example is now labelled a composite.

Found in the June–July quality pass. Read the corrected page →

Was

“A separate trial using a metabolic chamber found the opposite: 24-hour energy expenditure fell by about 4% with no change in intake.” The nutrient-shortfall model (Fulgoni 2024) was cited with no funding note, and the CALERIE result was given without saying who took part.

Problem

The fall was in energy used while sitting quietly in the chamber, not in total 24-hour expenditure (Broskey 2021). Four of the six authors of the nutrient model work for Abbott Nutrition, which sells products for people on restricted diets; readers should know that. And the CALERIE 1 participants did not have obesity, which limits how far that result carries.

Now

“Energy used while sitting quietly in a metabolic chamber fell by about 4%, with no change in eating.” The model is described as a model, with the Abbott affiliation stated, and CALERIE is described as adults without obesity. The rest of the article was rechecked and re-referenced with PMIDs at the same time.

Found when the article was redrafted and the new draft was compared with the live page. Read the corrected page →

Was

“The UK RDA for magnesium is 300mg/day for men and 270mg/day for women — widely considered the minimum to prevent deficiency rather than an optimal intake.”

Problem

The UK figure is a reference nutrient intake (RNI), not an RDA, and it is set to cover about 97.5% of people, so it is not a minimum. The level below which deficiency becomes likely is the lower reference nutrient intake (LRNI).

Now

RNI 300 mg a day for men and 270 mg for women, covering about 97.5% of people; LRNI 190 mg and 150 mg, the level below which deficiency becomes likely (Derbyshire 2018).

Found while checking the page’s intake figures against the source it now cites. Read the corrected page →

Was

An RCT in 46 elderly adults with insomnia in which magnesium glycinate “significantly improved subjective sleep quality, sleep onset, sleep duration, and melatonin levels vs placebo.” Sleep evidence rated 5 stars.

Problem

The trial used magnesium oxide, not glycinate, at 500 mg elemental a day, in people with low magnesium intake. Total sleep time did not change, and sleep was self-reported.

Now

Magnesium oxide, 500 mg elemental a day for 8 weeks, in older adults with low intake: better insomnia severity score, sleep efficiency and time to fall asleep than placebo; total sleep time unchanged; the dose is twice the 250 mg supplemental upper level. Sleep evidence lowered to 3 stars.

Found while checking sources for a forthcoming article on vestibular migraine, which cites the same trials. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Clinically meaningful improvement in PHQ-9 depression scores, comparable in effect size to antidepressant medication in some analyses.” Depression evidence rated 4 stars.

Problem

The trial was open-label with no placebo: people knew when they were taking magnesium, so part of the effect may be expectation. The comparison with antidepressants is not supported by the trial.

Now

Open-label randomised crossover, 126 adults, magnesium chloride 248 mg elemental a day for 6 weeks: PHQ-9 improved by 6 points against 6 weeks of no treatment. A placebo-controlled trial is the next step. Depression evidence lowered to 2 stars.

Found while checking sources for a forthcoming article on vestibular migraine, which cites the same trials. Read the corrected page →

Was

“Several meta-analyses support magnesium as a prophylactic intervention. The evidence is strong enough that the European Headache Federation includes magnesium in its migraine prevention guidelines.”

Problem

I could not find the European Headache Federation guideline the page cited. The placebo-controlled trials are mixed, and they tested specific forms and doses the page did not name.

Now

Mixed trial evidence, named: one trial of 600 mg a day as trimagnesium dicitrate cut attacks by 42% against 16% on placebo (Peikert 1996); another found no benefit and stopped early (Pfaffenrath 1996). The 2012 American Academy of Neurology and American Headache Society guideline graded magnesium “probably effective” (Level B). Glycinate and malate have not been tested for migraine.

Found while checking sources for a forthcoming article on vestibular migraine, which cites the same trials. Read the corrected page →

Was

“I wouldn't routinely go above 400mg/day without a clinical reason and RBC magnesium monitoring.”

Problem

It contradicted the limit I use in client reports: 250 mg of elemental magnesium a day from supplements, the EU upper level for supplemental magnesium (Scientific Committee on Food, 2001), set on diarrhoea risk.

Now

250 mg elemental a day from supplements by default, with the UK Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals guidance level of 400 mg named. Food doesn't count towards either. Higher only for a specific reason and a set period.

Found in the same source check, by comparing the page with my client report templates. Read the corrected page →

Was

Figures of 70% and 62% for the share of UK adults falling short on magnesium, credited to the National Diet and Nutrition Survey.

Problem

I could not trace those figures to the survey.

Now

Derbyshire 2018 (NDNS years 1–6): average intake from food about 91% of the reference intake for men and 80% for women; about 14% of men and 12% of women aged 20–59 below the lower reference intake. The analysis was funded by the Health & Food Supplements Information Service, and the page says so.

Found in the same source check. Read the corrected page →

Was

A supplement-of-the-month page on ashwagandha that recommended KSM-66 or Sensoril doses and said it may support thyroid conversion, with no mention of liver injury.

Problem

Case series from the US Drug-Induced Liver Injury Network and Iceland (Björnsson 2020) and from India (Philips 2023, including three deaths in people with existing liver disease) document liver injury. Denmark has banned products containing ashwagandha. A supplement page that leaves out documented harm is not balanced.

Now

Liver injury is the first caution on the page, with the warning signs and both case series. The Danish ban is named and sourced. The thyroid caution now says ashwagandha can raise thyroid hormone levels and to tell your GP if you take thyroid medication. A line notes there is little safety information beyond a few months.

Found while writing an article on coffee add-ins, which covers ashwagandha and had to agree with this page. Read the corrected page →

Was

The trial “enrolled 31 Japanese adults over 50”, at 2.4 g a day for 12 weeks, measured on the MMSE.

Problem

The published trial randomised 30 adults aged 50 to 80, at about 3 g a day for 16 weeks, measured on the revised Hasegawa Dementia Scale. The lead author worked for Hokuto Corporation, a mushroom producer, and the page did not say so.

Now

Correct size, dose, duration and scale; scores better than placebo from week 8 and falling within four weeks of stopping; the lead author’s employer named. The page also now carries the same disclosure of my commercial relationships with mushroom suppliers as the turkey tail page.

Found in the same coffee add-ins check, by reading the trial abstract on PubMed. Read the corrected page →