Who said it, how they tested it, what it cannot prove.

Source hierarchy

1. Original peer-reviewed research and direct registry or journal records.
2. Systematic reviews and evidence reviews for the state of a field.
3. Official safety information from public health and regulatory institutions.
4. Professional medical organizations for patient-facing context.

We do not use another marketing blog as evidence for a health claim. When a full paper is available, the method and limitations are read, not just the abstract headline.

Evidence language

“Associated with” is not rewritten as “causes”. A hair-tress experiment is not presented as a clinical trial. A mouse mechanism is not described as a proven human treatment. Statistical significance is not treated as automatic practical importance.

Authorship and review

Every article names the responsible author or editorial desk and shows publication and review dates. Medical review is only claimed when a real, named qualified reviewer has reviewed the finished text. The launch articles currently identify themselves as editorial research summaries, not clinician-reviewed medical guidance.

Conflicts and product claims

Industry funding, author employment and small samples are reported when they are relevant to interpretation. An ingredient study is not used to imply that an unspecified consumer product produces the same result.

Corrections

Send the URL, disputed sentence and supporting source to support@hairstylechange.com. We evaluate corrections against the source, update material errors and change the reviewed date. We do not silently change a substantive scientific conclusion.