The standard we hold ourselves to
Healthcare marketing in India is governed by the ASCI Healthcare Guidelines, the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 and the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Those set a floor. This page describes where we have chosen to stand relative to it.
The short version: an outcome claim requires either peer-reviewed evidence or our own audited outcome report. A disclaimer does not substitute for substantiation. And where the evidence for something is weak, the page says so rather than omitting the question.
How clinical content is produced
Every condition, recipe and article page on this site goes through the same process.
Written by a clinician
A clinical nutritionist, not a copywriter working from a brief.
Reviewed by a doctor
A second, medically qualified reviewer, named on the page.
Dated on the page
Author, reviewer and last review date, visible rather than buried.
Referenced
Sources listed at the foot of clinical content, weighted towards Indian clinical bodies where they have issued guidance.
Scheduled for review
Clinical content dates. A page with no review date is a page nobody is maintaining.
Says where nutrition stops
Every condition page states plainly what needs a doctor. Several state that nutrition is adjunctive and must not delay proper care.
What we will not claim
This is the more useful list, because anyone can publish the first one.
- No success rate, no rate of loss, no timeline. Not anywhere on this site, until the audited outcome report exists.
- No cure. Not for any condition, in any wording.
- No before-and-after photographs. They are outcome claims attached to identifiable people, and we do not use them.
- No claim that diet replaces treatment. Not for thyroid disease, diabetes, hypertension, asthma, ADHD or anything else.
- No detox claim beyond what is defensible. Your liver and kidneys do this continuously; a programme reduces load, and that is the whole claim.
- No compulsory supplements, and no claim that a product is required for a result.
Where we correct the common belief
Several pages on this site say the opposite of what is widely repeated, because the evidence supports the opposite. Each is stated on the relevant page with its reasoning.
- Dal, palak and mushrooms have not been shown to raise gout risk; fructose from sweetened drinks does
- Food cravings before a migraine are usually a symptom of the attack, not its cause
- Sugar has not held up in blinded trials as a cause of hyperactivity in children
- Oily food does not cause acne; glycaemic load has considerably better evidence
- Dairy does not increase mucus in asthma
- “Adrenal fatigue” is not a recognised diagnosis
- IgG food sensitivity panels are not supported by allergy societies
The audited outcome report
Publication pending. Aggregate outcomes are withheld from every page of this site until an internal report is complete — stating the sample, the method, the follow-up period and the dropout rate, reviewed by a second clinician. Under the ASCI Healthcare Guidelines that report is what substantiates a success rate or a timeline. We would rather show you nothing than show you a number we cannot stand behind.
Blocked on dependency D2.
Judge the method rather than the marketing.The assessment shows you your own numbers before we ask for anything.
Start my free assessment