How claims are marked
One question sits behind every marker in every kit.
You're entitled to reach conclusions mainstream consensus hasn't adopted. You're not entitled to present an interpretation as an established finding, or to turn either one into an advertising claim. The markers tell you which you're doing.
| Marker | Who owns the sentence | Where it can go |
|---|---|---|
| Settled | Nobody — it's simply true | Ads, headlines, structured data |
| Sourced | The study | Anywhere, with the citation |
| Your Call | The clinician | Signed content only |
| Wrong Question | The clinician, disputing the study's conclusion | Signed content only |
| Open Question | Nobody yet | Teaching, not selling |
Settled and Sourced can go in an advertisement. Your Call and Wrong Question need your name on them. Open Question is for teaching, not selling.
That's the whole rule. Everything else is detail underneath it.
Three parts, and the middle one is what makes it work.
Written that way you can say things mainstream medicine won't say and remain entirely defensible, because you haven't misrepresented anything. You've reasoned in public with your sources showing.
Your Call means you agree with the study and go further than it did. Wrong Question means you accept the study's data and reject its conclusion, because it answered a different question than the one it's cited for.
That's a construct-validity critique — a standard, respected form of scientific argument, and one the FDA performed publicly in November 2025. It is not the same as saying a study was fraudulent, and our kits never make that move.
| Which premise fails | What it means |
|---|---|
| Wrong molecule | The agent tested isn't the agent in question |
| Wrong route | Delivery changes the mechanism of the harm |
| Wrong population | The sample doesn't represent the treated population |
| Wrong endpoint | The outcome measured isn't the outcome claimed |
| Wrong question | The trial tested one thing; the conclusion was drawn about another |
The rule we apply: the flaw has to be documented by someone other than us, ideally by the study's own authors or by a regulator. A premise critique resting on assertion isn't a critique. Every kit that uses this level carries the source for it.
FAQ schema is read verbatim by search engines and AI assistants. The "my conclusion" framing disappears in extraction, and what's left reads as asserted fact attributed to your practice.
So only Settled and Sourced answers are marked eligible for schema. The build gate enforces it — an interpretation marked schema-eligible fails the build and produces nothing.
The $17 FDA kit marks every one of its claims. Sixteen Settled, eleven Sourced, five Your Call.