Where do you go when a claim is not covered here?

The blog covers thirty-four compounds. Plenty of things come up that are not on it. Where do people go, and how do you avoid the SEO sludge?

Roughly in the order I use them:

A trials registry, first. Before any literature search. It tells you whether a human trial exists, whether it finished, and — crucially — what its endpoint was before the results came in. A trial that finished years ago and never published is itself a finding.

PubMed, and read the abstract structure not the conclusion. The conclusion is where authors are most optimistic. Methods and results are where the study is.

The reference lists. For any compound with a following, follow the citations back and count the distinct groups. This is how you find out that three hundred papers are forty papers and a lot of self-citation.

A regulator's own words for anything about legal status or safety warnings, rather than somebody's summary of them.

What I avoid entirely: any page whose URL ends in a compound name and which sells that compound, and review-aggregator sites, which are almost universally affiliate operations.

The registry-first habit is the single highest-value one on that list and almost nobody does it. It reframes the whole question from "what do studies say" to "was this ever actually tested", and for most of what gets discussed here the answer to the second is no and takes ninety seconds to establish.

One caveat on registries: coverage is much better for Western trials than for everything else. Some of the Russian and Chinese work simply is not there, which is not evidence it does not exist.

Absence from a registry is strong evidence for a US or EU compound and weaker evidence elsewhere.

And the study-reading post is the framework for what to do once you have found something. The sourcing advice above tells you where to look; that tells you what you are looking at.

Registry first. That is a genuinely new habit for me and it sounds like the one that does most of the work.