Editorial policy
Why this page exists: almost nothing written about Ayurveda online tells you who wrote it, what they are selling, or how confident they actually are. This page tells you all three.
Who writes this site
Clinical content is written or reviewed by our Ayurvedic doctors. Editorial and research support is provided by our content team, who are not clinicians.
We do not operate an independent medical review board, and we will not claim one. Several sites in this category display "medically reviewed by" badges without saying who, or what the review consisted of. Every clinical page on this site is checked by one of our doctors before it is published.
The distinction that matters most: herb research is not product research
This is the commonest sleight of hand in Ayurvedic marketing, and we are naming it so you can hold us to it.
When a study finds that one herb's extract affected sleep quality in a trial, that is a finding about that extract, at that dose, in that population. It is not a finding about a formulation that happens to contain that herb alongside eleven others.
When we describe what research has examined for a herb, that is not evidence for any formulation we dispense.
We have not run clinical trials on our own formulations, and we do not imply that we have. If you ever find wording on this site that reads as though we have, it is an error and we want to fix it — write to email.
What we will and will not say
We use: traditionally used for · classical texts describe · research has examined · supports · helps maintain · may assist with
We do not use: cures · guaranteed · miracle · clinically proven · no side effects · 100% safe
Reversal, when we use it, means what the research means by it: blood sugar back in the normal range, off diabetes medication — sustained, and monitored.
"No side effects" is a claim no honest practitioner makes about anything pharmacologically active. Many Ayurvedic herbs have genuine contraindications and drug interactions, which is why your doctor checks everything you take before prescribing.
Where the evidence for a popular claim is weak, we say so. We would rather lose that search than win it dishonestly.
Our conflict of interest
This practice dispenses the formulations discussed on this site. We earn money when you consult and when you are prescribed.
That is an obvious conflict, and pretending otherwise would insult you. Our mitigations are structural rather than rhetorical: no product is sold without a consultation, no formulation is recommended on a page you can buy from, the consultation fee is refunded when the honest answer is a referral elsewhere, and we publish the contraindications alongside the benefits.
Judge those by whether they hold, not by this paragraph.
Sources
Classical sources: Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Ashtanga Hridayam, Bhavaprakasha Nighantu, and the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India.
Modern sources: peer-reviewed literature via PubMed, and clinical guidance from recognised bodies. Where we describe a mechanism as established, it is; where we describe it as traditional, that means classical use rather than trial evidence. We try never to blur the two.
Corrections
We correct errors rather than quietly deleting them. If you find something wrong — clinically, factually, or a claim that oversteps what we can support — write to email and it will be reviewed by one of our doctors.
Last reviewed: date · Next scheduled review: date
Nothing on this site is intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Formulations are dispensed only after consultation with a registered Ayurvedic physician. It is not a substitute for medical assessment or treatment.