What we cite and why
Source Standards
Different sources answer different questions. Oriqeva does not use a seller page to prove efficacy or a research paper to guess today’s checkout price. Source selection follows the fact being verified.
Tier 1 — authoritative health and regulatory sources
For regulatory status, public-health guidance, established safety information, and consumer warnings, Oriqeva prefers authoritative bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health and its institutes, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and comparable recognized public authorities where relevant. Direct regulatory letters, notices, databases, and guidance can be especially important when a seller makes disease-related claims.
Tier 2 — peer-reviewed evidence syntheses and human research
For efficacy and evidence context, we prefer systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and other relevant peer-reviewed human research. A paper is not treated as strong merely because it is indexed in a research database. We consider study design, sample, dose, comparator, duration, population, outcome, consistency with the broader literature, and relevance to the commercial formula.
Tier 3 — manufacturer, seller, label, and merchant sources
Manufacturer and seller sources are appropriate for questions they are positioned to answer: the current product name, packaging, label, ingredient disclosure, serving directions, package options, promotional terms, refund language, purchase channel, and the claims the seller itself makes. These sources are considered first-party or commercial evidence. They document the product proposition; they do not independently validate health outcomes.
When a merchant or checkout page provides current price or retailer information, the page can be cited for that commercial fact. Prices and package structures can change quickly, so Oriqeva records verification timing when practical. Conflicting seller pages are disclosed rather than silently reconciled.
Tier 4 — qualified secondary sources
High-quality secondary sources may be used for orientation, terminology, or context when a more direct source is unavailable or when the secondary source accurately synthesizes primary material. We do not use low-quality affiliate summaries, anonymous content farms, copied product descriptions, or search snippets as substitutes for stronger evidence when a direct source is available.
Source provenance matters
Oriqeva product records retain URLs, source types, verification dates where relevant, and reference identifiers that connect evidence or safety statements to the sources supporting them. Product images also carry provenance notes in the underlying data so the publication can distinguish local assets from verified commercial creative and re-check rights or source status before launch.
What we reject or qualify
- Sources that cannot be traced to an identifiable publisher or original record.
- Marketing copy presented as independent scientific evidence.
- Ratings, testimonials, or customer counts without a verifiable data source.
- Outdated label or price information presented as current without qualification.
- Research that studies a materially different ingredient form, dose, or population without explaining the mismatch.
- Secondary pages that merely repeat another site’s unsupported claim.
Broken, changed, or inaccessible sources
If a source disappears, changes materially, or becomes inaccessible, the affected statement should be rechecked against another appropriate source. We do not preserve a strong conclusion solely because an old citation once supported it. When the commercial source changes, the verification date and product record may need to change as well.