Editorial Team & Standards
Who writes this, who reviews it, and how we handle the difference between established and promising.
The team
How we handle evidence
We distinguish three levels explicitly and try to signal which applies.
- Established. Mechanisms with substantial replicated evidence — NAC's reduction of disulphide bonds in mucin glycoproteins, glutathione's role as the lung's principal antioxidant, the physics of oxygen partial pressure. We state these directly.
- Supported but limited. Findings with reasonable but incomplete evidence, or mechanistic plausibility outrunning outcome data. Quercetin is the clearest example — a coherent mast cell mechanism with a genuine bioavailability problem that we state rather than gloss.
- Speculative. Where popular claims exceed the evidence. We name them as such rather than repeating them.
The population caveat we apply repeatedly
Much of the strongest evidence for our cardiovascular ingredients — the Q-SYMBIO trial for CoQ10, the SPICE trial for hawthorn — comes from patients with established cardiac dysfunction. Extrapolating those results to healthy adults is not supported by that data, and we say so wherever we cite them.
The same pattern applies to vitamin D, where benefit concentrates in people deficient at baseline, and to NAC, whose respiratory evidence is strongest in populations with existing mucus hypersecretion.
What we will not do
- Claim either product treats, prevents or cures any disease.
- Imply clinical trial evidence for the finished formula that does not exist.
- Present testimonials as typical results.
- Omit interaction warnings because they discourage purchase.
- Publish only positive customer feedback.
- Suggest a supplement should come before medical assessment of an unexplained symptom.
Corrections
If you identify an error, email support@breatheasex.co. Substantive corrections are made to the page and the update date changed.