Our scientific and epistemic approach

Evidence, assessment
and experience

Reliable orientation begins by asking what kind of knowledge a statement represents. A study result, an assessment of that result and a person’s experience may all be relevant — but they answer different questions.

The three levels we keep distinct

Clarity begins with the role of a statement.

Scientific evidence

Scientific evidence begins with what was actually investigated and observed. We examine study design, population, dose, formulation, duration, comparison group, endpoints, effect size, uncertainty, adverse events, conflicts of interest and reproducibility.

We also ask how far a result can reasonably be transferred. A finding in cells is not a clinical finding. An effect in an animal model is not proof of benefit in humans. An association is not automatically causal, and statistical significance is not necessarily clinical importance.

AFEGA’s assessment

AFEGA’s assessment is a reasoned conclusion drawn from evidence; it is not itself evidence. We consider methodological quality, consistency, competing explanations, negative findings, biological plausibility, relevance to humans and the limits of the available research.

Well supported by scientific evidence
Biologically plausible
Experimental or insufficiently supported

These descriptions are not labels of approval or disapproval. They state how strongly a conclusion is supported at the time of review.

Individual experience

Study results usually describe average effects under defined conditions. Individuals may respond differently. Some may notice a clear benefit, some little or none, and some may experience an unwanted effect.

A personal experience is real as an experience. A temporal sequence does not by itself establish a specific causal mechanism. Natural fluctuation, other changes, expectations, context and the intervention itself may all contribute. Our task is to respect experience while keeping the question of cause open.

Reading research

The questions behind our assessments.

What was the actual question?

We distinguish exploratory questions from confirmatory tests, primary endpoints from secondary findings and planned analyses from later subgroup interpretations.

Who was studied?

Age, health status, diagnosis, medication, sex, baseline levels and selection criteria can materially change what a result means and to whom it applies.

What exactly was used?

Substance form, formulation, purity, route of administration and dose matter. Results obtained with one form or product cannot automatically be transferred to another.

For how long?

A short study may identify an immediate change without showing long-term benefit or safety. Absence of a short-term safety signal is not proof of long-term safety.

What outcome changed?

We distinguish biomarkers, surrogate measures, subjective outcomes, functional outcomes and clinical endpoints. A mechanistic change may be interesting without demonstrating a meaningful everyday benefit.

How certain is the conclusion?

Sample size, uncertainty, missing data, multiple testing, replication and independent confirmation all influence the strength of a claim.

Mechanism and outcome

Mechanism is not the same as benefit.

Mechanistic research can reveal how a substance interacts with cells, enzymes or signalling pathways. It can make a hypothesis more plausible and guide further research. It cannot, on its own, show that taking the substance improves health or extends life in humans.

We value mechanistic findings without allowing them to carry more weight than their design permits. Clinical benefit requires evidence in people, using relevant outcomes and conditions.

Scientific integrity

Uncertainty belongs in the conclusion.

Scientific knowledge is provisional. New studies, better methods, contradictory findings or changed regulatory information can alter an assessment.

We avoid two symmetrical errors: treating an unconfirmed possibility as established fact, and treating a lack of confirmation as proof that a possibility is worthless or impossible.

The appropriate conclusion may be well supported, plausible, not yet confirmed, insufficiently investigated, weakened by important counterevidence or currently undecidable. The wording should be no stronger than the evidence allows.

Revision

When evidence changes, the assessment changes.

When new evidence matters, the correct response is not to defend an earlier position. It is to examine the data, update the underlying knowledge base, revise AFEGA’s assessment where necessary and then update public communication.

Personal authority

Authority over experience is not automatically authority over its cause.

A person is the primary authority on what they experience: whether they feel more alert, sleep better, experience discomfort or notice no change. Outside observers should not casually invalidate that experience.

Neither a positive nor a negative personal experience can, by itself, determine a general causal conclusion. This distinction protects both scientific accuracy and the dignity of the person reporting the experience.

Where an individual decision matters, structured observation can help. Stable conditions, predefined outcomes, repeated observations and, where feasible, carefully designed N-of-1 approaches may reduce uncertainty. They do not eliminate it entirely.

Human context

Expectation, context, placebo and nocebo effects.

Expectations and context can influence perception, behaviour and physiological responses. These effects are not imaginary and they are not evidence that a person has been deceived. They are part of the conditions under which human experience and health outcomes arise.

AFEGA’s responsibility is double. We should not create false certainty or attribute a benefit to a specific substance without adequate grounds. We should also avoid needlessly undermining a person’s constructive expectations when honest communication can preserve them.

Positive expectations may be supported without deception. Risks and uncertainty must remain visible. Placebo and nocebo concepts should improve understanding, not close a causal question prematurely.

Do not make possibilities smaller than the evidence requires. Do not pretend certainty where none exists. Respect experience, and keep causes open to examination.

Explore our research and substance library

The information provided by the AFEGA Research Group is intended for general scientific and educational purposes. It does not replace individual medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Decisions about health, medication or supplementation should take personal circumstances and, where appropriate, professional medical advice into account.

Evidence, assessmentand experience