Not every source can support the same kind of conclusion.
These standards explain how HealthyVape weighs evidence.
WHY THIS MATTERS
A product page, a laboratory report and a scientific paper
answer different questions.
HealthyVape uses an evidence hierarchy to avoid presenting
advertising language as scientific evidence.
The hierarchy is a guide to source strength, not a guarantee that
every high-tier source is perfect. Relevance, date, methodology,
conflicts of interest and the specific claim being evaluated
still matter.
Government, peer-reviewed and accredited independent evidence
Examples include government health agencies, relevant
peer-reviewed research and appropriately documented
independent laboratory testing.
Can support:
Scientific background, analytical test results and carefully
scoped evidence-based conclusions.
Cannot automatically support:
Claims about a different product, ingredient route,
untested batch or population not actually covered by the source.
Complete technical documents and public COAs
Manufacturer technical documentation, complete certificates
of analysis and detailed testing documentation can provide
strong product-specific information when the document,
laboratory and tested sample are clear.
Important limitation:
A COA applies to the tested sample or batch. It should not
automatically be generalized to every future batch.
Manufacturer specifications and label claims
Official product pages, packaging and manufacturer
documentation are useful for specifications such as
stated nicotine level, rated puff count, charging format,
flavor and ingredients.
Important limitation:
These are manufacturer-provided facts or claims.
They are not independent confirmation.
Retailer and marketplace listings
Retail listings can help confirm price or availability,
but can be outdated, copied incorrectly or inconsistent
with current manufacturer information.
Policy:
Retailer-only information is generally not enough for a
major health, ingredient or nicotine-status conclusion.
Anecdotal and community reports
Forums, social posts and individual experiences can identify
questions worth investigating, but they are not treated as
proof of product composition, safety or medical effect.
Appropriate use:
Identifying consumer concerns, terminology or usability
questions that require stronger verification.
How the evidence standard changes a statement
Nicotine label
Manufacturer evidence:
“The current package is labeled 0mg nicotine.”
Independent evidence:
“The tested sample was reported below the laboratory’s
stated nicotine detection limit.”
These statements are not interchangeable.
Vitamin B12
A product label may establish that Vitamin B12 is listed
as an ingredient.
It does not by itself establish how much B12 is delivered,
absorbed or whether inhalation produces a health benefit.
Caffeine
Evidence about oral caffeine cannot automatically be used
to establish the delivery, dose or effect of an inhaled
caffeine product.
Mullein / detox
Traditional herbal use can be described as historical
context, but does not establish lung cleansing,
detoxification or treatment from an inhaled product.
What happens when sources disagree?
We prefer the source that is more direct, current,
independently verifiable and relevant to the exact product
or claim being evaluated.
When a conflict cannot be resolved, the uncertainty should
remain visible rather than being silently resolved in favor
of the more convenient claim.
Last reviewed: November 2, 2026