Our Fact-Checking Standards
What We Do
True Canine Probiotics exists to separate what is genuinely supported by evidence from what is merely repeated. The pet supplement space is full of confident claims, and confident is not the same as correct. We evaluate specific claims against the peer-reviewed record and assign each one a clear, defensible rating.
These standards describe exactly how we do that, so you can judge our work by the same criteria we apply to the claims we examine.
Our Rating System
Every claim we fact-check receives one of four ratings:
- Supported. The claim is consistent with the weight of peer-reviewed evidence. Multiple quality sources agree, and there is no significant contrary evidence we are aware of.
- Partially Supported. The claim has some evidentiary basis but is overstated, incomplete, or true only under specific conditions that the original claim omitted.
- Unsupported. The claim is not backed by adequate peer-reviewed evidence. This does not always mean it is false; it means the evidence is not there to justify it as stated.
- Misleading. The claim is technically rooted in something real but is framed, cherry-picked, or exaggerated in a way that would lead a reasonable reader to a false conclusion.
We distinguish carefully between “unsupported” and “false.” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we say so when a claim is simply unproven rather than disproven.
Source Requirements
A claim cannot earn a Supported rating on a single source. We require a minimum of two independent peer-reviewed sources before we rate a claim as fully supported, and we prefer systematic reviews or multiple trials over isolated studies. Manufacturer-funded material, testimonials, and marketing copy are never treated as supporting evidence for a health claim, though we may cite them to document what a company has said.
Correction Timeline
We move quickly when we get something wrong. When a factual error is confirmed, we issue a correction within 48 hours. The original content is updated, a visible correction note is added explaining what changed and why, and the correction date is recorded. We do not quietly edit; transparency about corrections is part of earning trust.
How Readers Can Challenge a Claim
Fact-checking is not a one-way exercise. If you believe we have rated a claim incorrectly, or missed relevant evidence, you can challenge our assessment. Send us the specific claim, the rating you are questioning, and the source you believe we overlooked. We review every substantive challenge, and if new evidence changes our conclusion, we update the rating and credit the correction.
Our goal is not to be right on the first try. It is to be right, and to be transparent about how we got there.