10 questions before you believe a substance claim.

Free checklist for educators, journalists, students, and librarians. Print it, link it, teach it. Takes 5 minutes, saves hours of misinformation.

Updated September 23, 2026Free for classroom & library use with attributionNo medical advice
Cite this page
Linkable reference

The checklist

How to use: 1 point for each “yes”. If any of #1, #2, #8 is “no” — stop and do not share until verified.
#QuestionWhat “yes” looks like
1Can I find the original source?Link to study, FDA/EMA label, WHO/CDC/NIDA report — not a screenshot or repost.
2Who published it and why?Named organization with relevant expertise; funding and conflicts disclosed.
3What study type is it?Systematic review > RCT > cohort > case report > animal/cell > anecdote. Method matches the strength of the claim.
4Who was studied, at what dose, for how long?Population, dose, route, duration stated. No jump from mice or 12 people to “everyone”.
5Association or causation?Authors say “linked to” vs “causes” correctly; confounders discussed.
6How big is the effect, and how certain?Absolute numbers + confidence intervals, not just “300% increase” or “miracle”.
7Is it current and local?Date checked; law, formulary, or service info matches your jurisdiction and year.
8Can I verify it elsewhere?Second primary source, guideline, or agency says the same. Single viral post = unresolved.
9What would change the conclusion?Limitations listed; authors state what replication would be needed.
10What is the safe next step?Points to clinician, pharmacist, poison control, or helpline — not to a seller or “try it”.

3 red flags that fail instantly

  • No source trail — “studies show” with no link, DOI, or document name.
  • Miracle language — “100% safe”, “no side effects”, “doctors don’t want you to know”, countdown timers, discount codes.
  • Instructions to buy, dose, or evade — vendor names, payment tips, purification, law-evasion. Legitimate education never does this.

Worked example (60 seconds)

Claim: “X cures Y, study proves it.”
Check: click through → n=14 mice, 7 days, no human data, funded by seller, no replication. Score 2/10 → label: Preliminary, do not share as fact. Compare with PubMed systematic review or NIDA.

Where to verify fast

Deeper method: How we evaluate substance information · Source library · Emergency planning.

Cite / link to this page (helps us stay independent)

For resource pages, syllabi, LibGuides: use this HTML. Anchor text matters for Bing — please keep it as is.

<a href="https://drughub-market-dark.org/checklist">Substance claim checklist — DrugHub Research Library</a>
APA: DrugHub Research Library (2026). Substance claim checklist: 10 questions before you believe or share. https://drughub-market-dark.org/checklist

Added us to your directory? Email editorial@drughub-market-dark.org with subject "Link added" - we verify weekly.

Corrections

Found an outdated source? Send URL + quote + better source to corrections. Material fixes are logged in About → Correction log.

Frequently asked questions

Can I print this for my class or library?

Yes. Printing and classroom projection with attribution is allowed. Do not rehost the full text without a canonical link to this page.

Is this medical advice?

No. This is health-literacy education. For personal decisions bring the original source to a clinician or pharmacist.

Why do you not list substances or doses?

To stay educational and non-facilitating. We teach evaluation method and point to regulators and agencies for product-specific information.