Editorial policy

How we handle the evidence

Human studies, linked to PubMed.

Described honestly, strengths and limits.

Reviewed, and corrected when wrong.

This page sets out how astaxanthin.co.nz decides what to publish, how evidence is weighed, and how errors are handled. The short version: human research, linked to its source, described honestly, and reviewed by qualified people.

Evidence comes first

Every substantive claim on this site is based on published research, and wherever a study is referenced it links directly to its record on PubMed, so you can read the source yourself. We prioritise the strongest designs: randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses carry more weight than single small studies, and the text says which is which.

What we include, and what we leave out

The research library is deliberately curated rather than exhaustive.

Included: human trials and systematic reviews of astaxanthin, each verifiable on PubMed.

Left out: animal-only and in-vitro studies, non-peer-reviewed industry material, and anything that cannot be checked against a primary source. These tend to make astaxanthin look more proven than it is. The one exception is a clearly-separated section on dogs, kept apart for pet owners and never mixed into the human evidence.

We describe strength honestly

Astaxanthin’s evidence is not equally strong across every use, and the site never pretends otherwise. Where the research is solid, such as HDL and triglyceride effects or skin, we say so plainly. Where it is thin, mixed or preliminary, such as joints, cognition and athletic performance, we say that just as plainly. Overstating weak evidence would defeat the entire purpose of the site.

We use structure and function language throughout. Astaxanthin is described in terms of its effect on the normal structure and function of the body, not as a treatment, cure or preventive for any disease.

How content is reviewed

Medical and physiological content is reviewed by Dr Ron Goedeke, a functional medicine physician in Auckland. Nutritional science is reviewed by Sylvia North, a New Zealand Registered Dietitian. Reviewed pages carry a last-reviewed date, and the people behind the site are named on the about page.

Corrections

Research moves, and figures such as study counts, doses and findings are updated as new trials appear or older ones are superseded. When we get something wrong, we fix it once it has been verified against the source, rather than quietly leaving it in place. If you find an error, please tell us.

Independence

The research, benefit and safety pages are written to inform, not to sell. The evidence is reported the same way regardless of what any product contains, and a study is never upgraded or downplayed to suit a commercial point. Where the site does offer product guidance, it is kept separate from the evidence pages and held to the same standard of proof.

Last updated: JUNE 2026