First, a correction to this page itself
An earlier version of this page promised three things that were false.
- It said claims were "cited with DOI links to peer-reviewed studies." There were no citations anywhere on the site.
- It said "each page displays its last review date at the bottom." No page displayed any date.
- It said content was "reviewed by qualified herbalists and healthcare professionals." No such person existed, then or now.
The site has been rebuilt. Citations, evidence ratings, safety sections, and last-updated dates are now real and appear on every tea and condition page. There is still no credentialed medical reviewer, and this page will not claim there is one.
How we research
Each page begins with a literature search in PubMed, the US National Library of Medicine's index of biomedical research. We look for human evidence first: systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then randomized trials, then observational studies.
For safety, contraindications, and drug interactions we rely on authoritative secondary sources rather than individual papers: the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), MedlinePlus, the NIH LiverTox database, and Drugs.com.
Where we find no human evidence, we say so, rather than filling the gap with test-tube results dressed up as clinical findings.
How we rate evidence
Every health claim carries exactly one of four labels. These are the definitions we apply, without exception.
- Strong — supported by multiple randomized controlled trials in humans, or by a meta-analysis of such trials.
- Moderate — supported by at least one reasonably well-conducted human RCT, or by consistent human observational data.
- Limited — supported only by small or low-quality human trials, or mostly by in-vitro (test-tube) and animal data.
- Traditional — a documented history of traditional or folk use, with little or no human clinical evidence behind it.
Our wording is bound to the label. A traditional claim is never called effective; it is "traditionally used for." A limited claim gets "one small trial found." A moderate claim gets "may help." Only strong earns a plain verb like "reduces." We do not write "cures," "detoxifies," "boosts immunity," "most effective," or "highest antioxidant content."
Traditional is by far the most common label here — not laziness, but the result of looking hard. Most herbs have never been properly tested in people.
What we cite
Every claim rated strong, moderate, or limited links to a specific paper indexed in PubMed, by PMID and, where the publisher assigned one, DOI. We link to the study, never to a press release about it.
We describe what a study measured, in whom, and for how long, because "green tea improves memory" and "a 12-week trial in 60 older adults found a small improvement on one cognitive test" are very different sentences. Where a study used a concentrated extract rather than a brewed beverage, we say so.
Claims rated traditional cite historical sources where we have them, and otherwise state plainly that the use is untested. If we cannot find the paper, we do not cite it.
What we are not
- We have no medical reviewer. No doctor, pharmacist, herbalist, naturopath, or registered dietitian reviews this content. No page carries a professional byline, because no professional stands behind it.
- This is not medical advice. It is a summary of published research and traditional use, written for general interest. See our medical disclaimer.
- It is one person. HelperTea is researched, written, and maintained by a single non-clinician with an interest in tea and a habit of reading papers. That person can misread a study, miss a contraindication, or fall behind the literature.
- We are not comprehensive. Thirty teas and fifteen conditions is a small slice of a very large field.
How we handle safety information
Safety is the one place where we deliberately weight ourselves toward caution. Every tea page carries a safety section covering known adverse effects, drug interactions, and contraindications, drawn from NCCIH, MedlinePlus, LiverTox, and Drugs.com.
Where evidence for a benefit is weak but evidence for a harm is credible, we lead with the harm. Where safety in pregnancy, breastfeeding, or childhood has not been studied, we say it is unknown rather than implying it is fine. Herbs with meaningful risk — senna, licorice root, valerian, feverfew, eucalyptus, and elderberry among them — carry explicit warnings.
Corrections
Email hello@helpertea.com. Tell us the page, the sentence, and, if you can, what it should say instead.
Safety corrections take priority; if a claim may be unsafe, we take it down while we check it. Other corrections are made in place and the page's last-updated date changes. Where a correction materially alters a health claim, we note the change on the page instead of quietly editing it.
Money
HelperTea currently earns nothing. There are no advertisements, no affiliate links, no sponsored content, no paid reviews, and no products for sale. No company, brand, or supplement manufacturer has paid for or influenced anything here.
If that changes, this section changes first, and any commercial relationship will be disclosed on the pages it touches.
Changes to this policy
If we change how we research, rate, cite, or fund this site, we will update this page and describe what changed.
Last reviewed and updated . HelperTea is written by an enthusiast, not a clinician, and is not medically reviewed. How we research and rate evidence. Found an error? Tell us — safety corrections get priority.