How to check a recovery claim before acting on it

Before acting on an online recovery claim, identify exactly what is promised, who is making the claim, and what evidence supports that specific promise. If you cannot trace it beyond a testimonial, a sales page, or an unattributed statistic, leave it unverified. You do not have to accept a claim just because its language sounds scientific.

The National Library of Medicine's MedlinePlus checklist asks readers to examine who runs a health-information site, its funding, the quality and currency of its information, and its handling of personal data. Use that as a starting point, then investigate the particular claim in front of you. See the MedlinePlus evaluation checklist.

Write down the promise before judging it

A page can combine an ordinary product feature with a much larger outcome. “This app lets you track consecutive days” is a feature you can inspect. “This app guarantees recovery in a fixed number of days” is an outcome claim that needs different evidence.

Copy the precise claim into your notes. Separate what it says from what you hope it means. Words such as “supports,” “resets,” and “proven” can hide different definitions, so ask what observable change the author means.

Trace the evidence one step further

When a page links to research, follow the link rather than relying on the surrounding summary. Look for the original paper or a credible review that explains its sources. In the paper, locate who participated, what was measured, what was compared, and the stated limitations.

You do not need to become a researcher to notice a mismatch. A study about remembering to exercise does not, by itself, establish a treatment for compulsive sexual behavior. A study of a different product does not validate the app being advertised. If the original source is inaccessible or difficult to interpret, mark the uncertainty rather than filling it with confidence.

Work through an illustrative claim

Suppose a fictional post says, “Ninety days resets everyone's brain.” Treat this as a claim to investigate, not a fact repeated by this article.

• What does “resets” mean, and how would it be measured?
• Which study supports the exact day count?
• Did that study measure brain changes, self-reported behavior, or something else?
• Did all participants have the same result, or is the post turning an average into a guarantee?
• Does the conclusion actually apply to the reader and the behavior being discussed?

Without answers, the sensible note is “not established by the material provided.” That is narrower and more accurate than inventing an alternative timeline.

Keep a claim-checking card

Use this original worksheet for an article, video, AI answer, or product page:

Claim I am checking:

Author or organization and what they sell:

Original evidence link:

People, behavior, and outcome studied:

Difference between the study and this claim:

Question still unanswered:

My next step: set aside, seek clarification, or discuss with a qualified professional.

A personal story may explain what one person experienced. It cannot tell you how often the same result happens to others. Likewise, a professional title, a polished chart, or a large following should lead you toward the evidence, not replace it.

Apply the same standard to Unhook

We describe Unhook as a self-help and educational toolkit. A feature list, a streak counter, and these articles do not establish treatment effectiveness or guarantee recovery. Use the same questions when evaluating our copy as you would elsewhere. For a practical next step, read how to choose a recovery app and compare its tools, costs, privacy, and limits with what you actually need.