References:
1. Nature Portfolio https://www.nature.com/srep/
2. American Heart Association – https://www.heart.org/en/about-us
3. MDPI https://www.mdpi.com/about
4. BMJ https://www.bmj.com/company/
5. NEJM https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/about-nejm
6. ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/about.htm
7. Hindawi https://www.hindawi.com/about/
8. MSD Manual: https://www.msdmanuals.com/
9. Wiley https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
10. ScienceDaily https://www.sciencedaily.com/about.htm
11. Cell Press https://www.cell.com/
12. The Lancet 《柳叶刀》: https://www.thelancet.com/
13. American Journal of Clinical: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/pages/About
14. Harvard Health Publishing https://www.health.harvard.edu/about-us
15. National Library of Medicine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
16. Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC): https://www.jbc.org/
17. IOS Press https://content.iospress.com/page/about
18. Science Translational Medicine https://www.science.org/
19. Springer Link https://link.springer.com/
20. Research Outreach https://researchoutreach.org/
21. NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
22. Oxford University Press https://academic.oup.com/
23. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies https://bmccomplementmedtherapies.biomedcentral.com
24. JAMA Network Open https://jamanetwork.com/
25. Nature Portfolio https://www.nature.com/
26. Physicians Committee https://www.pcrm.org/
27. American Cancer Society https://www.cancer.org/
28. FASEB Journal https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
29. Aging https://www.aging-us.com/
30. International Journal of Epidemiology https://academic.oup.com/ije/pages/About
31. Science Direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/


Not everything written on the Internet is true. Even in the scientific community, there is both good research and bad research. It takes professional knowledge to fully understand and interpret a research article—after all, they were written for the scientific community, and not for laymen, to read. Unfortunately, some people who do not have specialist knowledge or experience, and who cannot differentiate between bad research and good research, read scientific papers and reach wrong conclusions. Experiments must be repeatable and must reach consistent results. Good research is often recognized and acknowledged by large organizations or published in well-reputed journals. A single paper, or a few opinions even from professionals, is not good enough. Instead of basing health decisions on poorly substantiated articles, it is better to aim for an overall healthy lifestyle, backed by good research and well-established science.

网路上的一切并非全部都是真实的。即使在科学界，研究也有优劣之分。它需要专业知识来充分理解及诠释一篇研究论文──毕竟，这些文章是写给科学界看的，而不是写给非业内人士看的。不幸的是，有些人并不具备专业的知识或经验，无法区分研究报告的优劣，在阅读这些科学报告后却得出错误的结论。实验必须要有可重复性，并且必须达到一致的结果。优质的研究报告通常会得到大型机构的承认和认可，或发表于知名期刊上。哪怕是来自于专业人士的单篇论文、或部分观点，都是不够好的。与其依据没有足够论据支持的文章来做健康方面的决定，不如以优质研究及成熟科学理论为基础，以更健康的生活方式为目标。