SCIENCE | Spike Complex

Follow the science?

In recent years, this seemingly straightforward and logical directive has proven complex, arriving without a clear guide or manual. Both seasoned researchers and enquiring minds have discovered that navigating the landscape of scientific evidence requires more than good intentions; it demands a structured approach, critical thinking, and the humility to acknowledge that science is an evolving journey that must not be politicised.

In an era of misinformation, disinformation, echo chambers, conspiracy theories, and dubious fact checkers, 'science' at times has paradoxically divided instead of united people around objective truths. Discerning fact from fiction has become increasingly challenging; understanding how to evaluate scientific evidence is crucial for anyone invested in evidence-based wellness.

We invite feedback from critical thinkers on the three foundational elements outlined below, as we strive to continually learn and refine Trilogy's research process, evolving alongside science and best practices in our relentless quest to 'spike wellness, naturally:

The traditionally trusted hierarchy of scientific evidence
Pertinent questions for evaluating research in the post-COVID era
Trilogy's Unique Triangulation Methodology for Evidence Evaluation

Whenever feasible, we transparently assess the merits of conflicting studies on specific aspects or ingredients, providing clear reasoning for our preference for certain research findings and ingredients over others. Scientific studies cited on Trilogy and Spike websites are provided for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as a guarantee of efficacy. These citations have not been evaluated by healthcare authorities and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Scientific Evidence: The Primary Landscape

While While many professionals and informed consumers may already be familiar with these concepts, it remains valuable to consider the traditional hierarchy of study types outlined below, even as recent perspectives have questioned its validity. An extended exploration can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence.

Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT)

A cornerstone of experimental research, RCTs randomly assign participants into groups (e.g., treatment and control) to evaluate the efficacy of an intervention. The randomisation process helps eliminate bias, making RCTs a trusted method for determining causality. Why it matters: RCTs provide high-quality data on whether specific interventions deliver measurable, repeatable benefits.

Cohort Study

An observational study that follows groups of individuals over time—those exposed to a particular factor and those unexposed—to compare outcomes. These studies can be prospective (tracking forward in time) or retrospective (analysing past data). Why it matters: Cohort studies identify associations between factors and outcomes, offering valuable insights for long-term trends or risk factors.

Case-Control Study

This retrospective approach compares individuals with a condition (cases) to similar individuals without it (controls) to identify potential contributing factors. Why it matters: Case-control studies are especially useful for studying rare conditions or uncovering new risk factors when conducting large-scale trials isn’t feasible.

Cross-Sectional Study

A snapshot of a population at a single point in time, these studies explore prevalence, associations, or patterns between variables. Why it matters: Cross-sectional studies provide a quick overview of trends, though they cannot establish causation.

Case Series/Case Report

Detailed documentation of outcomes observed in one or a few patients, often in response to a novel treatment or rare condition. Why it matters: These studies generate hypotheses and serve as an early warning system for new discoveries or potential risks, though their findings require further validation.

Animal Trial

Preclinical experimental studies conducted on animal subjects to evaluate safety, efficacy, or biological mechanisms before advancing to human trials. Why it matters: Animal trials provide foundational insights but may not fully translate to human biology, necessitating caution in their interpretation.

In Vitro Trial

Laboratory studies conducted on isolated cells or biological molecules outside a living organism to investigate mechanisms or potential drug interactions. Why it matters: In vitro research allows controlled exploration of biological processes but lacks the complexity of whole-organism systems.

Expert Opinion/Editorials

Summaries or insights from authorities in the field based on their interpretation of existing evidence. While valuable for guiding understanding, these lack original data and are among the least robust forms of evidence. Why it matters: Expert opinions can provide direction but should not substitute for well-designed research.

Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

The gold standard of scientific evidence, these studies synthesize data from multiple research papers (typically Randomized Controlled Trials) to produce statistically rigorous conclusions. By integrating findings from diverse studies, they provide a comprehensive overview of what the evidence collectively supports. Why it matters: Systematic reviews minimize bias and help uncover patterns or trends that single studies may miss.

Pertinent Questions for Research Evaluation

Making informed decisions requires asking questions that go beyond surface-level trust in studies, authority, or well-known sources. Below is a basic list of key questions we found essential in our careful review of research findings in recent years.

Follow the money or the science?

Who funded the research, and could there be conflicts of interest?
Does the funding source, financial ties, or vested interests influence the research question, methodology, or interpretation of results? Are there signs of bias, such as selective reporting or suppression of inconvenient findings?

Is the study transparent, credible, and ethically sound?

Are the raw data, methods, and limitations openly available for verification? Was the study preregistered, and has it been replicated? Were ethical standards upheld, and are researchers transparent about conflicts, limitations, and potential influences?

Does the research contribute meaningfully and align with the broader scientific context?

Does it address important questions or focus on desirable or heavily funded topics? Are the conclusions proportional to the findings, avoiding exaggeration or spin, and do they provide insights that align with or challenge the broader body of evidence?

Trilogy's evidence-based triangulation

We strive to go beyond standard research methods by grounding our formulation process in real-world experience and evolving evidence. We value the direct, personal, face-to-face connections our partners have with their clients, offering unparalleled insights that cannot be replicated online.

Our approach combines rigorous analysis of studies with a continuous feedback loop, drawing on first-hand insights and the actual experience of practitioners and informed consumers.