About MonolaurinResearch

Trial identity, clinical outcomes and research limits

Corrected the lysine comparison's negative-trial citation to DiGiovanna and Blank (1984), and the docosanol comparison's animal-study attribution to McKeough and Spruance (2001). Removed implied treatment superiority based on mechanism and an overly categorical docosanol timing cutoff.

Added direct human-study references, distinguished bacterial-vaginosis clinical cure from microbial counts, corrected silage-study attribution, and acknowledged the 2015 macaque follow-up. Qualified resistance and safety extrapolations and revised the viral and safety FAQ answers. These are targeted editorial corrections, not a complete claim audit or qualified clinical review.

Safety framing and limits of membrane models

Removed the homepage inference that occurrence in human milk establishes safety at every dose or route. Qualified the mechanism article's below-CMC wording to the experimental membrane model and removed an unsupported extrapolation to supplement blood concentrations. Removed broad cold-sore safety reassurance and application guidance, retained the mouse formulation safety finding, and revised the corresponding FAQ answers. Added organizational editorial accountability and distinguished source checking from clinical review.

Comprehensive citation and framing audit

After systematic review of all research briefs and cluster articles against their primary sources, we updated:

Citation accuracy — Several briefs and cluster articles contained incorrect first-author attributions from our earlier automated synthesis process. Corrected attributions included: Moon et al. (not Jackman) for the 2024 Biomimetics vesicle study; Jin et al. (not Kim) for the 2021 E. coli persistence paper; and Simon et al. (not Graber) for the 2021 surfactant review. Similar corrections applied to secondary citations in several briefs.

Structured data — Two cluster articles had schema.org metadata pointing to unrelated papers. These have been corrected to point to the actual cited works.

Claim sourcing — The "200-fold more effective than lauric acid" figure (Schlievert & Peterson 2012, PLOS ONE) and the "approximately 3 mg/mL monolaurin in human breast milk" figure (Schlievert et al. 2019, Scientific Reports) were attributed to papers that didn't contain those specific findings. Both now cite the correct primary sources.

Editorial framing — Five research briefs had hook sentences and significance paragraphs tightened to better anchor claims in laboratory or specific experimental context, particularly on higher-stakes topics. A specific example: the Welch 2020 brief's opening was revised from "permanently disables HIV-1" to "In laboratory testing, a food-grade compound inactivates HIV-1 virions before they can enter cells" — same finding, more defensible framing for a research-site readership.

No substantive findings were changed. The underlying science the site reports remains identical. These corrections addressed editorial and sourcing hygiene in how claims were attributed and framed.

Pillar article regeneration

The main "What Is Monolaurin?" review was regenerated to remove five claims that couldn't be verified against primary sources: a specific HIV infection-averted projection, a cost-per-dose figure, a head-to-head SDS surfactant comparator, references to mathematical models not in the cited papers, and a percentage efficacy projection based on those models.

The substantive research findings — SIV macaque protection, membrane disruption mechanism, synergy ratios in lipid mixtures — remained in the article because those are in the primary literature. The removed content was editorial framing that extended beyond what the cited papers supported.

Accompanying surgical edits were made to "How Monolaurin Works" and "Monolaurin Safety and Dosage" to remove related unverified framings.