Every fact on this site, with its evidence grade, its caveats, and a link to the source.
We start you on the strong ones: findings that have been replicated or come from one large, well-controlled study. Moderate and weak facts are here too, labeled for what they are. Use “Link to this fact” to share a single card.
The industry / Other evidence
This review of BAK's harms to the trabecular meshwork was partly funded by Merck, Inc., and its senior author, Paul Kaufman, discloses paid consultant, honoraria, and financial-support relationships with Alcon and Allergan, both manufacturers of BAK-free alternative eye-drop preservatives (SofZia and Purite respectively) that the review discusses favorably.
Weak evidence.
Caveats
This is a conflict-of-interest disclosure, not an evidentiary finding. The funding pattern runs opposite to a typical 'industry defends its own product' case: the paper argues against a preservative (BAK) while its senior author has financial ties to companies selling competing, BAK-free alternatives.
Source: Rasmussen et al. 2014, Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics Industry-funded Link to this fact
Information, not medical advice. See also: myths we won’t tell you.