Editorial and corrections policy

Who writes and who reviews

Every article names its author. Where an article has been checked by someone with relevant clinical or scientific training, it names that reviewer and the date of the review. If an article carries no reviewer, that is because none has reviewed it — the absence is information, not an oversight.

What counts as a source

Articles cite primary research and authoritative public-health sources: peer-reviewed papers with a DOI or PubMed identifier, and guidance from bodies such as the CDC, FDA, WHO and equivalent national agencies. Each reference is listed with a resolvable link so a reader can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

Education, not advice

Nothing here is medical advice. Articles explain how something works in general; they cannot account for an individual's circumstances, and they are not a substitute for a conversation with a clinician who knows your history.

Uncertainty

Where the evidence is mixed, provisional or contested, the article says so. Where a number is an estimate, its range is given. Risk is not sensationalised, and benefit is not oversold.

Corrections

If an article is wrong, it is corrected rather than quietly edited. A correction notice is added to the foot of the article recording what changed and when, and the correction stays there permanently. Substantive updates change the "updated" date shown in the byline; fixing a typo does not.

To report an error, use the contact form and say which article and which sentence. Corrections are made as quickly as the checking allows.

Review cadence

Articles about fast-moving topics are re-read on a schedule and the review date is shown. An article whose review is overdue is either updated or withdrawn.

Independence

Articles are not sponsored, and no payment influences what is written or how it is framed. Where the author has a relevant interest to declare, it is declared in the article.