Our editorial process is designed to separate useful evidence from marketing claims, assumptions, and unsupported certainty. The standards below apply to new articles and substantive updates.
Accuracy and context
Writers should explain what a source actually establishes and why it matters to the reader. We avoid presenting association as causation, isolated studies as settled consensus, or informal market terminology as a reliable description of chemical composition.
Clear attribution
Statements that depend on external evidence should be supported by appropriate sources. Contested interpretations should be attributed rather than presented as uncontested fact.
Medical and safety content
Articles dealing with clinically significant effects, interactions, dependence, acute symptoms, treatment, or other medical questions should use authoritative clinical or public-health sources. When a qualified clinical reviewer has reviewed an article, their identity and review date are displayed. If that review has not yet taken place, the article should not imply otherwise.
Search intent does not determine the conclusion
We may publish pages addressing transactional or high-risk search terms because those searches reveal a real information need. Search demand can influence which questions we answer, but it should not alter the factual or safety conclusion of the article.
Updates
Material changes should be reflected in the page’s modified date. Dates should not be changed solely to make unchanged content appear recent.