Our editorial standards

1. Research and sources

We prioritise reliable primary and institutional sources, including public health agencies, universities, recognised medical organisations and peer-reviewed research. We link to sources where readers can check important claims for themselves.

2. Accuracy and context

We aim to represent the strength and limits of available evidence. Research about an ingredient is not proof that a branded product works. A general lifestyle suggestion is not a treatment recommendation. We avoid presenting preliminary findings as settled conclusions.

3. Writing and technology

Digital tools, including AI-assisted drafting, may help with research organisation, outlines or editing. They do not replace source checking, editorial judgement or responsibility for the final content. We do not publish unreviewed bulk-generated articles.

4. Product reviews and affiliate content

Commercial content should be clearly identified. Product features, pricing, availability and seller claims should be checked against current seller information where possible. We do not treat commission rates as evidence of product quality.

5. Updates and corrections

We review content when important guidance changes, a source becomes outdated or a reader flags a factual issue. Material corrections should be reflected in the relevant article. Before public launch, a working editorial contact process will be added.

6. Health limitations

Our articles provide general educational information, not individual medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Readers with persistent or concerning symptoms should speak with a qualified healthcare professional.