Editorial standards

These are the rules we hold ourselves to. They are published so you can hold us to them as well — which means they are written to be met, not to sound impressive.

Sourcing

Every source we rely on is named in the text, so you can see what a claim rests on without taking our word for it.

What kind of source is required depends on what the claim does:

• Claims carrying a number, a risk figure, or a treatment implication are sourced to primary research or to official health bodies. If we tell you a diet halves a risk, or that an intervention improves a marker, that traces to the study itself, not to someone else’s write-up of it.
• Background and general explanation may draw on reputable secondary sources — clinical reference sites, professional bodies, established health publications. We name them in the text rather than burying them in a list at the bottom.

We tell you what kind of evidence it is

This is the part of our method we consider non-negotiable, because it is the thing most health writing leaves out. The strength of a finding depends on how it was produced, and we say which it was:

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials carry the most weight, provided the underlying trials are sound.
• Randomised controlled trials in humans are strong evidence for the population and duration studied, and weaker evidence for anyone else.
• Observational and cohort studies can establish association and generate hypotheses. On their own they do not establish cause, and we say so when a finding rests on one.
• Expert guidance and clinical consensus reflects informed judgement, which is useful and is not the same thing as trial evidence.
• Mechanistic and animal research explains how something might work. It does not establish that it does work in people.

A finding demonstrated only in mice, in cell culture, or in a small pilot study will be described that way, however striking the result.

Contested science

Where the evidence genuinely conflicts, we present the conflict rather than picking the tidier answer. That means naming the strongest case on each side, identifying what the disagreement turns on, and stating what evidence would settle it.

We distinguish between three situations that get blurred together: questions where the science is settled and public conversation has not caught up; questions where researchers genuinely disagree; and questions where the research simply has not been done.

Certainty and verdicts

Each claim we examine carries a verdict, and the verdict reflects our confidence rather than our preference. “It’s more complicated than that” means the answer depends on conditions we then specify. It is not a way of avoiding a conclusion.

Advertising and editorial independence

This site carries advertising, including programmatic advertising and direct sponsorship. The following rules apply without exception.

• Advertisers have no influence over topic selection, evidence assessment, or verdicts.
• Sponsors do not review content before publication.
• Advertising is visually distinct from editorial content and is never presented as if it were our reporting.
• Where an advertiser sells a product related to a claim we assess, that assessment does not change.

Medical boundaries

We publish general educational information. We do not diagnose, do not prescribe, and do not give individual medical advice. Where a claim touches on medication, dosing, or the management of a diagnosed condition, we say plainly that the decision belongs with a reader’s own clinician.

Corrections and updates

Errors of fact are corrected promptly and the correction is noted on the page rather than made silently. Pages are revisited when significant new evidence appears, and a page that has been substantially revised carries the date of that revision.

If you believe something here is wrong, tell us. A specific objection with a citation attached is the most useful thing a reader can send us.