How this is written, reviewed, and funded.

How these articles are written

Sources are gathered and checked before anything is drafted. Drafts are then produced with AI assistance and edited by hand. No claim is published on the strength of a model's recall — a citation is attached to a claim only once someone has opened the source and confirmed two separate things: that it exists, and that it actually supports the specific claim being made. Those are not the same amount of work, and only the second one determines whether you can trust a sentence.

Each article states where it stands on that check, including when the answer is "partly" or "not yet". We would rather publish a countable claim that degrades honestly than a blanket assurance that quietly becomes false the first time an article slips through.

Articles making clinical or risk claims are flagged for professional review. Where that review has not happened, the article says so rather than staying quiet about it.

How articles are produced

Articles are researched from primary sources — peer-reviewed studies, government and institutional guidelines, and named textbooks. Secondary sources such as news write-ups are used to find research, never as the citation itself.

Claims that carry a number, a dose, or a risk get an inline citation linking to the original. If we cannot source a claim, it does not go in.

We do not publish bulk-generated content. Every article is written and edited by a person, because the whole point of this site is that someone actually read the papers.

Review status, stated plainly

Articles carry one of two labels, and we do not blur the line between them.

• Sources cited — researched and written from the primary sources listed at the foot of the article, but not reviewed by a credentialed professional.
• Professionally reviewed — additionally checked by a named reviewer with stated credentials, who verified the claims.

At present most articles are in the first category, and each one says so explicitly rather than leaving you to infer it. Citations establish that a claim is traceable. A reviewer catches a different class of problem — cherry-picked evidence, misread effect sizes, and omitted contraindications — which is why we do not treat the two as equivalent.

Articles making clinical or risk claims are flagged internally and are first in line for professional review as the site can fund it. A reviewer's name on an article means they verified the claims, not that they wrote it — and we will never attach a name that did not.

Updates and corrections

Every article shows when it was last updated. When evidence changes, we revise the article rather than quietly leaving it stale.

Errors get fixed promptly and noted rather than silently overwritten. Report one by opening a GitHub issue.

How the site makes money

Three ways, all disclosed:

• Display advertising on articles. Never more than two units per page, never above the fold, never beside a calculator's results.
• Affiliate links on some articles, for equipment we would recommend regardless. Disclosed inline, immediately before the links.
• Reader donations, which are voluntary and unlock nothing.

What we will never do

• Put a calculator behind a signup, email capture, or paywall. The maths is free forever.
• Accept payment to change a recommendation, a ranking, or a calculator's output.
• Run sponsored content that reads like editorial.
• Take percentage-based referral fees from healthcare providers.
• Sell, share, or store the numbers you enter into a tool.
• Recommend a supplement because it pays well.

Advertising independence

Advertisers have no input into editorial. They cannot review articles before publication, cannot request changes, and cannot buy placement inside content. Ad slots are filled programmatically and are visually distinct from editorial.

Not medical advice

Everything here is general information. It does not diagnose or treat anything, and it is not a substitute for care from a clinician who knows your history.