Editorial Standards

These are the rules every topic is written under — and the list we check against before any page goes live. If you spot a breach, tell us; the corrections policy is at the bottom.

The Language Rules

• 🧐 Cautious register — "associated with," "may," "appears promising," "early evidence," "human evidence remains limited." Certainty is earned, not assumed.
• 🚫 Banned hype words — these never appear: hack, miracle, reverse aging, guaranteed, gold standard, non-negotiable, single best, secret, cure. If a word promises what no evidence can deliver, it doesn't ship.
• 🧱 Tiers, always — human RCTs outrank cohorts outrank mechanisms, and the tier travels with the claim.
• 🎯 Numbers with context — every statistic carries a source on its page; absolute risk is preferred over relative framing alone.

The Source Rules

1. Primary over secondary — the underlying study, not a headline about it.
2. Recency over tradition — newer high-quality evidence replaces older claims.
3. Conflicts on the table — industry funding and conflicts of interest get mentioned where relevant.
4. No invented precision — no fabricated citations, statistics, or effect sizes. Ever.

The Balance Rules

• Risks ride with benefits — every intervention page carries potential harms, contraindications, and "who should be cautious."
• Conflicting evidence is reported — studies that disagree are summarized, not buried.
• Uncertainty is content — "what we don't know" gets its own section, not a footnote.

Corrections Policy

The site has no corporate parent and no content calendar pressure — corrections are welcome and fast. If you find a wrong number, a stale claim, or a source that doesn't say what we say it says, tell us. We'll verify against primary sources, fix the topic, and update its review date. Substantive corrections are never silent.