How an article is made
- Scope. We define the question a page answers and confirm it is one general education can legitimately address.
- Source review. We read the relevant official labeling on DailyMed and the applicable government consumer references before drafting.
- Source keys. Every claim is traced to a source in our controlled registry. Nothing may be cited that is not in the registry.
- Drafting. Original writing in plain language. We do not paraphrase copyrighted articles or reuse text from other sites.
- Boundary check. A dedicated pass to remove anything approaching a dose, a diagnosis, an instruction to start or stop a medicine, or an unsupported statistic.
- Verification. Each factual statement is checked against its cited source, and each cited URL is opened to confirm it resolves.
- Publication with status. The page is published with its review status displayed.
What we will never publish
- Doses. No specific amounts, no typical ranges, no conversions between salt forms, no "most people take" figures.
- Diagnoses. No symptom checkers that produce a condition, no statements about what a reader has.
- Instructions to start or stop a medicine.
- Fabricated statistics. If a reliable figure is not in our sources, we describe the uncertainty instead.
- Invented studies, experts or quotes. Under any circumstances.
- Patient stories or testimonials. Invented ones are dishonest; real ones are not evidence and can mislead readers into pattern-matching their own situation.
- Rankings of medicines. Comparison pages explain structural differences and stop there.
- Scraped or paraphrased copyrighted content.
- Misuse information. No content about recreational use, amounts, or methods.
- Claims a source does not support, including stretching a general source to cover a specific drug claim.
How we handle uncertainty
Most health content treats uncertainty as a presentation problem to be smoothed over. We treat it as information.
Where reliable frequency data does not exist — which is common for medicines approved decades ago under different reporting conventions — we say that plainly rather than repeating a number of unknown provenance.
Where the honest answer depends on individual factors, we say that and name who can answer. "Ask your pharmacist" is not a failure of the page; on some questions it is the only correct answer, and dressing it up as a general rule would be worse than useless.
Where jurisdictions differ, as with the European and United States positions on some regulatory questions, we describe the difference rather than presenting one as universal.
Language standards
- Plain language first, with technical terms explained on first use and linked to the glossary.
- Attribution in the sentence. Phrases such as "according to official patient labeling" so the reader knows where a claim comes from as they read it.
- No false reassurance and no alarm. Both distort decisions.
- No stigmatising language about mental health, substance use, or weight.
- Person-first framing where appropriate.
- Emergency information stated directly, without hedging that could cause delay.
Keeping content current
Drug labeling changes. Regulatory positions change. Links move.
Every source in our registry carries a last-checked date. Pages carry their own dates, and we distinguish between a substantive content update and a routine link check rather than refreshing a date to look current — a common and misleading practice in health publishing.
Where a page has not been reviewed recently, we would rather show an older date honestly than imply a currency we have not verified.
How updates are prioritized
Core guides and safety pages are prioritized for freshness checks. Label-driven changes can trigger immediate re-review queues. Community questions may inspire new articles, but forums are never cited as medical evidence. Advertising partners do not edit clinical conclusions. Corrections that change meaning are logged publicly without exposing reporter identity.