This policy governs what we publish, who decides, and what we do when we get it wrong. Our Methodology covers how a review is researched; this covers the rules around it.
Independence
Commercial relationships do not determine our conclusions.
That sentence appears on every affiliate site, so here is what stands behind ours:
- Editorial approval and commercial eligibility are tracked as separate states in our publishing system. Approving content for publication and confirming an offer is live are different actions, recorded separately.
- A product does not need an affiliate offer to be reviewed, recommended, or ranked first. Products with no commercial relationship are eligible for our best ratings.
- Merchants do not review content before publication, cannot approve or veto it, and don’t see it early.
- We do not accept payment for a favorable review, for placement in a ranking, or for inclusion in a comparison.
- Where we name a “top pick” in a comparison, it’s an editorial choice recorded independently of the ordering of products in the table, so that ranking position and commercial arrangement can’t quietly track each other.
If we ever accept sponsored content, it will be labeled as sponsored, on the page, unambiguously — and it will not be presented as a review.
No medical advice
We publish consumer information about supplements. We do not practice medicine.
Nothing on this site is medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and it is not a substitute for consulting a qualified healthcare professional. No one who writes for this site holds a clinical credential, and no licensed professional reviews our content. We state this plainly on About because you should weigh it.
Statements about dietary supplements on this site have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Dietary supplements are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
Talk to a doctor or pharmacist before starting a supplement, particularly if you take prescription medication, have a health condition, are pregnant or nursing, or are considering a supplement for a child.
Claims we won’t make
We don’t publish language that presents a supplement as a treatment. Specifically, we avoid claiming that a product cures, treats, prevents, or reverses any disease; guaranteeing outcomes or timelines; presenting individual testimonials as typical results; or using urgency and scarcity pressure to push a purchase.
This is enforced in two directions: as an editorial rule our writers follow, and as an automated scan that flags prohibited claim patterns in drafts before publication. The scan is a safety net, not the primary control — it catches phrasing that slipped through, and flagged content goes to a human, not straight to rejection.
Requirements before anything publishes
Our publishing system refuses to publish a review or comparison that’s missing its required parts. This isn’t a checklist someone is supposed to remember; incomplete content is blocked.
A review requires an identified product, a named author or publisher, its scoring criteria, its sources, its stated limitations, its evidence classification, and its affiliate disclosure.
A comparison requires at least two real products, comparable criteria applied consistently across them, its methodology, its sources, its limitations, and its disclosure.
If a required element is missing, the piece stays a draft. There is an override for genuine exceptions; using it requires a written reason and is logged.
AI assistance
We use AI tools to help draft and research some content. We’re telling you because you’re entitled to know.
What that does not mean is that AI writes health claims and we publish them. Our system blocks AI-assisted content from publishing without a recorded human editorial approval — the technical gate exists precisely so that “we meant to review it” can’t become “we forgot to.” A human is accountable for every published page, and content that originated with AI assistance is flagged as such in our records.
Where AI-assisted material makes a factual or health-related claim, that claim is checked against sources by a person before it goes live, the same as any other claim.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. When we do:
- Factual errors are corrected as soon as we can confirm the correction, and the page notes that it was corrected and when.
- Material changes — anything that would alter a reader’s decision, such as a changed conclusion, score, or safety-relevant detail — are noted visibly on the page rather than changed silently.
- Minor fixes (typos, formatting, broken links) are made without a note.
- Outdated pages that we can no longer stand behind are updated or withdrawn rather than left up.
Every review carries the date it was last fact-checked and the date its content was last updated. Both are visible, so you can judge for yourself whether a page is current.
To report an error, use the Contact page. Tell us the page and what’s wrong; if you can point to a source, that speeds things considerably.
Reader interests come first
When a reader’s interest and our commercial interest conflict, the reader wins. Concretely: we tell you when a cheaper equivalent exists, when a supplement is probably unnecessary for most people, and when the evidence doesn’t support the marketing — including for products we’d earn a commission on. If a category is mostly not worth buying, we’d rather say so and lose the sale.
This policy describes our current practices. When it changes materially, we update this page and note the date.