FAQ

 

Are you providing advice?

No. I’m documenting my own quest for health and wellness knowledge and choosing to share what I learn. I do not advise you to take any specific course of action regarding your own health.

Are you a scientist/doctor/health professional?

No. I was trained as a journalist, and I am using those skills to distill and summarize large amounts of complex information into clear, concise explanations that all readers can understand.

Why are you using a pen name?

This site’s focus is entirely separate from and unrelated to my other work, so I want it to have its own separate “brand.” Additionally, I believe the best approach is to put the focus on the material, not on me or anyone who may contribute to this site.

How will I know when you edit a study summary post?

This site follows a hybrid Wikipedia-traditional model. When a study summary post first goes up, it likely will contain many but not all of the studies that ultimately will be linked to the post. As additional studies are added, the summary text also may change to reflect that evidence. To indicate this build-out status, the entire post will be in italics. During this time, edits and source additions will not be noted — a pure Wikipedia-style approach. After the initial post is finalized, the post will be set to normal style. At this time, source additions still will be made using a Wikipedia-style approach (for example, as new studies are published or come to my attention), but any substantial corrections of existing information will be documented as a footnote.

You’re wrong about X.

Please send proposed corrections via the Contact form, and include source material to verify your statement. I will post the material as a counterpoint to the information already on the site and, if warranted, will make a note of correction on the post in question.

You missed a key study or piece of information.

If you think I am missing any information, you can let me know by email or in the comments.

The methodology for weighting studies could be better.

I welcome suggestions for tweaking the rating methodology for studies. That said, bear in mind that significant time and effort went into creating and testing the methodology, so please provide specific rationale for why your suggestion would improve on the current published approach.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>