WHYZ publishes health and supplement content with one goal: to help people make informed decisions about the products they put in their bodies. This editorial policy explains how we create, review, and maintain our content, how we handle potential conflicts of interest, and what standards we hold ourselves to.
Our Editorial Standards
Every piece of content published on WHYZ must meet the following baseline requirements before it goes live:
- Factual accuracy. All claims must be supported by credible evidence. We do not publish unverified health claims, anecdotal testimonials presented as evidence, or speculative statements without clearly labeling them as such.
- Clarity. We write for a general audience. Technical and scientific terms are explained in plain language. If a concept requires specialized knowledge, we provide the context necessary for a non-expert reader to understand it.
- Completeness. We present the full picture, including limitations, conflicting evidence, and areas of scientific uncertainty. We do not cherry-pick studies to support a predetermined conclusion.
- Transparency. We disclose our sources, our review processes, and our potential conflicts of interest. Readers should never have to guess where our information comes from or what motivations might influence our content.
Evidence-Based Approach
Our content is grounded in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. We draw primarily from the following source types:
- PubMed and PubMed Central: the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database of biomedical literature, which indexes over 36 million citations from peer-reviewed journals.
- Cochrane Reviews: systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize the best available evidence on specific health interventions.
- Government health agencies: including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
- Peer-reviewed clinical journals: such as The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and Nutrients.
- Pharmacopeial standards: including the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and the European Pharmacopoeia for ingredient quality and testing standards.
We avoid using press releases, manufacturer-funded white papers, or popular media articles as primary sources. When we reference a news article or press release, we trace the claim back to its original study or data source and cite that instead.
How We Grade Evidence
Not all evidence is equal. A single small study does not carry the same weight as a large, well-designed randomized controlled trial or a systematic review. To help our readers understand the strength of the evidence behind a given claim, we use a four-tier grading system:
Grade A: Strong Evidence
Multiple large, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews with consistent results. The evidence is strong, reproducible, and widely accepted within the scientific community. Example: Vitamin D supplementation prevents deficiency in populations with inadequate sun exposure.
Grade B: Moderate Evidence
At least one well-designed RCT or multiple well-designed observational studies with consistent results. The evidence is promising but may have limitations such as small sample sizes, short study durations, or methodological concerns. Example: Magnesium supplementation may improve sleep quality in individuals with low magnesium status.
Grade C: Limited Evidence
Preliminary evidence from small trials, observational studies, animal studies, or in vitro research. The findings are interesting but not yet confirmed in rigorous human studies. Example: Ashwagandha may reduce cortisol levels, but large-scale human trials are limited.
Grade D: Insufficient or Conflicting Evidence
The available evidence is too limited, too preliminary, or too contradictory to draw meaningful conclusions. Example: The effects of a newly studied botanical extract on cognitive performance remain unclear due to a lack of human clinical data.
When we assign an evidence grade to a claim in our content, we explain the basis for that grade so readers can evaluate it for themselves. We also update grades as new research becomes available.
How Content Is Reviewed
Our content undergoes a structured review process before publication and at regular intervals thereafter.
Pre-Publication Review
- Research and drafting. A member of the editorial team researches the topic using the sources described above and writes the initial draft.
- Fact-checking. A second team member independently verifies all factual claims, statistics, and source citations against the original references. Any claim that cannot be verified is removed or revised.
- Editorial review. A senior editor reviews the piece for clarity, completeness, tone, and adherence to our editorial standards.
- Subject matter consultation. For topics that involve clinical or pharmacological nuance, we consult with qualified professionals, including registered dietitians, pharmacists, or physicians, to ensure accuracy.
Post-Publication Review
Published content is not static. We conduct scheduled reviews to ensure our information remains current and accurate.
Update Frequency
Every piece of content on WHYZ carries a “Last Reviewed” date that indicates when it was most recently evaluated for accuracy. Our review schedule operates on the following cycle:
- Ingredient profiles and health guides: reviewed at least every 12 months, or sooner if significant new research is published.
- Quality and testing content: reviewed at least every 12 months, or when regulatory standards change.
- Comparison guides: reviewed at least every 12 months, or when new products or formulations are introduced.
- Breaking research: if a major study or regulatory action changes the evidence base for a topic we have covered, we update the relevant content within 30 days.
If we determine during a review that a piece of content is no longer accurate, we update it immediately and note the revision. If a piece of content is no longer relevant, we retire it from the site rather than leave outdated information accessible.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
We believe in full transparency about our business model and its potential influence on our content.
WHYZ sells dietary supplements. This is our primary source of revenue. We acknowledge that this creates a potential conflict of interest: we have a financial incentive to present supplements in a favorable light.
Here is how we manage that conflict:
- Editorial independence. Our editorial team operates independently from our commercial and merchandising teams. Product listings, promotions, and sales targets do not influence editorial content decisions.
- Honest representation. If the evidence does not support a supplement’s claimed benefits, we say so, even if we sell that supplement. We would rather lose a sale than publish misleading information.
- Disclosure of affiliate relationships. If any content includes affiliate links or earns referral revenue, we disclose that relationship clearly within the content.
- No pay-for-coverage arrangements. Brands and manufacturers cannot pay for favorable editorial coverage. Product reviews and ingredient profiles are based on evidence and testing data, not on commercial relationships.
We recognize that our disclosure alone does not eliminate bias. We encourage readers to cross-reference our content with independent sources and to evaluate our claims critically. Our goal is to earn trust through consistent accuracy, not to ask for it on faith.
Medical Disclaimer
WHYZ content is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The information on our site does not constitute a doctor-patient relationship, and it should not be used to self-diagnose or self-treat any health condition.
Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider before starting, stopping, or changing any supplement regimen, especially if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, taking prescription medications, or managing a chronic health condition.
We present scientific evidence and product information to help you have informed conversations with your healthcare provider. We do not prescribe, recommend specific dosages for individual conditions, or suggest that supplements can replace conventional medical treatment.
How to Report Errors
We take factual accuracy seriously, and we welcome corrections from our readers. If you believe any content on WHYZ contains an error (a factual inaccuracy, an outdated statistic, a broken source link, or a misrepresentation of a study’s findings), please contact us at editorial@whyz.com with the following information:
- The URL or title of the content in question.
- A description of the error.
- A link to a credible source that supports the correction, if available.
We review all error reports within five business days. If the report is valid, we update the content, note the correction, and credit the reader who reported it (with their permission).
Our Editorial Team
WHYZ content is produced by a team with backgrounds in nutrition science, health journalism, and regulatory affairs. Our team members hold relevant degrees and certifications, including registered dietitian credentials, advanced degrees in nutritional biochemistry, and professional experience in dietary supplement quality assurance.
We also maintain a network of external advisors, including practicing clinicians, academic researchers, and regulatory consultants, who provide subject matter expertise on topics that fall outside our team’s core competencies. These advisors review content on a consulting basis and are compensated for their time but do not have editorial authority over what we publish.
Our commitment is simple: provide the most accurate, transparent, and useful supplement information available, and keep improving it as the science evolves. We hold ourselves accountable to this standard, and we invite our readers to hold us accountable as well.