Editorial Policy

Planet Wellness Report is the institutional signature. Felipe Lopes, Publisher & Editor, approves topics, scope, monetization, final review, publication, and corrections. This is editorial responsibility, not medical review. AI tools may assist the workflow; they do not assume accountability for the published work.

Before publication, the editorial check covers sources, claims, consistency between summary and body, internal links, affiliate relevance, metadata, and presentation. We do not claim an external specialist reviewed a page unless that work actually took place and is identified.

We look for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to map a question, then examine relevant randomized trials and their methods. Human observational studies can describe associations. Mechanistic and preclinical work can explain a hypothesis, but cannot establish a benefit in people. Manufacturer materials document composition and commercial claims; they are not independent proof of effectiveness.

This is a practical starting order, not a rigid ranking. A review that pools unlike preparations may answer less than a well-matched trial. Population, intervention, dose, duration, comparator, sample size, risk of bias, and the outcome measured determine applicability. Sources are linked so readers can inspect the basis of the analysis.

A prespecified primary outcome normally carries more weight than exploratory or subgroup findings. We distinguish improvement within a group from an advantage over the control group, and a changed biomarker from an outcome a person experiences. Preprints are identified as not peer reviewed; trial registrations without results are not treated as completed evidence.

Preparation and population matter: a historical formulation or a hospital nutrition intervention is not automatically evidence for a current supplement used by healthy adults. When findings disagree, we explain which differences limit the conclusion rather than count positive studies.

Reviews are documentary assessments unless a personal test is explicitly documented. We do not invent purchase, use, or testing experience, and we do not assign numerical scores or stars.

• Official label: check serving size, ingredient forms, declared quantities, blend totals, and allergens. Identify the panel or other confirmation used and state access limitations.
• Manufacturer claims: distinguish what the seller says from what independent research supports. Check versions when promotional copy and the current panel disagree.
• Ingredient evidence: compare the actual preparation, dose, population, and outcome with the studies. A complex weight or blend total is not an undisclosed ingredient's dose.
• Finished-product evidence: look for studies of the exact formula. Absence of a verified controlled trial limits confidence; it is not proof that the product fails.
• Purchase context: assess format, dose transparency, overlap, simpler alternatives, and price per stated unit when verifiable. Record the date and basis of changing prices or return terms; current checkout terms still need confirmation.
• Affiliate relationship: disclose commissions and judge the placement separately from the evidence. Convenience is not demonstrated clinical effectiveness.

For a concrete example, the Memory Formula review reads 250 mg of GPC supplying 50% alpha-GPC as 125 mg of alpha-GPC. The GABA article distinguishes an unpublished review registration from published results.

Monetization opportunity may inform topic selection, but publication does not require every article to display an affiliate product. A recommendation should appear only when it answers a plausible next-step question created by the article itself.

Relationships such as goals, topics, tags, and ingredients generate candidates. They do not replace editorial judgment. Before keeping a card, the editor asks:

1. Is it relevant to the article's exact intent?
2. Does it address the same or an adjacent reader problem?
3. Does the card contradict the article's conclusion?
4. Would it make sense without the affiliate relationship?
5. Can its relevance be explained in one honest sentence?

A weak connection means the candidate should be excluded for that page. Recommendation order is not a ranking of clinical effectiveness. Commission rates do not establish relevance or determine conclusions. Our Affiliate Disclosure explains how qualifying purchases can fund the publication.

Use the Contact page to send a URL, the statement in question, and a source or current label. Felipe checks the material, determines whether a correction or further investigation is needed, and updates verified factual errors. Significant changes to interpretation, safety, or composition receive a dated note on the affected page; a minor typographical correction need not imply a new evidence review.

Updates may also follow new research or a changed product label. Original publication dates remain intact. A modification date records an edit, not certification that every source was re-reviewed. There is no promised response deadline. This policy describes editorial handling; it does not imply a clinical assessment.

Content is educational and informational. It does not provide individualized diagnosis or treatment, present supplements as disease cures, or replace qualified healthcare. See the Medical Disclaimer.