These are the rules HealthMagHub holds itself to. They’re written plainly so you can hold us to them as well.
Who writes this site
Every article on HealthMagHub is written by Elhoucine Lazrak, the site’s founder and editor. There’s no anonymous team and no rotating cast of contributors. One person writes it, and that person’s name is on it.
He is not a medical professional. His background is in research, digital publishing, and explaining complicated things clearly. You can read more about that on the author page.
Nothing here is medically reviewed — and we won’t pretend otherwise
A lot of health sites display a “medically reviewed by” badge. On HealthMagHub, no article currently carries one, because no licensed clinician reviews this content before publication.
We’d rather tell you that than attach a name to a badge that doesn’t mean anything. If that changes — if we bring on a qualified reviewer for specific articles — the reviewer will be named, their credentials will be listed, and the badge will appear only on the articles they actually reviewed.
This is information, not medical advice
Nothing published here is a diagnosis, a treatment plan, or a substitute for talking to a healthcare professional who knows your history.
Supplements interact with prescriptions. Symptoms that look identical can have completely different causes. Dosages that are fine for most people are dangerous for some. We can tell you what the research generally shows. We can’t tell you what’s right for your body — only a professional with access to your medical history can do that.
If you’re pregnant, managing a chronic condition, taking prescription medication, or making a decision about a child’s health, please talk to a doctor or pharmacist before acting on anything you read here.
Where our information comes from
We start with primary and authoritative sources: the NIH and its Office of Dietary Supplements, the FDA, the CDC, PubMed-indexed research, and established medical institutions. Peer-reviewed studies are read directly rather than summarized from someone else’s summary.
Significant claims get cross-checked against more than one source. Where a claim is contested or the evidence is mixed, we say so instead of picking whichever version makes for a tidier article.
How we handle supplements
Manufacturer claims are not evidence. When we write about a supplement, we look at the research behind the active ingredient — what was studied, in whom, at what dose, and how well the study was designed.
Marketing copy and research findings often point in different directions. When they do, the research wins, and we tell you about the gap.
We also try to be clear about the strength of the evidence rather than hiding behind vague language. “Several large human trials support this” and “one small study in rats suggested this” are very different statements, and we won’t blur them together into “studies show.”
Corrections
Health information changes, and we get things wrong sometimes.
When an error is found — whether a reader points it out or newer evidence overturns something we published — we correct the article and note the date it was updated. Substantive corrections are described in the article rather than quietly edited out.
If you spot something inaccurate, contact us. We take it seriously.
How we update published articles
Publishing an article isn’t the end of the work on it. Medical guidance moves, trials get published that overturn what was accepted, and a figure that was accurate last year can quietly stop being true.
So articles here are living documents rather than finished ones.
Every article shows when it was last touched
Articles display the date they were last reviewed or revised. That date is there so you can judge for yourself how current the information is, rather than guessing from a publication date that might be a year old.
If an article hasn’t been updated recently, that’s visible too. We’d rather you see an old date and weigh it accordingly than see nothing at all.
What happens during a review
When we revisit an article, we go back to the sources rather than skimming our own text. That means checking whether the guideline we cited is still the current one, whether the trial we leaned on has been replicated or contradicted, and whether the numbers still match what the original source says today.
When newer evidence changes the answer, we change the article — even when that means removing something we previously told readers. Where the change is significant enough to matter to someone who read the earlier version, we say what changed rather than editing it away silently.
One example of what this looks like in practice: a claim repeated across the internet often traces back to a single study that never actually measured what everyone assumes it did. Finding that is the point of a review.
Retiring and merging articles
Not everything ages well. Some articles cover topics that stopped being useful, and some overlap so heavily with another piece that keeping both serves nobody.
When an article no longer earns its place, we remove it or fold it into a stronger one rather than leaving it up to gather traffic it doesn’t deserve. Internal links pointing at retired content get updated or redirected so you land somewhere current instead of hitting a dead end.
We’d rather have fewer articles we stand behind than more articles we don’t.