Editorial policy
The editorial starting point is an identifiable document about an identifiable preparation. A broad ingredient name, familiar brand or package count is not enough to make two product records interchangeable.
Keep the document attached to its claim
Source entries show the full name, external address, checked date and a description of what was available. An access date records research activity; it is not a publication date, a guarantee that a page is unchanged or proof of a completed purchase. Several entries may point to the same address when their descriptions preserve different qualifications.
Product reviews distinguish manufacturer statements, visible label information and buying terms from independent clinical evidence. Guidance about a category does not verify a particular supplied product.
Carry disagreements through the explanation
A website’s ingredient or allergen wording may differ from linked artwork. The articles retain such differences rather than selecting whichever version looks simpler. The NOW capsule record’s sesame wording is one example of a question that remains attached to the exact page and image.
The US Metamucil capsule Supplement Facts record is kept separate from the DailyMed powder Drug Facts record. Neither a shared brand nor a database entry transfers a use, instruction or approval to another preparation.
Leave counts in their original context
A panel serving, bottle count and advertised purchase period describe different things. The publication does not convert these declarations into a personal schedule, a universal medicine interval or an instruction to open, crush or exchange forms. Purchase descriptions retain the commitment and any access limits needed to understand them.
Separate source review from clinical review
Review of citations and wording checks whether the explanation matches its documents. It does not establish personal suitability or clinical approval. Articles do not claim firsthand use, authenticated batches, tested results or a professional assessment of the reader.
A substantive revision should be checked against the affected primary record and its surrounding limitations. A revised source date should describe work actually performed. This policy does not promise continuous monitoring or a particular response time.