How I research and write
Women's health is full of confident claims and thin evidence. You have every right to ask where a statement came from before you believe it. This page explains exactly how everything on this site is researched, sourced, reviewed, and corrected, so you can judge the work rather than take my word for it.
Where the evidence comes from
I start with the primary literature, not with other people's blog posts. In practice that means peer-reviewed research indexed in PubMed and similar databases, systematic reviews and meta-analyses where they exist, and position stands from professional bodies that have already done the work of weighing a whole field.
Not all evidence is equal, and I try to say so plainly rather than flattening everything into "studies show." A large randomized controlled trial in women carries more weight than a small one in men. A mechanism observed in cells is a hypothesis, not a result. Where the research is genuinely unsettled, the honest answer is that it is unsettled, and I would rather write that than manufacture certainty.
I pay particular attention to whether a study actually included women, and women of the relevant age. An enormous amount of health advice aimed at women in midlife rests on research conducted almost entirely in young men. When that is the case, I say so.
How sources are cited
Claims that rest on research carry a numbered marker like [1] in the text. Every marker links to a full source list at the foot of the article, and every source in that list links out to the original paper, usually by DOI or PubMed record.
This is deliberate. You should be able to click through and read the study yourself, and if my summary does not match what the paper says, you should be able to catch me at it. A citation that cannot be checked is decoration.
What "reviewed" means
Articles carry a publication date and, where they have been revisited, a "last reviewed" date. Reviewing means I have gone back through the piece, checked that the sources still say what I said they said, and looked for newer research that changes the picture.
Health research moves. A page that was accurate in 2024 may be out of date by 2027, and a site that never revisits its own back catalogue is quietly accumulating errors. Where something has changed, I update the article and move the review date rather than leaving the old version standing.
How AI fits in
I use AI tools the way a researcher uses a fast, tireless assistant: to search the literature, gather candidate sources, organize drafts, and challenge my own blind spots. It is genuinely useful for that, and I would rather tell you than let you assume otherwise.
What AI does not do is decide what is true, or what goes out under my name. Every article is read line by line, corrected where it is wrong, and approved by me before it publishes. Where a source is cited, I have checked that the source exists and says what the article claims it says. The judgment, the point of view, and the responsibility are mine.
What I will never do here
- Diagnose, treat, prescribe, or manage disease. I am a Doctor of Natural Medicine, not a conventional medical doctor. My role is to educate and support. The full detail is on the scope of practice page.
- Promise a cure, a reversal, or a guaranteed result. Nobody honest can, and the people who do are usually selling something.
- Use fear to sell. Frightening women about their own bodies is an effective marketing tactic and a corrosive one. I am not interested in it.
- Let a product decide a conclusion. Where I recommend a lab or a supplement I may earn a commission, and I will tell you so on that page. No claim on this site is written to justify a sale.
- Present anything here as a substitute for your own care. Everything published on this site is education. It is not personal medical advice and cannot account for your history, your medications, or your circumstances.
Corrections
I will get things wrong. When that happens I would far rather know.
If you find an error, a misread study, a broken source link, or a claim that has been overtaken by newer evidence, write to hi@doctorarchers.com and point me at it. Substantive corrections are made in the article itself and the review date is updated, so the record shows the piece has been revisited rather than quietly patched.
Get the Companion Workbook, free.
Join the reader list and I will send you the Companion Workbook and Quick-Start Checklist. Simple tools to turn what you are reading into daily practice, before you spend a penny on anything.