Health content earns trust through process, and process only counts if it's real. This page describes ours — including the standard we hold ourselves to for the words "medically reviewed," which we treat as a certification, not a decoration.
How an article is made
Research staff draft with citations to primary sources — peer-reviewed trials via PubMed, FDA labeling and safety communications, regulator dockets, and manufacturer program pages for pricing. A second editor fact-checks every clinical figure against the cited source and every price against the dated ledger entry. Clinical articles then enter medical review. Publication includes a visible published date, a last-updated date, and a footer of sources the reader can verify independently.
The medical-review standard
An article displays a "Medically reviewed" attribution only when a specific, named, verifiably licensed clinician has actually reviewed that version of the article, and the attribution links to a reviewer profile listing their real name, credentials, license jurisdiction, and disclosed conflicts. We do not use stock reviewer personas, unverifiable credentials, or blanket badges applied site-wide. Articles that have not yet completed review say so plainly — you'll see "Medical review: pending" on several current Journal pieces — because an honest "pending" label protects readers better than a decorative badge, and because clinical review that exists only as a claim is worse than none.
Who writes here
The OGP research team consists of health-content researchers and pricing analysts employed by Sam LLC. Bylines are attributed to the team; individual author profiles with real names and backgrounds publish as the team grows. We do not attribute content to fictional experts, and any contributor's material conflicts are disclosed on the content they touch.
Corrections, updates, AI assistance, and reader recourse
Errors are corrected in place with a note and logged in the corrections log; substantive updates change the visible last-updated date. Drafting may use software assistance, including AI tools; every published claim is nonetheless human-verified against primary sources under the process above, and responsibility for accuracy is ours, not a tool's. Readers who find an error — clinical, pricing, or otherwise — can flag it through the corrections process on any page, and verified reports are acknowledged in the log.
Advertising and independence
Commercial relationships, including Sam LLC's material relationship with NexLife and affiliate links, are governed by the disclosure policy and the conflict-handling rules in our methodology. Sponsors and partners do not review, approve, or veto editorial content, and no editorial claim may be traded for commercial consideration.