Last updated: May 2026
1. Who We Are and What We Do
AliveAndKicking Health is an independent health journalism site. Our role is to read health and medical research, summarise what it actually shows, and link out to the original sources so readers can verify the claims themselves. Where the evidence is uncertain or contested, we say that. Where the science is settled, we say that too.
We are not a medical publication. None of our editors are practicing clinicians, and we do not provide diagnosis, treatment, or personalized medical advice. Articles on this site are journalism, not medicine — they are intended to inform conversations with qualified healthcare providers, not replace them.
2. Topic Selection
We choose article topics based on three criteria:
- Reader curiosity. Questions readers are actively asking — visible in search trends, news cycles, and conversations about emerging health topics.
- Meaningful evidence. A topic earns coverage when there is a body of peer-reviewed evidence substantial enough to write something useful, even if that "useful" sometimes means "the evidence is weaker than the marketing suggests."
- Where mainstream coverage is thin or overheated. We prefer to write about topics where the popular framing is either missing important nuance or running ahead of the research.
We do not select topics based on advertiser preferences, affiliate revenue potential, or sponsor relationships. We have no advertisers or sponsors with editorial influence over which topics we cover.
3. Source Hierarchy
Every article is built on cited sources. Our preferred source hierarchy, in descending order:
- Peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses published in established medical and scientific journals.
- Systematic reviews and consensus statements from professional medical societies (such as the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians).
- Official guidance documents from established public health bodies (World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Food and Drug Administration, UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Medicines Agency, and equivalents).
- Reputable scientific journalism from established outlets with their own editorial standards (Nature News, Science News, STAT, MIT Technology Review, the science desks of major newspapers).
We avoid the following as primary sources: wellness blogs, supplement-industry websites, content farms, self-published health books, anecdotal reports, social media posts, and press releases not backed by published research. Where we reference any of these, we do so explicitly and as the subject of the article, not as evidence supporting a claim.
4. How an Article Gets Published
- Research before drafting. Before any article is written, we collect the primary sources we will rely on. Articles are written from current literature, not memory — we do not write from general impressions and add citations afterward.
- Drafting against sources. Articles are drafted with the source material open. Inline citations (the
[1], [2] markers you see throughout each article) are placed after the specific claim each source supports, not at the end of a paragraph as a catch-all.
- Numbers over generalities. Where studies report effect sizes, study populations, confidence intervals, or relative-risk figures, we report them. "A 14 percent increase in all-cause mortality" is more useful than "a meaningful increase."
- Honest hedging. Where evidence is mixed, we say so. Where mechanisms are plausible but unproven, we label them as such. Where consensus shifts over time, we report the current state and note the uncertainty.
- Review against cited sources. Before publication, each article is reviewed against its cited sources to confirm that every quantitative claim and every attributed finding is actually supported by the source.
- Publication. Articles are published with a visible date and a Further Reading section listing every source. Sources are clickable links readers can use to verify claims directly.
5. Use of AI Tools
We use AI assistance for parts of the editorial process — including initial research synthesis, draft generation, and copy editing. Every article is reviewed by a human editor before publication, with particular attention to:
- Source verification. Every cited study, statistic, and attributed finding is checked against the actual source. AI tools can fabricate citations; we treat any unverified attribution as broken until confirmed.
- Factual accuracy. Quantitative claims, study designs, and clinical specifics are verified before publication.
- Editorial judgment. Topic framing, what to include and omit, how to characterize uncertainty, and tone are human decisions, not AI outputs.
We are transparent about this because we think the alternative — using AI tools but pretending otherwise — is the more concerning practice. AI assistance does not change the standard articles must meet before publication; it just changes some of the workflow used to get there.
6. Corrections Policy
We treat factual errors seriously. If we publish something inaccurate, we want to know — and we publish corrections promptly.
To request a correction, send an email to contact@aliveandkickinghealth.com or use the Contact form. Include:
- The article title and URL.
- The specific passage you believe is incorrect.
- Where possible, your source for the correct information (a link to a study, guidelines document, or other primary source is most helpful).
Timing. Material errors — factual mistakes, misstated statistics, miscited sources, broken attributions — are reviewed within 2 business days and corrected within 5 business days of confirmation. Minor errors (typos, formatting, broken links) are corrected silently as we find them.
How corrections are shown. For material corrections, we append a dated note at the bottom of the affected article describing what was changed and when. The original error is not silently overwritten — readers should be able to see that an article was updated and why.
If the entire article is wrong. In rare cases where the central premise of an article turns out to be unsupportable, we either issue a substantial revision (with a clear note explaining what changed) or retract the article entirely. Retracted articles are replaced with a page explaining the retraction; the URL is not silently repurposed.
7. Editorial Independence
We do not accept payment in exchange for editorial coverage. We do not write sponsored articles, sponsored sections, or "native advertising" disguised as editorial content. We do not allow advertisers, affiliates, or commercial partners to review, shape, or veto editorial content before publication.
Where the site displays advertisements (currently through Google AdSense, when enabled), those advertisements are served by Google's network based on its own targeting and are clearly distinguished from editorial content. We have no editorial relationship with the products or services advertised on the site. We do not endorse advertised products, and the appearance of an ad on a page does not mean the product is recommended in the accompanying article.
If we ever publish content with a commercial relationship behind it — for example, a sponsored partnership or paid placement — that relationship will be clearly disclosed at the top of the affected article. As of the date of this policy, no such relationships exist.
8. Conflicts of Interest
Our editorial team does not hold financial positions in companies whose products are evaluated in our articles. Where an editor has a personal connection to a topic that could reasonably be seen as a conflict, they do not write about that topic, or the conflict is disclosed at the top of the article.
We do not accept free products, paid trips, or other benefits from companies in exchange for coverage. Where we evaluate commercial products (supplements, devices, diets, services), the evaluation is based on the published evidence, not on access provided by the manufacturer.
9. Use of External Links and Citations
Our articles link to external sources to allow readers to verify our claims directly. Linking to a source does not constitute a general endorsement of that source's other content, commercial offerings, or unrelated views. We endorse only the specific information cited, in the context cited.
We have no control over external websites and cannot guarantee that linked content remains accurate, available, or unchanged after we publish. If a link breaks, please let us know via the Contact page.
10. Reader Feedback and Contact
We welcome reader feedback, particularly on factual accuracy, source quality, and topics readers think we should cover. Editorial inquiries, corrections, and topic suggestions can be sent to contact@aliveandkickinghealth.com or submitted through the Contact page. We aim to respond within 5 business days.
11. Changes to This Policy
We may update this editorial policy from time to time as our processes evolve. The "Last updated" date at the top of this page indicates when the most recent revision was made. Significant changes to editorial standards, source policy, or corrections handling will be noted in a brief changelog at the bottom of this page when they occur.
