How We Evaluate Non-Surgical Health Claims
Why This Post Exists
Most confusion in non-surgical health starts with language, not intent. Terms like “regenerative,” “advanced,” and “natural” are often used without enough mechanism, indication, or uncertainty framing.
This post defines how we review claims before publishing content.
Our Editorial Standard
Before a concept appears on this site, we ask four questions:
- Mechanism: Is there a plausible biological mechanism described in plain language?
- Evidence tier: Is the claim based on preclinical work, early human data, or stronger clinical evidence?
- Boundary conditions: When is the approach not appropriate, incomplete, or uncertain?
- Alternatives: How does this compare with standard or surgical care pathways?
If those questions cannot be answered clearly, we do not publish the claim as practical guidance.
What We Avoid
We do not publish:
- guaranteed outcome language,
- cure claims,
- claims that bypass licensed medical care,
- certainty statements that ignore evidence limitations.
How to Use Our Articles
Use articles here as educational preparation, not treatment instructions.
Bring the framework to your clinician:
- Ask what is known.
- Ask what is still uncertain.
- Ask what success and failure look like.
- Ask what escalation path exists if conservative options fail.
Closing
Conservative, mechanism-first framing is not less innovative. It is how innovation remains credible.
This content is educational and does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations.