02

Source hierarchy

We prefer peer-reviewed human research, systematic reviews, official government text, and established institutions such as NIH, FDA, Johns Hopkins, NYU, and state regulators. Preclinical studies can explain why a question is interesting, but not prove a human benefit.

03

Review process

  1. 01Define the exact reader question and risk.
  2. 02Collect primary and authoritative sources.
  3. 03Draft the direct answer and label evidence strength.
  4. 04Fact-check names, amounts, links, dates, interactions, and caveats.
  5. 05Publish an author and last-updated date, then monitor for changes.

04

Updates and corrections

Safety and buying guides are reviewed when material evidence, product documentation, or regulatory guidance changes. Legal pages are scheduled for at least quarterly review. Substantive corrections are made in the article and reflected in its update date.

Send correction requests to editor@mushrooms.how with the page, claim, and strongest supporting source.

05

Claims language

We do not say a supplement cures, treats, prevents, detoxes, or guarantees an outcome. “Early research suggests” means exactly that. Community-reported psychedelic effects stay labeled as anecdotal rather than strain-specific pharmacology.