Contact the Editorial Desk

Editorial correspondence

The desk welcomes notes on the material itself. A citation summarised too loosely, a trial that has posted results since these pages were compiled, a regulatory status that has changed, a figure that does not match its source — all of that is genuinely useful, and corrections are made against the published record rather than argued about.

The most valuable message this desk receives is a specific one: which page, which sentence, which source, and what the source actually says. Vague disagreement is hard to act on; a pointed citation takes minutes to verify and fix.

Studies move. A meta-analysis is superseded, an extension study reports, a label is revised, a signal described as unconfirmed becomes confirmed or is retired. This site is a snapshot of a literature that keeps changing, and notes from readers who follow it closely are part of how a snapshot stays accurate.

What the desk cannot take on

So that no message waits on an answer that is not coming, a few requests sit outside what this desk does.

It cannot offer an opinion on an individual situation, review a personal medical history, or comment on whether a compound suits anyone. That assessment requires a licensed clinician with access to a full record, and no amount of correspondence substitutes for it.

It cannot supply dosing guidance of any kind, including confirming or correcting a dose found elsewhere.

It does not sell anything, does not source anything, does not recommend suppliers, and has no relationship with any pharmacy, clinic, prescriber or vendor. Requests of that sort go unanswered rather than redirected.

What is left — the accuracy of the record on these pages — is what the desk exists for, and it takes that part seriously.