Editorial Policy & Content Standards
VitalLife publishes content that affects readers' health decisions, so we hold every article to standards that go beyond what a typical lifestyle blog requires. This page explains exactly how our content is created, reviewed, updated, and corrected.
1. Who writes for VitalLife
VitalLife is an independent health and wellness publication. Our articles are written and edited by our small editorial team using peer-reviewed research and public health guidance as source material. We are not clinicians and we do not claim professional credentials we cannot verify — our role is to translate published evidence into practical, everyday language. Nothing on this site is a substitute for advice from your own doctor, registered dietitian, or qualified trainer.
2. How we research
Our writers prioritise primary sources: peer-reviewed studies indexed in PubMed, position statements from professional bodies (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American College of Sports Medicine, WHO, NIH, NHS), and clinical practice guidelines. We treat secondary sources — news articles, popular books, blog posts — as leads, not as evidence. Where a claim is contested in the literature, we say so plainly rather than picking a side.
3. Fact-checking process
- Every factual claim is traced back to a citable source.
- Statistics are pulled from the original dataset, not summarised from a third party.
- Health claims that touch on diagnosis, treatment, or dosage are cross-checked against clinical guidelines and primary research before publication, and are flagged for extra scrutiny during review.
- Quotes are confirmed with the original speaker or the original publication.
4. Editorial independence
Our editorial team operates independently from advertising, sponsorship, and affiliate relationships. Advertisers cannot review, influence, or veto coverage. We do not accept payment in exchange for positive reviews. If an article contains an affiliate link or sponsored mention, it is disclosed clearly at the top of the page.
5. Original content
We publish original writing. We do not republish, spin, paraphrase, or AI-rewrite articles from other sites. Where we reference another publication, we link out and quote briefly under fair use. Plagiarism in any form is grounds for immediate removal of the article and termination of the writer's contract.
6. Use of AI tools
We use AI tools for limited support tasks: spelling and grammar checks, outline brainstorming, and image generation for decorative graphics. AI is never the sole author of a published article. A human writer with relevant expertise is responsible for the substance, accuracy, and final voice of every piece on the site.
7. Updates and revisions
Health and nutrition science moves. We review evergreen articles at least once every 18 months and immediately when a major guideline changes (for example, an updated WHO recommendation or a withdrawn study). The "Last updated" date at the top of each article reflects the most recent substantive review.
8. Corrections policy
If we get something wrong, we fix it transparently. Substantive corrections — anything that changes the meaning of a claim — are noted in a correction box at the top of the article along with the date of the correction and a brief description of what changed. Typos and formatting fixes are made silently.
To request a correction, email myradientaura@gmail.com with the article URL and the specific claim you want reviewed. We respond within 5 business days.
9. What we will not publish
- Diagnostic or treatment advice for specific medical conditions.
- Claims that any food, supplement, or workout cures, prevents, or treats disease.
- Extreme calorie restriction protocols, "detox" cleanses, or any content that promotes disordered eating.
- Before/after weight-loss imagery used to shame, scare, or sell.
- Affiliate-driven coverage of supplements with weak or no evidence base.
10. Contact our editors
Questions, feedback, or pitches: myradientaura@gmail.com. We read every email.