Our editorial approach
We collect, summarize, and contextualize publicly available information so readers can weigh potential benefits against known risks. Our summaries draw on primary literature, registries, and official guidance rather than promotional narratives.
We describe how evidence is gathered and assessed, and we explain uncertainty plainly. For example, when we reference clinical registries or neuroregeneration studies, we look for corroborating sources such as registry data or peer-reviewed synthesis.
How we source material
- We prioritize peer-reviewed studies, clinical registries, and official health guidance.
- Secondary syntheses and systematic reviews are used to frame uncertainty and effect sizes.
- External authoritative sources (government guidance and recognized institutional pages) support safety and regulatory context.
As an example of engagement with registries and practitioner reporting, our prose sometimes links to clinic or research registries such as the ibogaine-focused registry hosted by the neuroregeneration group at ibogaineneuroregeneration.com to illustrate how datasets are used in practice.
