Named responsibility
A real person owns the words, sources, review, and corrections.
Editorial Standards
Useful guidance with visible accountability
Trust does not come from sounding certain. It comes from showing who owns the work, what the evidence can support, where the limits are, and how a reader can challenge a mistake.
A six-step editorial workflow
Every guide follows the same accountable path before it is published or materially updated.
-
01
Define one useful question
Every guide starts with a specific reader question and a clear boundary between education, product information, and individualized medical advice.
-
02
Choose the strongest relevant sources
Government references, clinical guidance, systematic reviews, and human trials take priority over retailer claims and unsupported summaries.
-
03
Write to the evidence
The language must match what the source studied, including the magnesium form, population, outcome, and actual degree of certainty.
-
04
Challenge every material claim
Benefits, limitations, safety language, commercial context, and the risk of overstating an association are checked before publication.
-
05
Publish accountable ownership
The named author, editorial-review status, dates, sources, and correction path are visible to readers on the article itself.
-
06
Monitor and update
Material new evidence, changed guidance, reader corrections, and altered product facts trigger a fresh editorial review.
Four standards that apply to every guide
These are operating requirements, not decorative trust badges. If a page does not meet them, it should be corrected, consolidated, or removed.
Evidence with limits
Uncertainty, mixed findings, and gaps stay visible instead of being marketed away.
Commercial transparency
We plainly disclose that USA Medical sells magnesium glycinate.
Correctable work
Readers can challenge a claim, and material errors are reviewed promptly.
Every material health claim must survive review
We prioritize government health references, clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and human trials. We separate established physiological roles from preliminary or product-specific findings and state when evidence is mixed, small, indirect, or absent.
- The source supports the nearby claim, not merely the general topic
- The studied magnesium form and dose are not silently generalized
- Association is not presented as proof of cause and effect
- Benefits are balanced with uncertainty, limitations, and safety
- The wording stays within education rather than diagnosis or treatment
- Product links and commercial interests do not change the evidence standard
Published does not mean finished
Each article shows its publication date, most recent update, and editorial-review date. Material corrections are made promptly. Evidence-sensitive articles are rechecked when guidance changes or when new research could alter the conclusion.