When my patients started showing me "research" they'd found online, I was alarmed. Not because they were curious — curiosity is wonderful — but because the content they were reading was consistently misleading, sensationalised, or outright false.
Health content is lucrative. That creates perverse incentives: the more extreme the claim, the more clicks. Nuance doesn't convert. "This one supplement will transform your life" outperforms "the evidence is mixed and context-dependent" every single time.
What We Decided to Do Differently
Good.You exists to be the health publication we couldn't find. Every claim links to its source. Every article notes its limitations. We hire credentialled experts and give them editorial independence. We don't take money from supplement companies.
It's not complicated. It's just rare.
The Principles
- Primary literature over secondary. Studies over opinion pieces.
- Effect sizes over statistical significance. How much something works matters more than whether it "works" at p<0.05.
- Honest uncertainty. We say "the evidence is unclear" when it is.
- No conflicts of interest. No sponsored content that influences editorial decisions.
We're building the publication we wish had existed. We hope it helps.