Editorial Guidelines

People make supplement decisions based on what we write. They end up taking cordyceps or lion's mane we recommended, and living with those choices. That weight shapes how we approach everything on this site.

Who writes the content

Our contributors are people who actually use these supplements and understand the research. That means mycologists who study fungal compounds, nutritionists who grasp bioavailability and extraction methods, researchers who read clinical trials, and supplement users who've tracked effects for years. Nobody here writes about supplements they haven't personally tested.

How we verify claims

Health claims get checked against peer-reviewed research. When we say something about immune support or cognitive function or adaptogenic properties, we're drawing from published studies and conversations with researchers who specialize in medicinal mushrooms. We link to sources when it helps you verify what we're saying.

Technical claims get tested. If a manufacturer says their extract contains 30% beta-glucans, we send samples to independent labs to verify. If they claim fruiting body only, we check for grain starch markers that indicate mycelium. Specs on labels are hypotheses. Lab testing provides the answers.

What we publish

Product reviews based on 90-day testing protocols, roundups that rank supplements using lab data and standardized assessments, head-to-head comparisons when products compete for the same use case, and educational guides written by people who understand mushroom biochemistry and can explain extraction methods, active compounds, and what the research actually shows.

We don't publish content about products we haven't used. We don't rank supplements we haven't tested. If we're writing about it, someone on our team has taken it daily for at least 30 days and tracked results.

Keeping content current

Research evolves. New studies emerge. Manufacturers change formulations or get bought out by companies with different quality standards. We review our most-read articles quarterly and update them when information goes stale. If a product we recommended changes its extraction method or starts using mycelium instead of fruiting bodies, we say so.

Our testing process

1. Purchase retail samples - Same products you'd get from Amazon or brand websites
2. Verify certificates of analysis - Request COAs and compare to label claims
3. Independent lab testing - Send samples for beta-glucan and heavy metal screening
4. 90-day protocol minimum - Daily tracking with standardized assessments
5. Research verification - Every health claim backed by peer-reviewed studies

What we won't do

We won't publish sponsored content disguised as reviews. We won't accept payment to rank products higher. We won't suppress lab results that contradict manufacturer claims. We won't recommend mycelium products when fruiting body extracts consistently outperform them in testing.

If a supplement fails our quality checks or shows contamination, we publish those findings. Even when it costs affiliate commissions or burns a manufacturer relationship.

Corrections policy

When we make mistakes, we fix them promptly and transparently. We note corrections at the top of articles with dates. Major errors that affect recommendations get a full article review.

If you spot an error or have questions about our methodology, email us at editorial@mushroomhealthhub.com.

Conflicts of interest

We disclose all affiliate relationships, flag gifted products, and keep editorial decisions separate from business considerations. The people who test supplements don't know which products have affiliate programs or higher commission rates.

That firewall isn't incidental. Reviewers find out about affiliate arrangements after the article is published, not before.