Articles, explainers and comment

We publish in five loose categories. Explainers set out what Chinese medicine holds and how it reasons, in plain English and without assuming prior knowledge. Safety articles cover the things that can go wrong — herb and drug interactions, needling incidents, contraindications — because a tradition that is worth teaching is worth teaching carefully. Research articles summarise the current evidence, including the parts of it that are weak, absent or contested. College news reports what is happening here. Comment and student life pieces carry opinion and first-hand experience, and are labelled as such.

Our commitment to accuracy is straightforward. Articles are written or reviewed by someone with relevant expertise, and they carry a byline so that responsibility is visible. Where we describe research, we say what the study found and how strong it was, rather than reporting a single trial as settled fact. Where the evidence is mixed, we say that it is mixed. Where a claim belongs to the tradition’s own framework rather than to research, we mark the difference rather than blurring it — the two are not the same kind of statement, and pretending otherwise would mislead readers in both directions.

We do not give individual medical advice, and we do not diagnose by email. If you have a health concern, the correct first step is your GP or another qualified healthcare professional; nothing here is a substitute for that. We also do not publish patient stories without written consent, and we do not use testimonials that make clinical claims.

Articles are dated and revised rather than quietly rewritten. When something material changes — a safety position, a research summary, a factual detail — the article is updated and the change is noted at the foot of the page with the date it was made.