Editorial Policy & Methodology

Editorial Policy & Methodology

Last updated: 2026-05-21 · Reviewed quarterly

Happy Aging publishes health-adjacent content for women over 40. Our subject matter — longevity, supplementation, perimenopause, and metabolic health — falls under what Google calls YMYL (Your Money or Your Life), meaning what we publish can influence reader decisions about their health and money. This policy describes how we maintain accuracy, attribution, and editorial independence.

1. Editorial process

Every article passes through four stages before publication:

  1. Topic selection. Topics are chosen by our opportunity engine based on real-language signals (Google autocomplete, People Also Ask, Reddit threads in r/Perimenopause, r/Menopause, r/Longevity) and gap analysis against competitor citations in AI search.
  2. Research brief. A deterministic research brief is generated identifying the entity, sub-queries to cover, comparison alternatives, and the FDA/FTC compliance boundary.
  3. Writing. Articles are drafted by our editorial team following our writing standards (next section). Every numeric claim is sourced inline to a PubMed PMID or DOI.
  4. Medical review. Every article is reviewed by Dr. Daniel Yadegar, MD, FACC, RPVI, board-certified cardiologist and Happy Aging co-founder, before publication. Articles failing medical review or our compliance checklist are rejected and not published.

2. Citation standards

We cite only the following sources for health claims:

  • Peer-reviewed studies indexed in PubMed (PMID required)
  • Articles with a registered DOI
  • US regulatory authorities: FDA, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, USDA
  • Major US medical centers: Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medicine

We do not cite as evidence for health claims:

  • Blog posts (including our own — articles reference primary literature directly)
  • Press releases or company-issued statements
  • Manufacturer marketing or product descriptions
  • Wikipedia (we link for context; we do not cite as evidence)
  • Social media posts, podcasts, or influencer content
  • Non-US regulatory bodies as primary authority (EFSA, NHS, TGA are referenced only when explicitly relevant)

3. Writing standards

  • US English at a 6th-8th grade reading level. Technical terms are defined inline.
  • US measurement units: mg, mcg, IU, oz, lb, °F. Metric appears only when the cited study uses it.
  • Structure-function language for supplement claims: "supports", "may help maintain", "associated with". Never "treats", "cures", "prevents", "reverses".
  • Quantified evidence: every claim about an effect size includes the study type, sample size, and effect magnitude inline (not just a citation at the end).
  • Honest limits: every article includes a section explicitly titled "What the Evidence Doesn't Support" before any recommendation.

4. Fact-checking workflow

  1. Writer drafts the article with inline PMIDs/DOIs.
  2. Automated PMID resolver verifies each citation resolves on PubMed and matches the claim made in the article.
  3. Numbers and quotes from named institutions are cross-checked against the original source.
  4. Dr. Yadegar reviews the final draft for clinical accuracy, contraindications, and FDA/FTC compliance.
  5. Any FDA disease-claim language, FTC superlatives without inline RCT citation, or fabricated testimonials result in rejection (the article is not published).

5. Corrections policy

If we publish an error, we correct it transparently:

  • Factual error in a citation: the citation is removed or replaced, and a correction note is added at the top of the article with the date.
  • Outdated study: when a newer meta-analysis or replacement evidence supersedes a previously cited study, the article is updated and the dateModified is refreshed.
  • Material claim error: if a benefit, dose, or safety claim was misstated, the section is rewritten and a visible "Corrected on [date]" notice is added inline.
  • Corrections are tracked in our content management system and reflected in the lastReviewed field of the article's structured data.

To report an error, email editorial@happyaging.com.

6. Update cadence (freshness)

  • Every 90 days: all articles are reviewed for stale citations, outdated regulations, and superseded evidence. The dateReviewed field is updated.
  • Triggered refreshes: new peer-reviewed evidence on a covered topic, FDA action, or major competitor offer change triggers an out-of-cycle update.
  • Monthly enrichment: citations are re-validated against PubMed to detect retractions or expanded metadata.

7. Funding & commercial disclosure (FTC compliance)

  • Happy Aging is a US-based company that sells longevity supplements. Editorial content is hosted on the same domain as our store. This is a material connection under FTC 16 CFR Part 255.
  • Articles may contain links to Happy Aging products. Those links are clearly identified as product CTAs.
  • Dr. Yadegar is a co-founder of Happy Aging. His role as medical reviewer is editorial only; he does not write the articles. This connection is disclosed in every article via the reviewer byline.
  • We do not accept paid placements, sponsored content, or undisclosed affiliate links from third parties.
  • Third-party testing partners (e.g., Citrus Labs) are independent labs we pay for clinical efficacy testing; their results are linked unedited.

8. Conflict of interest

Our medical reviewer, Dr. Daniel Yadegar, is a co-founder of Happy Aging and holds equity in the company. To mitigate this conflict:

  • Dr. Yadegar reviews articles for clinical accuracy, not for promotional value.
  • Articles include a "What the Evidence Doesn't Support" section that explicitly states the limits of any claimed benefit.
  • Comparison articles disclose Happy Aging's commercial interest in the FTC disclosure block.
  • Where peer-reviewed evidence contradicts a Happy Aging product positioning, the evidence wins. Articles are not edited to favor product narratives.

9. Use of artificial intelligence in production

Happy Aging uses automated tooling (large language models from Anthropic) to draft articles. Every AI-drafted article is reviewed by human editors and medically reviewed by Dr. Yadegar before publication. We do not publish AI-generated content unreviewed. Our use of AI is disclosed here as a transparency commitment; it does not affect citation standards (every numeric claim still requires a verified PMID/DOI regardless of how the prose was drafted).

10. Editorial independence

  • Editorial decisions (topic selection, recommendations, citations) are made independently of sales and marketing.
  • No outside party — including manufacturers, affiliates, or PR firms — has approval rights over our content.
  • Dr. Yadegar's medical review focuses on clinical accuracy and FDA/FTC compliance, never on commercial optimization.

11. Contact