Editorial team & process

The editorial credit

Pages are credited to The Biohacking Bible editorial team. That credit isn't a single author byline. It reflects a small editorial process applied to every protocol: a researcher drafts; a reviewer checks the cited evidence; the build pipeline enforces ASA-safe language; and a final pass confirms the page meets our editorial principles below.

We don't claim individual named clinicians on each page. None of the team are practising UK-registered clinicians, and we won't imply otherwise. Our value is journalistic and editorial: translating published human research into ASA-safe plain English, grading evidence honestly, and being transparent about what we don't know.

For anything that materially affects your health, see a UK-registered clinician. We exist alongside that relationship, not as a substitute for it. Full disclosure on our medical disclaimer.

Our editorial principles

• Every protocol cites human research wherever it exists.
• Evidence grades A–D reflect the strength of human evidence, not popularity.
• Pages are reviewed at least annually, and sooner when NHS / NICE / MHRA / FSA guidance changes.
• Banned-claim regex blocks 'cures', 'treats disease', 'guaranteed', 'prevents disease', 'miracle' at the build step.
• We don't sell supplements, devices, or paid placements.
• Corrections go in-line with a dated note. Material rewrites are tracked in git history.

How a protocol gets reviewed

1. Draft. Researcher writes from the published human evidence. Each draft maps claims to specific studies (DOI / PubMed) before it leaves draft state.
2. Evidence review. Reviewer checks every cited study against the claim it supports. Citations the prose can't back are removed; claims the literature won't support are softened or cut.
3. ASA / MHRA framing pass. Specific check against the banned-phrase regex (editorial policy) and against the language patterns the ASA has historically ruled against in health advertising.
4. Build pipeline. Frontmatter is validated with zod; the banned-phrase regex runs at every build; missing lastReviewed dates fail the build outright.
5. Publication. Date stamped as lastReviewed. From this point any material change triggers a dated correction note in line.

Review cadence

Every protocol is re-reviewed at least once a year. We bring the review forward when:

• NHS, NICE, MHRA, or FSA publish guidance touching the topic.
• A major systematic review or RCT changes the dose / effect / safety picture.
• A reader reports a substantive correction we can verify.
• A regulatory event (e.g. MHRA reclassification) changes the legal framing.

The Last reviewed date on each protocol page is the date of the most recent end-to-end review, not merely the date a typo was fixed.

What we are not

• Not your clinician. Even when we describe what published research has shown about an intervention, we're describing the literature — not advising you personally.
• Not a retailer. We sell nothing. No affiliate links on protocol content.
• Not anonymous. Contact us at [email protected].
• Not infallible. See our corrections policy.

Submit a correction

If you spot an error — a misquoted study, a regulatory update we've missed, a broken link, anything — email [email protected] with the page URL and what you think is wrong. We aim to respond within five working days. Material corrections appear as a dated note on the affected page.

Conflicts of interest

No editorial contributor holds equity in supplement brands, longevity-product companies, or biohacking device manufacturers. We do not accept gifted samples for review. Where a UK-registered clinician would face a conflict-of-interest declaration on a topic we cover (lipid-lowering, hormone therapy, controlled drugs), we describe the published research and signpost to clinical care; we don't make individual recommendations.