Trust
Editorial Policy
What Is Brain Fog is written as an educational guide, not a diagnosis engine. We organize symptoms, mechanisms, tests, and low-risk experiments so readers can ask better questions and make better follow-up decisions.
How content is produced
We start with clinical reasoning, current literature, and real user-pattern language. Every public page is expected to answer three questions clearly: what fits, what does not fit, and what should be measured or discussed next.
We prioritize primary literature, guidelines, systematic reviews, and clinically useful review papers. Where evidence is weaker, we say so plainly instead of upgrading speculation into certainty.
How pages are reviewed
Pages are reviewed for medical honesty, clarity, and usefulness to a reader whose attention and working memory may be impaired. If a paragraph sounds impressive but does not help a reader decide what to do next, it does not survive review.
We use scanners and manual review to catch unsupported certainty, repetitive phrasing, and weak evidence framing. We also track updated and reviewed dates on priority pages.
What we do not claim
- We do not claim to diagnose disease from a story alone.
- We do not claim passive phone-based flare prediction.
- We do not claim that one mechanism or one label explains every fog pattern.
- We do not treat community stories as clinical proof.
How corrections work
When we find a factual error, outdated source, or misleading framing problem, we correct it and log the change publicly. The corrections log exists so trust does not depend on memory or marketing.
See also: Corrections, Evidence Grading, Citation Policy.