Corrections Policy

Accuracy matters more than defending an old sentence. HealthWatchlist welcomes specific correction requests and distinguishes factual errors from ordinary differences of interpretation.

How to report a possible error

Email contact@pingmedia.net with the page address, the sentence or data point concerned and the source that supports the correction. A DOI, PubMed record, regulator page or clear product label is particularly helpful.

Please do not send private medical records. HealthWatchlist cannot assess an individual diagnosis or advise on treatment by email.

What happens next

I check the cited passage against the original source and, where necessary, look for independent or more recent evidence. The review asks four questions:

• Is the statement factually wrong or materially incomplete?
• Does the source concern the same oil, preparation, route and outcome?
• Would the proposed change alter the reader’s understanding of benefit, risk or uncertainty?
• Has a product formula, official recommendation or source page changed since publication?

Types of change

Minor edits include spelling, grammar and broken-link repairs that do not change meaning. These may be made without a correction note.

Material corrections change a factual statement, numerical result, safety point or conclusion. The page will be corrected promptly and a note will explain what changed and why.

Substantial revisions are used when new evidence changes the structure or verdict of an article. The revised page should retain the original address where possible, state that it has been updated and give a new review date.

Withdrawal is reserved for a page whose central premise is unsafe, unsupported or impossible to repair without misleading readers. It will not be silently redirected to an unrelated article.

What does not qualify as a correction?

A manufacturer may disagree with a cautious judgement without identifying a factual error. Personal testimonials, sales claims and unpublished assertions do not override stronger evidence. Equally, evidence that favours an oil is not rejected merely because it conflicts with an earlier HealthWatchlist conclusion.

September 2026 reference corrections

On 12 September 2026, a targeted reference audit led to corrections across 46 pages. Ten PubMed links pointed to unrelated papers. Other repairs addressed author attributions, descriptions of study design and missing evidence or reference lists.

These were editorial errors. The affected pages now carry a dated note describing the type of change. The audit checked the identities of 254 distinct PubMed references and 149 PMC references, with closer review of questionable descriptions. It was not a new systematic review of every topic.

Transparency

Genuine mistakes will be acknowledged without blaming a source or a reader. Correction requests are judged under the same Editorial Policy as the original article.

Last reviewed: 8 September 2026.