Our Editorial Principles and Process

Who We Are

MedShadow is a nonprofit foundation focusing on the safest ways to take over-the-counter and prescription medications. Medications have many benefits, but it’s essential to know how to balance these against their potential side effects. Our name reflects the reality that side effects are often subtle or overlooked, which is why we’re dedicated to shedding light on medication reactions that may be minimized, obscured, or dismissed.

Our evidence-based explanatory and investigative journalism is aimed at empowering people with the information they need to make informed decisions.

We also hope our journalism stimulates public discussion about potential improvements to drug research, manufacturing and distribution processes. and also to encourage the improvement of processes to ensure that we are all better protected.

Our Editorial Standards

At MedShadow, accuracy, integrity, and independence (we do not accept any advertising from pharmaceutical or supplement companies) are core to everything we publish and everything we do. Every article is reviewed by editors, fact-checkers, doctors or other health or subject-matter experts to ensure that the information we include is current, clear, and grounded in evidence.

All medical claims must be supported by peer-reviewed studies, government guidelines, or credible institutional research.

We prioritize human-based studies over animal trials, and favor research published within the last five years.

We clearly disclose when a study has a small sample size, is funded by a party with a potential conflict of interest, or represents an emerging scientific perspective.

We strive to avoid both sensationalism and overly technical language, focusing instead on clearly stating the facts as honestly and transparently as possible.

How We Report

Every MedShadow article is built on careful, evidence-based reporting. On average, a single feature may take 25 to 60 hours of work. That process typically includes:

Idea development: Story ideas come from research, conversations, reader questions, or new studies. We confirm whether enough credible evidence exists to pursue the topic.

Expert and patient voices: Reporters interview several experts (clinicians, pharmacists, researchers) and patients, while carefully screening for conflicts of interest. Each article usually includes 3–7 interviews.

Literature and data review: Stories are grounded in peer-reviewed studies, regulatory records, and government databases. We evaluate study design, funding, sample size, and consistency across findings.

Regulatory review: For stories with an FDA or policy angle, reporters may spend hours combing through agency correspondence, recall databases, and official documents.

Editing: Multiple rounds of editing ensure accuracy, clarity, and narrative flow. This includes back-and-forth between writer and editor.

Fact-checking: Professional fact-checkers verify every claim, statistic, name, and quote before publication.

This work ensures that our stories are thorough, thoughtful, transparent, and trustworthy.

Fact-Checking and Medical Review

Every article published on MedShadow undergoes a rigorous fact-checking and/or medical review process. Depending on the topic, this review is conducted by experienced medical professionals — including physicians, pharmacists, clinical researchers, and public health experts — who evaluate the accuracy, clarity, and scientific validity of all health-related claims.

This process ensures that our content is not only trustworthy but responsible.

Our Sourcing Principles

We rely on primary sources, including peer-reviewed journals, government agencies such as the FDA and CDC, academic institutions, and original legal or regulatory documents. Our sourcing standards are designed to ensure transparency, relevance, and scientific rigor.

We favor studies from respected journals such as JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet, and always contextualize findings with attention to limitations, funding, and methodology.

Direct citations are required for all claims, and articles include a full SOURCES list at the end of the published story.

Quotes from expert interviews are fact-checked and are supported by verifiable research when referencing studies.

Our Style and Voice

MedShadow’s tone is smart, sober, and clear. We value transparency over alarmism, accuracy over clickbait, and public service over traffic spikes. While we adhere to AP Style, we avoid jargon and strive to make even the most complex scientific topics accessible to the average reader.

We aim to produce unbiased, human-centered journalism that helps people understand the true risk-benefit profile of the medications they rely on, enabling them to make better, safer choices for themselves and their families.

Our Independence

MedShadow does not accept any funding from pharmaceutical companies, or supplement makers. Our work is supported entirely by individual donors, which allows us to report without commercial pressure or industry interference.

We also require that our editorial staff, freelance contributors, board members, and medical advisors remain free from direct financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical or supplement industries. In the rare event that an expert source has a prior or non-remunerative relationship, we disclose it clearly within the article.