Editorial Policy

Last Updated: March 2026

---

At CoreStacks, we cover longevity science, supplements, peptide research, and health optimization by tracking what leading researchers and practitioners actually say, then making it accessible, organized, and easy to act on.

We’re a curation and reporting platform. We don’t run clinical trials, we don’t formulate supplements, and we don’t play doctor. Here’s how we work.

How We Select Expert Sources

Not everyone with a podcast gets cited on CoreStacks. We focus on voices with real credentials, consistent public track records, and a habit of showing their work.

Our core source criteria:

• Academic or clinical credentials in a relevant field (medicine, biochemistry, neuroscience, gerontology, nutrition science)
• Peer-reviewed publishing history or direct involvement in published research
• Transparent methodology — they cite studies, share dosages from their own protocols, and correct themselves publicly when evidence changes
• Established audience and track record — we prioritize researchers and clinicians who’ve been sharing evidence-based information consistently, not overnight influencers

Current primary sources include researchers and clinicians such as Andrew Huberman, Peter Attia, David Sinclair, Rhonda Patrick, Bryan Johnson, Brad Stanfield, and Gabrielle Lyon, along with published studies from peer-reviewed journals.

We don’t limit ourselves to these voices. When a new researcher publishes compelling work or a clinician builds a credible public track record, we’ll cover them too. But they have to earn it with evidence, not follower counts.

How We Verify Claims

Every health-related statement on CoreStacks must meet one of these standards before we publish it:

1. Named expert attribution — The claim is attributed to a specific expert, with a link to the episode, article, newsletter, or social post where they made it. Example: “Dr. Huberman discussed X on Huberman Lab Episode #142 at timestamp 1:23:45.”
2. Published research citation — The claim references a specific study with journal name, publication year, and a PubMed ID (PMID) or DOI when available. Example: “A 2025 study published in Nature Aging (PMID: 12345678) found that…”
3. Multiple-expert consensus — When we synthesize across sources (e.g., “What 5 Longevity Researchers Say About NMN”), each expert’s position is individually attributed with its own source link.

What we don’t do:

• We never make unattributed health claims. You won’t find “studies show…” without a specific study linked.
• We never recommend dosages. We report what experts have publicly shared about their own protocols. That’s different from telling you what to take.
• We never extrapolate beyond what an expert actually said. If Dr. Attia discussed using rapamycin in his own protocol, we report that. We don’t generalize it into “you should consider rapamycin.”
• We never cherry-pick studies that support a predetermined conclusion. If the evidence is mixed, we say so. If an expert’s recommendation contradicts published research, we note the discrepancy.

Our Independence

This is the part most supplement sites won’t tell you, because it doesn’t apply to them: CoreStacks has no brand sponsors. No paid placements. No supplement companies paying for favorable reviews. No brand deals. None.

Mike Hartnett funds this project independently. That’s not a marketing line. It’s the financial reality of how this site operates. When we say a product is worth considering based on what experts discuss, it’s because the evidence and expert commentary support it. Not because someone wrote us a check.

When we link to products, we use affiliate links to generate revenue. But here’s the critical distinction: the product was already selected based on expert protocols and third-party testing before we ever looked up whether an affiliate program existed. If the best option has no affiliate program, we still link to it. We’ve done this multiple times.

If CoreStacks ever accepts sponsored content in the future, it will be clearly labeled, separated from editorial content, and will never influence our independent coverage. We’d rather make less money than compromise the trust that makes this site useful.

How We Handle Conflicts of Interest

Transparency isn’t optional here. It’s the whole operating model.

Personal use disclosure: Mike personally takes many of the supplements discussed on this site. When that’s the case, it’s disclosed in a clearly labeled “Personal Experience” section within the article. You’ll always know when you’re reading Mike’s firsthand experience versus a summary of expert commentary.

Affiliate disclosure: Every monetized page includes an affiliate disclosure within the first 100 words, as required by FTC guidelines. We don’t bury it in the footer or hide it behind a tooltip. It’s right there at the top.

No pay-for-play: Commission rates do not affect product placement or ranking. A product paying 20% commission doesn’t get ranked above one paying 5%. Comparisons are based on purity testing, expert mentions, price, and shipping. The affiliate link gets added after the editorial decision is already made.

Negative reviews happen: If a product is popular but the evidence doesn’t support the claims, we’ll say so. Even if we could make money promoting it. Especially if we could make money promoting it. That’s the whole point of being independent.

Our Commitment to Attribution

Attribution isn’t just a legal checkbox for us. It’s the entire editorial model. CoreStacks exists because longevity science moves fast and the expert landscape is fragmented across dozens of podcasts, newsletters, YouTube channels, and journal publications.

Our job is synthesis and organization. The experts do the hard work of research and clinical practice. We make sure you can find what they’ve said, compare their positions, and trace everything back to the original source.

Every article includes a Sources section with direct links. If we can’t source it, we don’t publish it.

How Affiliate Relationships Work

CoreStacks earns revenue through affiliate commissions when readers purchase products through our links. Full transparency on how this works:

• Affiliate links never influence what we cover. We report on what experts discuss. If an expert mentions a supplement, we cover it whether or not an affiliate program exists for it.
• We identify verified suppliers, not “our picks.” When experts discuss a product, we link to third-party tested, reputable sources. Our framing is always “Expert X discusses using Y. Third-party tested sources include…” — never “We recommend you buy Y.”
• Commission rates don’t affect placement. A product paying a 20% commission doesn’t get ranked above one paying 5%. Product comparisons are based on purity testing, expert mentions, price, and shipping.
• Affiliate disclosure appears on every monetized page within the first 100 words, as required by FTC guidelines.
• We link to products even without affiliate programs. If the best source for a product has no affiliate program, we still link to it. Reader trust is worth more than any single commission.

How We Update Content

Longevity science doesn’t sit still, and neither do we. This isn’t a site that publishes articles and forgets about them.

48-hour protocol updates: When a primary expert (Huberman, Attia, Sinclair, Johnson, Stanfield, Patrick) publicly updates their protocol, we update our coverage within 48 hours. First and accurate beats last and perfect.

Every article displays a “Last Updated” date reflecting the most recent substantive edit. Not cosmetic changes or typo fixes. Actual content updates.

“What Changed” sections on protocol pages document specific additions, removals, or modifications with dates and source links. If Dr. Huberman drops a supplement from his stack, you’ll see when it happened and what he said about it.

Outdated claims are corrected, not deleted. If an expert changes their position, we document the change rather than pretending the old position never existed. Science evolves. Experts update their thinking. That’s a feature, not a bug. We show the evolution.

Research news gets follow-up. When we cover a new study, we update the article if follow-up studies are published, corrections are issued, or expert commentary adds meaningful context.

Systematic review cycles: Beyond reactive updates, we systematically review all protocol pages quarterly to catch anything we might have missed.

Corrections

We’re human and we’ll occasionally get something wrong. When we do:

• Corrections are made promptly and noted at the top of the affected article.
• The original error is described so readers understand what changed and why.
• If a source we cited is retracted or corrected, we update our coverage accordingly.
• We don’t quietly edit and pretend the mistake never happened. That’s not how trust works.

If you spot an error, please email mike@corestacks.com. We genuinely appreciate it. Every correction makes the site better for everyone.

---

CoreStacks is an independently operated editorial platform. We are not affiliated with any supplement manufacturer, peptide supplier, or health practitioner we cover.

---