Our Medical Review Process
Which pages carry an expert review, who reviews them, against what criteria, and what happens when a review goes out of date.
This is the process pages carrying medical claims must pass before publication: review by a named specialist matched to the subject, a cardiologist for cardiac risk, an addiction specialist for withdrawal. Where the reviewer is a scientist rather than a physician, the page says so. Reviews expire after eighteen months, and fourteen pages completed the process on 25 August 2026.
Which pages are reviewed
Four sections require review before a page can be published: safety, science, treatment and compare. A page in one of those sections cannot go live without a named reviewer and a review date. The site’s build refuses it.
Fourteen pages completed that review on 25 August 2026. The cardiac and treatment pages went to Wendy Tzou, professor of medicine and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Colorado. The science and comparison pages went to Kathryn A. Cunningham, professor and vice chair of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Texas Medical Branch and director of its Center for Addiction Sciences and Therapeutics.
The pillar page at what iboga is has not completed this process, and says so. Some contributors elsewhere on the site are still placeholders while it is being built; their profiles say so, and no page attributes a completed review to one of them. The structured data emits a reviewer and a credential only where a real person has actually reviewed that page.
Sections that carry no medical claim, meaning legality, tradition, experiences, the plant and news, are not medically reviewed. They are edited and sourced like everything else, but a lawyer’s question is not a physician’s, and pretending otherwise would dilute a signal we want to keep meaningful.
Who reviews
Reviewers are matched to the subject rather than assigned in rotation.
| Subject | Reviewed by |
|---|---|
| Cardiac risk, QT prolongation, screening, contraindications | A cardiologist |
| Withdrawal, opioid and psychiatric drug interactions, dosing rationale | A physician in addiction medicine |
| Pharmacology, mechanism and research state | A pharmacologist or addiction scientist |
Reviewers will be listed on the contributors page with their credentials.
Not every reviewer is a physician, and the page never implies one where there is none. A page reviewed by a doctor of medicine reads medically reviewed by; a page reviewed by a scientist without a medical degree reads scientific review by. The distinction is generated from the reviewer’s credentials rather than typed in by hand, so it cannot drift. A pharmacologist can say whether a claim about a receptor is supported. Only a clinician can say how a patient should be managed, and the pages that turn on that go to one. No page is reviewed by its own author, and the content schema refuses a page where the two are the same person.
What a review checks
A review is not a proofread. It asks whether the page would mislead a reader acting on it.
- Is every clinical claim supported by the source cited? Not merely consistent with it, but supported by it.
- Is the strength of the evidence represented honestly? A case series must not read like a trial.
- Are the risks in proportion? On this subject that means: does the page give cardiac risk the weight the literature gives it?
- Are the contraindications and interactions complete for what the page covers?
- Could a reader act on this page in a way that harms them? If yes, the page is changed, whatever it does for traffic.
A reviewer can require changes, and a page does not publish until they are made.
What a review is not
It is not medical advice to you. A reviewer confirms that a page describes the evidence accurately; they have not seen your ECG, your prescriptions or your history, and nothing on this site can substitute for someone who has.
It is not an endorsement of treatment. A physician reviewing a page on ibogaine treatment is confirming that the page describes it correctly, including its dangers. That is not a recommendation.
Expiry
A review is valid for eighteen months.
Past that, the page displays an overdue flag on its byline, visible to the reader. We do not remove the page and we do not hide the date; a reader is better served by an old page that says it is old than by a page whose date implies a currency it does not have.
Pages are also re-reviewed ahead of schedule when a trial reports, when a regulator moves, or when a reader tells us something is wrong.
Reporting an error
If you are a clinician and you think a page here is wrong, we want the correction more than we want the page. Use the form on the contact page and pick the correction subject. The procedure, and what we do with it, are described there.