How We Research, Source and Correct What We Publish

You may have arrived here from a heading on one of our articles that ends with the words corrected September 4, 2026. Or from a callout saying we will not publish a clearance plan. Or from an evidence cutoff date sitting above a research summary you were about to read. Those are not stylistic tics. They are the visible parts of a system, and this page is the system. It is two things at once: the rules this blog runs on, and a record of where our own pages currently break them. As of September 8, 2026 that record contains one correction of our own published text and a remediation list of ten of our own pages, and all of it is below.

The short version first, so you do not have to read the whole page to know what you are getting. Every one of the 132 articles published on this blog before this page carries a single byline, Planntz Editorial Team. No article here is medically reviewed, because no clinician reviews it, and no page on this blog displays a reviewer's name, a credential badge or a fact-checked-by line. We rest on primary records: peer-reviewed human research read at the source, and regulatory documents read at the agency that issued them. Anything that can expire carries the date we read it. When we get something wrong we correct it on the page, dated, with the original left visible. And we sell CBD tinctures, which is a conflict, so we name it before the argument rather than after it.

Who writes this, and what that byline is not

Every one of the 132 articles published on this blog before this page, counted on September 8, 2026, carries the same byline: Planntz Editorial Team. It is an organizational byline, and it means what it says. The work is done in house and published under the company's name, so the company stands behind the result as a whole rather than behind a persona whose credentials you would have no way of checking. If you want to know who Planntz is as a company, the about page covers the brand, the sourcing and how each batch is made. It says nothing at all about how articles are written, which is the gap this page exists to fill.

That is also why the byline never carries an opinion we cannot support. When an article says something about human health, the sentence attributes it to the study or the agency that produced it, names the design and the population, and states the limit in the same breath. Where the evidence is thin, we write that it is thin. Our overview of what human research on CBD does and does not show is the page that carries that judgment for the whole blog, and the other articles route evidence questions to it rather than quietly relitigating them one page at a time.

The records we are allowed to rest on, in order

Sources are ranked here, and the rank decides what a sentence is allowed to say. The table below is that order. It is not aspirational. As of September 8, 2026 the body text of those 132 articles carries 1,756 outbound source links across 125 distinct hosts, including 583 distinct records on PubMed and 143 on PubMed Central. The five most-linked hosts are PubMed with 740 link instances, PubMed Central with 160, DailyMed with 130, the FDA with 125 and GovInfo with 120.

Tier one covers the regulator's own document rather than anyone's summary of it. In practice that means Federal Register full text read on GovInfo, scheduling actions read at the DEA's Diversion Control Division, hemp rules read at USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, trial records read at ClinicalTrials.gov, and warning-label listings read at California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Agency consumer summaries such as the NIH overview of cannabis and cannabinoids from NCCIH sit alongside those, and they are useful for orientation rather than for a number. When we cite a rule, we cite the rule: the Federal Trade Commission's rule on the use of consumer reviews and testimonials, 16 CFR Part 465, was published at 89 FR 68034 on August 22, 2024 and took effect on October 21, 2024, and we link its full text on GovInfo rather than a description of it. That rule and the Endorsement Guides at 16 CFR Part 255 are what govern our own use of a testimonial or a review, which is the only reason they appear on this page.

The rule that governs all of it is a floor on outbound links: at least three distinct sources a reader can open, in the body of the article, hyperlinked on first mention rather than named in prose. Naming a study is not a citation. Every one of the 118 articles published since July 18, 2026 clears that floor, and the measured floor is higher than the rule: the thinnest of the 118 carries four distinct outbound links, the median carries 14 and the heaviest carries 26. Ten pages from our launch batch of July 17, 2026 predate the rule and do not meet it. They are named further down this page rather than quietly fixed.

Three labeling rules travel with the hierarchy, and all three are countable on the live pages. Work done in animals, in cells or on a bench is labeled as such in the sentence that cites it and is never carried across to a person: 54 of the 132 live articles use the words mice, rats, rodents, animal study, animal model or preclinical, and 43 use in vitro or cell culture. A preprint is called a preprint. And when we cite a study we say who was in it, which is why 80 of the 132 print a sample size, a participant count or an n. Trade press has exactly one job here, which is to tell us that something happened; the article then goes and links the record itself. That is why our write-up of the mini mart advertising trial rests on the registry entry rather than on anyone's summary of it, and it is also the page that carries the advertising-substantiation argument, because this one cites the Federal Trade Commission only for the rules we hold ourselves to.

What we will not publish, and why each rule exists

A do-not-publish list is more useful than a mission statement, because you can check it against the archive in about a minute. Each rule below carries the reason it exists, and each one costs us traffic we could otherwise have.

1. 1No treatment, cure or prevention claim for any product. A tincture is a food-grade oil with a measured amount of a molecule in it, and no hedging turns a laboratory result into a promise about a person's body.
2. 2No page named for a disease or a symptom. None of our 132 slugs is named for anxiety, pain, arthritis, insomnia, depression, cancer, epilepsy or inflammation, and none of them begins with the word best.
3. 3No dose by condition. We will publish the arithmetic of a label, milligrams per milliliter and milligrams per drop, and we will not tell you how many drops to take for anything.
4. 4No best CBD for X page. That format asks us to rank products against a health outcome, which needs evidence about the outcome that we do not have and could not link.
5. 5No claim that our product is safer, cleaner or stronger than a named competitor. We can publish what our own documents say. We cannot publish a comparison that nobody ran.
6. 6No anecdote presented as evidence. A story about one person stays a story about one person, and it does not become a finding by being repeated on our site.
7. 7No clearance plan, detox routine, dilution method or wait-time recommendation for a drug test. Where the study that would support one does not exist, the honest output is a refusal, not an estimate.
8. 8No method for making, purifying or obtaining an intoxicant. We will name a molecule and a reagent when the chemistry is the story. We will not print conditions, ratios, equipment, temperatures or steps.

Those are not aspirations either. 16 of the 132 live articles carry an explicit refusal in the body. Six of them are below, and you can open each one. Our delta-8 drug test page states that the refusal is an editorial position rather than an oversight, and explains that a detection window appears there only as what a named study measured, in that study's conditions, with its sample size printed beside it. The THCA drug test page carries a heading explaining why it has no clearance timetable and what to check instead, and the THCP one says in a callout that it has no timing advice and that this is deliberate. Our page on THC-O says there is no method on it, and there is not. The microdosing page tells you outright that you arrived wanting a number and are not getting one, then says exactly why. The first-time guide closes its label arithmetic with a callout headed this is arithmetic, not a recommendation.

Two outside documents set the bar those rules are written to. The Federal Trade Commission's Health Products Compliance Guidance, published in December 2022, says that "substantiation of health-related benefits will need to be in the form of randomized, controlled human clinical testing", and it uses the phrase competent and reliable scientific evidence as the standard a health claim has to meet before it is made. And the FDA's page on the regulation of cannabis and cannabis-derived products still carries a stamp reading "Content current as of: 07/16/2024", which is exactly why we date any sentence about an agency's position instead of writing it as a permanent fact. We cite both for the rules we apply to ourselves, not to tell you what any rule requires of anyone else. What the agency's position actually is, and what it means for a product on a shelf, is handled on its own page.

Anything with an expiry date carries one

Most of what we publish about law, regulation and evidence is true on a date rather than true in general. So the date goes on the page, in three different forms depending on what it is that expires.

• An evidence cutoff block on a research review. It names the last date whose human evidence and US guidance the article covers, and it says out loud that research and guidance can change.
• A date inside the heading itself on anything legal or regulatory, so that a reader skimming the contents sees it without opening the section.
• A recorded read date for the source, which is a different fact from the date the source was issued. It answers when we last opened the document.

Live examples, all of them on the page right now. The CBD benefits overview linked earlier on this page carries an evidence cutoff covering human evidence and US guidance available through July 16, 2026, and the sleep review, the stress review and the recovery review carry their own, dated July 16, July 18 and July 17, 2026. Our page on the 2026 hemp bill puts the date in the heading, which reads "Where Congress actually is, as of August 19, 2026". The HHC comparison does the same thing and adds a note that we re-read one paper at the source on August 29, 2026 rather than taking the number secondhand, because that paper carries two published corrections, one dated July 2, 2024 and one dated August 19, 2024, and the first of them rewrote the sentence the numbers sit in. Our guide to mailing CBD states that every rule quoted in it was read at its own source on September 7, 2026, in the August 2026 edition of Publication 52, and that every statement carries the section number it came from.

Across the whole blog, 87 of the 132 live articles carry at least one explicit dated read or evidence cutoff, 302 stamps in total, four of them sitting inside a heading. A date is not a guarantee, and our own archive is the proof of that. The page we published when the kratom scheduling picture changed puts it in one line that now governs how we read every dated table we have ever written: a dated read is not the same thing as a correct row. Which brings us to the next section.

Corrections, dated, on the page

The policy is four sentences long. When we get something wrong, we correct it on the page rather than in a quiet edit. The correction carries its own date, separate from the article's publication date. It says what was wrong, when, and why it changed. And we leave the original text visible and do not move the publication date, because re-dating a corrected page is how an error disappears.

Here is the whole log as of September 8, 2026. It has three rows, and only the first is a correction of our own published text. The other two are open: our own pages that currently fail our own rules, listed here rather than fixed quietly.

The kratom correction is worth reading as the worked example, because it is the shape every future one will take. The page itself carries the correction inside a heading that reads "Where kratom stands with US regulators, as of August 13, 2026, corrected September 4, 2026", so a reader skimming the contents meets the correction before meeting the table it repairs. Its correction paragraph carries this sentence:

One clarification, because it would be easy to inflate that log and we are not going to. Several of our articles carry sections headed Correction, and most of them are not corrections of us. Our cannabinoids and terpenes explainer has three headings numbered Correction 1, Correction 2 and Correction 3, and each one corrects a claim that circulates widely elsewhere rather than a sentence we previously published. Six other articles do the same thing in their own subjects. Publishing a correction of the received wisdom under its own heading is a useful habit and it is a different act from admitting an error, so those headings are not in the table above. The table above has exactly one entry of our own text being wrong, and one is the honest number.

Where our own pages do not meet these rules yet

The launch batch of July 17, 2026 was written before the outbound-source rule existed, and it shows. Fourteen records on this blog predate July 18, 2026: thirteen from that batch, plus one review whose dateline sits further back than either. Ten of the fourteen carry fewer than three distinct outbound source links, and eight of those ten carry no outbound source link at all. All ten are from the July 17 batch.

The eight with none are how to take CBD oil, CBD oil versus gummies, how to read a certificate of analysis, our page on CBD and drug tests, how long CBD takes to work, the CBG explainer, our dosage page and the spectrum guide. Two more carry two links each, one short of the minimum: our legal overview and the CBN explainer. You do not have to take our word for any of that. Open one and count.

Two of those ten also still end with a product call to action. Our current rule keeps a product call to action off drug-test and legal pages, for the plain reason that a page someone opens because they are worried about a test is not a place to sell them anything. Both are queued for removal, and every drug-test page we have published since carries none.

We sell CBD tinctures. Here is where that sits

Planntz sells CBD tinctures. That is a commercial interest in almost every subject this blog covers, and it does not go away because we wrote a policy about it. What a policy can do is hold it in a place where you can see it. Two mechanisms do that here, and both are countable on the live pages rather than promised.

• Disclosure, not a footnote. 47 of the 132 live articles carry an explicit sentence naming what we sell and what we do not sell, and on the three named below it sits above the reasoning it could bias.
• Structural exclusion of the sales pitch. 93 of the 132 live articles carry no product call to action at all, including every pregnancy, pediatric, pre-surgery, driving, medication-interaction and kratom page.

Our page on water-soluble CBD opens by saying that Planntz sells MCT-oil tinctures and does not sell a water-soluble or nano CBD product, so you should read what follows knowing which side of the argument we are standing on, and then gives the format its real wins anyway. The CBGA explainer carries a callout headed "Where we stand, so you can discount it", which ends by telling you to check the documents rather than trusting us. The melatonin page states our conflict before the argument under a heading that says exactly that. This page has no product call to action either, which is the same rule applied to itself.

The same rule applies to our own documents, which is the harder half. We hold our lab reports to the method we teach rather than exempting them: our page on what third-party tested actually means carries a section inviting you to run that article's own checklist on us, and another headed what our own reports do and do not cover. The certificate guide named in the remediation list above does the same under a heading that reads why we publish ours. What a certificate is, what an independent laboratory has to be, and how to read one, all live on those two pages and deliberately not on this one. The reports themselves are on our lab results page.

How to hold us to this

If you find something on this blog that is wrong, tell us. Email myplanntz@myplanntz.com, or use the contact page, with the address of the page and the sentence you are questioning. Naming the sentence matters more than naming the page, because the sentence is what lets us go back to the exact source we used. Four things follow, and they are the whole of what we can honestly commit to.

1. 1We reopen the source the sentence came from and read it again, instead of defending the sentence.
2. 2If it is wrong, we correct it on the page with the correction's own date, say what changed and why, and leave the original text and the original publication date visible.
3. 3If it is a judgment call rather than an error, we say that instead of pretending it was a question of fact. Sometimes the honest answer is that we read a document one way and you read it another.
4. 4What we will not do is delete the original, move the publication date, or fix it quietly and hope you do not check.

We are not promising a response time, because you could not verify one and a number you cannot check is exactly the kind of trust signal this page exists to avoid. What we can promise is the shape of the outcome, which is the four steps above, and the log further up this page is where you will be able to see whether we did it.

This page describes the rules as they stand on September 8, 2026, and the log above is updated when there is something to add rather than on a schedule. If you arrived from an article and want the ground floor instead, our plain definition of what CBD is is where the rest of this blog starts. And if you take one habit away from here, take the one this whole page is built around: when a claim matters to you, find the document behind it and read that instead. That applies to us too, and it is why this page prints its own denominators instead of its adjectives.