Editorial Policy

Look, I get it. You’re probably here because you couldn’t sleep last night, or you’ve been reading about red light therapy and want to know if it’s actually legit, or you’re just tired of feeling tired. I’ve been there — spending hours reading conflicting information online, not knowing who to trust or what’s actually backed by science versus what’s just clever marketing.

That’s exactly why this editorial policy exists. Not because some SEO checklist said I needed one, but because you deserve to know how content on this site gets created and why you should (or shouldn’t) trust what you read here.

Who’s behind this site

I’m Fred. For the past five years, I’ve been obsessively researching and experimenting with sleep optimization. The last two years, I’ve added red light therapy to that mix. I’m not a doctor or academic researcher—I’m a biohacker who got frustrated with surface-level advice and decided to dig deeper.

To understand the full context of my journey, my specific health baselines, and why I started this lab, please read my full About page.

I’ve tracked my sleep data, tested different protocols, read hundreds of research papers, failed at plenty of experiments, and learned what actually moves the needle versus what just sounds good in theory. That hands-on experience combined with rigorous research is what you’ll find here.

The important legal stuff up front

Content is for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Although I base my content on peer-reviewed research and personal data, individual biology varies. I am not a medical professional. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider before making changes to your medication, diet, exercise, or sleep protocols, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition.

How content gets created

The research process

Every article starts with either a question I’m exploring or something readers have asked about. Then comes the real work: diving into published research.

I spend significant time on PubMed reading peer-reviewed studies. Not just abstracts—I read the full papers when possible. I look at methodology, sample sizes, funding sources, and whether results have been replicated. One study doesn’t make something true, especially in emerging fields like biohacking.

When I write about red light therapy wavelengths or sleep optimization protocols, I’m combining what the scientific literature currently shows with what I’ve tested personally. Both matter, but I’m always clear about which is which.

Personal experimentation meets evidence

Here’s what makes this site different: I actually test this stuff. I’m not just summarizing research papers or rehashing what others have written. When I write about a sleep protocol or red light therapy routine, there’s a good chance I’ve spent weeks or months experimenting with it myself.

But personal experience has limits. What works for my biology, sleep environment, and lifestyle might not work for yours. That’s why I anchor everything in available research and explain the reasoning, not just the results.

What I do when evidence is limited

Biohacking often explores cutting-edge areas where research is preliminary, contradictory, or simply doesn’t exist yet. When that’s the case, I tell you. I explain what we know, what we don’t know, and why the uncertainty exists.

If studies contradict each other, I present both sides. If evidence only comes from animal studies or small human trials, I say so. If something is based primarily on theoretical mechanisms rather than clinical data, you’ll know that too. I’d rather acknowledge gaps in the science than pretend we have all the answers.

Research quality and source evaluation

Not all studies are created equal. A well-designed randomized controlled trial with 200 participants tells us more than a case study of three people. Industry-funded research isn’t automatically wrong, but it deserves extra scrutiny. A single provocative finding needs replication before we get too excited.

I evaluate sources critically and share that evaluation with you. When I cite a study, I’ve actually read it. When I make a claim, I can explain the evidence behind it and its limitations.

Content review and accuracy standards

Before anything gets published, I verify claims against current research. I double-check citations. I make sure I’m representing studies fairly, not cherry-picking findings that support a predetermined conclusion.

I’m also human, which means I make mistakes. When I get something wrong—and eventually I will—I correct it promptly and transparently. You’ll see an update note explaining what changed and why.

How content stays current

Science doesn’t stand still, and neither does this site. I regularly revisit older articles to ensure they reflect current evidence. When new research emerges that changes our understanding of red light therapy protocols or sleep optimization techniques, I update the relevant content.

Sometimes what seemed promising based on early research doesn’t pan out. Sometimes new studies contradict what we thought we knew. When that happens, I update articles and explain what changed. You won’t find outdated information gathering dust because I forgot to maintain it.

Editorial independence

I’m not here to sell you products or push an agenda. When I discuss specific tools, devices, or supplements, it’s because they’re relevant to the topic—not because someone paid me to mention them.

This site exists to educate, not persuade. I’m genuinely excited about biohacking and the potential of red light therapy for better sleep and health, but that enthusiasm doesn’t override my commitment to intellectual honesty. If something doesn’t work as advertised, I’ll tell you. If a popular biohacking trend lacks solid evidence, you’ll hear about that too.

Transparency about what I am (and am not)

I’m an independent researcher and biohacking enthusiast with extensive hands-on experience in sleep optimization and red light therapy. I’ve done the work, tracked the data, and read the research. That gives me genuine insight that pure theory can’t provide.

But I’m not running controlled clinical trials. I’m not a medical doctor, sleep specialist, or academic researcher. My insights come from structured self-experimentation and thorough literature review—valuable, but not the same as formal research or clinical practice.

When I share personal results, I’m careful to distinguish them from general recommendations. My sleep improvements, red light therapy responses, or supplement experiences reflect my specific biology and circumstances. Your results will almost certainly differ, and that’s normal.

What guides my editorial decisions

Intellectual honesty over hype. I’d rather tell you something is uncertain or unproven than oversell its benefits.

Nuance over simplification. Most health and biohacking questions don’t have simple yes-or-no answers. I try to capture that complexity without making things unnecessarily complicated.

Education over persuasion. My goal is to help you understand concepts and evaluate information yourself, not to convince you to adopt my specific approaches.

Transparency about limitations. When evidence is weak, when I’m speculating, or when something is based primarily on personal experience, I say so clearly.

How readers can evaluate this content

I explain my reasoning so you can evaluate it yourself. I cite sources so you can check them. I acknowledge uncertainty rather than pretending to have all the answers. I distinguish between what’s well-established versus preliminary or speculative.

You should approach everything you read here—and everywhere online—with critical thinking. Ask yourself: What’s the evidence for this? Is the source reliable? Does this apply to my situation? What are the risks or downsides?

I try to give you the information and context to answer those questions yourself.

A note on evolving understanding

I’m learning alongside you. Biohacking is a field where we’re often working at the edges of available evidence. My understanding of red light therapy, sleep optimization, and related topics will continue evolving as new research emerges and as I continue my own experimentation.

Articles from a year ago might not reflect my current understanding. That’s why I update content regularly. It’s also why I date articles and note when they’ve been revised.

This editorial policy itself may evolve. Core principles—transparency, intellectual honesty, clear boundaries around medical advice—won’t change, but specific practices might improve based on what I learn and what serves readers best.

Questions or concerns

If you ever wonder about sources I’m using, editorial decisions I’ve made, or how specific content was created, reach out. This policy isn’t performative—it’s a genuine commitment to doing this work responsibly and earning your trust through consistent, honest practice.

Last updated: January 2026