How these articles are written
Last updated September 13, 2026.
This is a site about a subject where bad information is cheap and easy to find, and where a confident number with no source behind it can follow a man around for years. These are the standards every article here clears before it publishes. They are written down so they can be checked against, and so that a claim on this site can be argued with.
1. Every factual claim names its source
If an article gives you a number, a study, or a clinical term, it tells you where that came from and links to it. Not to a summary of the research, and not to another site repeating it — to the paper, the publisher, or the body that maintains the definition. Where a paper is paywalled, the link goes to the open version if one exists.
This is a recent improvement, not a long-standing one. Until September 2026 the sources were named in the prose but not linked, which asked you to take our word for it. That has been fixed across every article.
2. Claims are checked against the source, not against memory
Before a citation goes in, someone opens it and confirms it says what the article claims it says — the right authors, the right journal, the right finding. This is slower than it sounds like it should be, and it is the step that catches things.
Two examples from the September 2026 pass, both of which had been live and wrong for months. A statistic about twelve-step programs was checked against the review it cited and did not appear in it; the real figures were lower and, as it happens, made the point more strongly. And a claim about testosterone rested on a paper that was retracted in 2021 — the article now says so, and links the retraction alongside it.
3. Contested things are described as contested
Whether compulsive pornography use is an addiction in the clinical sense is genuinely disputed. The ICD‑11 recognises compulsive sexual behaviour disorder; the DSM‑5 declined to include hypersexual disorder. Articles here say that, rather than picking whichever answer makes the stronger sales argument. Where the underlying data is thin, or drawn from animal research that does not transfer cleanly to people, the article says that too.
4. Corrections are made in public
When something here turns out to be wrong, it gets fixed in place and the change is recorded in this site’s public commit history rather than quietly edited away. The two errors described above were corrected that way. If you find another one, write to us — it will be checked, and fixed if it is wrong.
5. Nothing publishes without review
Every article is reviewed and approved by Luke before it goes live. Drafts sit on the site unlisted and unindexed until then, which is why a page here occasionally exists at a URL before it exists in the navigation.
6. Nothing here is paid placement
There are no affiliate links anywhere on this site. The reading list links to publishers and authors and earns nothing from it. The comparison of other apps names products that compete directly with Bramble, recommends them where they are the better fit, and says plainly where Bramble is the wrong choice.
7. This is not clinical advice
Luke is not a therapist, a counselor, or a clinician, and says so on his own page. The articles here are written out of lived experience and read against the clinical literature — they are not treatment and do not replace it. If what you are carrying is heavier than an app, look for a CSAT, a therapist trained specifically for this, in the IITAP directory.
The articles these standards apply to are collected here, and the whole of it fits in one sitting.