We expect for our writers to write what they mean, and to mean what they write. We maintain high standards. The following rules are our journalistic policies and code of ethics. If any of these policies is disagreeable, then please contact us to discuss your reservations.
Section I - Journalistic Policies
- We fact-check, format, and provide editing for all articles.
- You do not need to be an expert to write for us. In fact, the 'experts' tend to be dishonest or simply wrong. We would not be needed if the experts were telling the truth.
- Credentials are meaningless. Just show us that you have the talent, character, and self-discipline to do the job right.
- Complete honesty is required. This includes being honest even when it hurts, and even when people laugh in disbelief. If we just recited believable lies, then we would be like our peers and the mainstream media.
- We do not publish anything that is politically correct. Political correctness is inherently a type of dishonesty, aimed at appeasing those who cannot accept truth. We do not pull our punches to protect anyone's feelings. If someone cannot handle the truth, then the problem lies with him, not us. To report news and not be truthful about it is the utter pinnacle of corruption, and corruption is why very few people have respect for journalists nowadays. Let us use the topic of Islam for an example of political correctness. The politically-correct narrative is that the terrorism problem comes only from fringe "radicals", as if Islam itself were a peaceful religion that is compatible with civilization. Islam is like communism, in that its apologists claim that it is simply not being practiced correctly, but it is actually at its worst when it is being practiced correctly. Terrorists are the ones who are faithfully obeying the 'scriptures' of Mohammad. We aim to be a force for good, and nothing good is ever based on lies.
- If a person is credible, then his writing speaks for itself. We include facts and statistics whenever it is prudent for enhancing the credibility of our articles. We also use quotations liberally. Whenever we cannot find 3rd-party, credible sources to dispute a fallacy from an organization, which is otherwise considered credible, then we utilize quotes from the agency itself, in order to use its own words against it. There are usually enough good and honest whistle-blowers to make it possible.
- We operate on the premise that God provided all that we need to live long and healthy lives, and that pharmaceuticals in the long term cause much more harm than good.
- We do not have a set article length. Articles should be made as long as is necessary to convey all of the important points that an author is attempting to make.
- We treat our writers with respect, except for when they make it impossible for us to do so.
- Do not use contractions, for they have no place in formal writing.
- We expect for our writers to be able to write about complex topics in language that is understandable by average people, while never insulting the intelligence of readers.
- Articles should be written in the third person, following standard journalistic practices. This rule does not generally apply to political articles or articles wherein a compelling, human-interest angle might be better suited for the topic.
- We provide answers, not questions. Even rhetorical questions are not acceptable. They destroy credibility and annoy readers.
- Do not mention specific products or companies, unless it would be critical for the story.
- Articles are never to be written for the sake of 'coolness' or for popularity. Our articles must be accurate and authoritative. This is about maturity and trustworthiness.
- The requirements are exceedingly high for health and medical articles. On these subjects, writers must be willing to accept our training and corrections, as are needed. Accept that our assistance would be needed, and that ego is the most common thing which has ruined both the work and the careers of writers.
- Writers of health topics should be aware that we are participating in an information war, in which the medical establishment ruthlessly maligns everything involving alternative medicine, and they do it in utter disregard of the actual science that they are pretending to embrace. In other words, the true numbers for safety and effectiveness are virtually never what they state for either type of medicine. Thus, writers must not use health media sources which operate on the other side. The Mayo Clinic, for example, has astoundingly warned people that vitamin C is dangerous, so it could never be used as a credible source. Writers should consult with us about the true credibility of health sources before committing too much time to an article. Writers who do not heed this precaution will get burnt. Over the years, we have developed an uncanny ability to isolate the credible sources from those with an agenda of disinformation, which is most of them. The truth matters here.
- We frequently publish health stories that are difficult for readers to believe, due to their indoctrination from the media and medical establishment. A writer's natural tendency is to present such controversial material in an apologetic manner, as if his position must be defended pro-actively. Unfortunately, this defensiveness erodes the confidence of the readers, so that the writer loses those whom he could have otherwise convinced. Another failed strategy is overloading the readers with science, numbers, and statistics, so that all but a few engineering types tune out. For the difficult health topics, we have employed a multitude of strategies to be convincing. The most dominant of these is simply writing with confident authority. If the public responded well to exceptional scientific arguments, then people like us would have destroyed the established medical system long ago. Instead, they respond to politics and whatever they have been taught to place their faith into. Therefore, we expect authors of health topics to write with confidence and to show only the data that is prudent for a story.
- It is wise to have a conference call with us about upcoming articles, even though this is not required. It will drastically decrease your chance of getting shot down. We are easy and friendly to talk with. Contact us if you need our toll-free number, or if you need us to call you. We don't mind getting the bill. Our standard number is +1, (336) 528-4120.
Section II - Copyrights and Legal
- You must authorize us to reprint and republish submitted works at HealthWyze.org, and any Internet domain name that we rename this web site to in the future. Be advised that submitting your work to us for publication implicitly gives us this right.
- Our Liberal Copyright Policy does not apply to the works from guest columnists, unless a special provision is made.
- For all works submitted, which have been previously published, we require the disclosure of this information, so that we may include it in the article's by-line. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure that they have not surrendered their republication rights. Articles that have already been printed by large media companies are unlikely to be republished by The Health Wyze Report. Our preference is to be the original publisher.
- We shall never grant 3rd parties permission to republish your work. Work published herein, at The Health Wyze Report, may not be republished elsewhere if the work was performed for payment, unless we grant a special exception.