EDITORIAL POLICY
How this content is made
Who writes, what gets reviewed, what we refuse to publish, and what AI actually does in here. With no credential we do not hold.
THE SCOPE
We write about how medicine is studied, not about how medicine is practised.
That one line decides everything that follows. Study method, tools, exams, the rhythm of medical school and how ArchiMeds itself works are things three medical students live every day and can describe honestly. Clinical practice is not one of them.
What you will not find here
- Management, diagnosis, dosing or treatment — nothing resembling clinical guidance.
- Medical reference content, the kind that needs the signature of a professional holding an active council registration.
- Anything addressed to patients. This blog is for people studying medicine and is no substitute for seeing a doctor.
WHO WRITES
Three real people, each with a name and a page of their own
ArchiMeds is built by three medical students, and they are the ones who write and edit the blog.
Ian Franz
Medical student · CEO and co-founder of ArchiMeds
Builds Archi's AI and infrastructure. If your lecture summary comes back in seconds, that's his doing.
Lorrany Dantas
Medical student · COO and co-founder of ArchiMeds
Talks to students every day and brings back what's missing. Nothing enters the product without passing through her.
Pedro Gois
Medical student · CMO and co-founder of ArchiMeds
He's the voice of Archi. Takes the product to students and brings their language back into it.
Most articles are signed by ArchiMeds Team, the organization. When that happens a named human editor is mandatory — content validation fails the build on an article signed by the organization with no editor. Editing here means reading the whole text before it publishes and answering for what it claims.
There are no invented authors on the ArchiBlog. No name, no photo and no bio on this page describes someone who does not exist — and the site has no code path that could print a credential a person does not hold.
WHAT GETS REVIEWED
There is no physician on the team today. It is written here because it is true.
Every article goes through editorial review: a named human editor reads the whole text before it publishes and answers for its clarity, its claims, its links and its sources.
That is not clinical review. Nobody on the team holds a medical council registration. The reviewer field has existed in the system since day one — it renders in the article byline and in the structured data — and today it is empty on every article. While it is empty no article shows a medical-review line, because showing one would be inventing a credential.
The consequence is a rule, not a postponed plan: the ArchiBlog publishes no clinical reference content. It ships only once a professional with an active council registration has reviewed and signed it, by name and registration number — and that depends on our being able to pay for that work.
The day it exists, the line will name who reviewed the text and the date they approved it — not the date we published.
HOW WE USE AI
AI tools help draft. None of them signs.
We build an AI product and we use AI to work, including to draft, structure and check text. Saying so is more honest than hiding it. What sinks a piece of content is not the tool: it is thin text and invented people.
So the rule is about the signature, not about the tool. What leaves here was read end to end by a person with a name, who cut it, corrected it and answered for the result. If a text is not worth a human’s reading time, it is not worth publishing.
There is no “written by AI” badge on each article. The badge would say less than this page does, and it would invite a reader to discount a text a person is standing behind.
Machine translation is a drafting step, never a publishing step. An article in English or Spanish has its own author, editor and dates; we do not run a Portuguese text through a translator and publish it in another language.
SOURCES AND DATES
Three dates, because they are three different things
When an article claims something that is not our own experience, the source appears at the foot of the page, visible, with title, publication, year and the date we accessed it. A source buried behind a mid-paragraph link does not count.
And when an article changes after publication, the change stays visible: the Revision history block at the foot of the text lists the date, what changed and who changed it. A silent correction is not a correction.
- Published on
- the date the article went out. It is written in the file by hand — never inferred from the repository history.
- Updated on
- appears only when the text genuinely changed. A fresh date with no change of content is the looks-recent trick Google describes, and here it fails the build.
- Medical review
- the date the reviewer approved the text, not the date we published. No article carries that date today, because none has a reviewer.
CORRECTIONS
Found an error? Tell us.
If anything is wrong, out of date or badly explained in any article, write to us. Name the article and the passage — that is enough.
What happens next: we check it. If the error is real the text is corrected and the correction enters that article’s revision history, dated, so that anyone who already read it can see what changed. If we disagree, we answer and explain why.
Or by email: suporte@archimeds.co
This page changes when the practice changes — including on the day there is a reviewer with an active registration to name here.