It's important for you to know if a website is trustworthy or not. Thus there is an accreditation process for it. Health information sites are accredited by the good people at Health On the Net. To be accredited a site has to live up to their Code of Conduct. If a site bears the seal of HON accreditation, then you can trust the information presented there. If it doesn't, it may still be a trustworthy site. Just look at HON's Code of Conduct and see if the site respects most of the principles listed there. The Internet is full of anonymous fearmongers who have nothing better to do than make you distrust a medication or therapy that could very well work for you just because it didn't work for them.  Many of the sites listed here bear the HON seal of approval, many don't because they are made up of anecdotal evidence, don't want to disclose their financial information or just don't want to bother.  But they still are full of valuable information.  Even if a site doesn't bother with HON accreditation, there are a few things you need to check to know your sources:

• Where does there information come from?  You can check my references on most of my pages (I'm getting there) as well as my bibliography in general.  I also research a bunch of stuff online.  A lot of my information comes from direct personal experience - mine, Mouse's, that of our friends', and that of the many people who post to various online support groups. It's known in the trade as anecdotal evidence.  To protect privacy it remains kind of vague.  But I am clearing up the lines as to what is coming from books and other printed sources, what is coming from an online source (with direct links to those sources) and what is coming from someone's experience.  And while one person's experience won't map to a lot of people's experiences, a lot of similar experiences with something do map to a lot of similar experiences, that's for damn sure.

• Who are the people publishing the site?  You know who we are.

• What is their agenda?  Are they selling you a product or service?  Are they just spreading fear and hysteria to justify their own fear and hysteria?  Are they fronts for the pharmaceutical companies?  My agenda is complicated.  This whole thing started as personal research for me and Mouse.  Then it became an article for the now defunct Poppin' Zits!.  I want people to understand how meds and therapy and being mentally interesting all work together so it's not such a goddamn struggle just to make it through each day.  So it's part missionary work, part getting off on being a freaking know-it-all and along the way I found out I can actually make a living at doing this.

• And that last point raises the big issue - where does the money come from?  You can see all mine laid out.  At least when I have my act together to keep it updated.  In short, I get my money from Google ad revenue and donations.  Selling stuff hasn't made me that much.  But I've always sucked at retail.  If you see ads and/or donation methods on a site it's pretty clear that's how they're funded.  Otherwise you have to ask if it's not clearly laid out somewhere.

• It also helps to know what other people think of the site.  Including media producers.

• Finally, what is the privacy policy?

But it's important for you to know if a website is trustworthy or not. Thus there is an accreditation process for it. Health information sites are accredited by the good people at Health On the Net. To be accredited a site has to live up to their Code of Conduct.  As you can see, we're now fully accredited.  I've dealt with the issues where I had slacked off.  Very few pages are lacking a creation date, and those that don't date back to November 2003.  All now sport a last modified date.    While I have been somewhat sloppy with sources I've been much better about digging up where I get information when it comes from a published source and be more clear when stuff is coming from the collective opinion of the the unwashed masses.  That's you and me, folks.   I personally think that our experiences and opinions are valuable sources of information, I just need to be a lot more clear as to when I'm telling you stuff it's "just" experiential data and anecdotal evidence and the rantings & ravings about drugs and mental illness we've all experienced, and when it's information blessed by peer review and whence it came.  I think it's pretty clear most of the time in each article, but there are still a few places here and there where it's not 100% clear. 

I have put in the section on how to read our drug information pages where information generally comes from regarding medications.  It will just be a matter of living up to that sometimes, as I haven't always been good about links to published studies and such.

I know that comes across as sarcastic and bitter, but that just reflects my internal conflict on the entire issue of what is valid information, and has nothing to do with the people at HONcode, who are doing an incredible job of helping you the health information consumer and us the health information providers.  I think the scientific method and the whole process of publication with peer review is critical and necessary to weed out hucksters who would sell us snake oil that would kill us long before it cures us.  In all sincerity I write, "God bless the peer review process, may it continue ad infinitum."  Good science is what is going to make us well, and making sure you get quality health information is what is going to help you get well.  It's just that I think there is room there for anecdotal evidence, that the patient should have a voice in the process.  We have more to say than just reporting bizarre side effects.  Sure, all you scientists can give anecdotal evidence a different weight, just as you, the patient consumer, can choose to give more or less weight and trust to what other people who've taken these crazy meds have to say about them than all the clinical trials and studies.

Me?  Being the freak that I am I put them on equal footing.  I consider both studies and the experiences of the people who have taken the meds.  That's how I worked with my doctor to make decisions on medications.

Anyway, as spelled out in the disclaimer on every frickin' page, we have no credentials. We're all just the sort of patients that most doctors hate, autodidacts who sink their teeth into a subject and don't let up until we're full of every fact and detail possible.

Hey, the good people at HON have made it even easier to find valid health information.  They now offer a browser plugin that automatically checks accreditation.  For instance you would see that crazymeds is still just an applicant and not fully accredited.  It also searches their database of sites.  Check it out.

Read why you should trust Dr. Phelp's site and apply the same rules to this and any other site on the Internet.  Also check out Dr. Bob's links to articles on quality of information.   Read a few, if not all of those articles when shopping for any health information on the Internet.  Hell, those guys are actual doctors.  Keep in mind that web pages should be third or fourth opinions at best, and something that should be shared with your doctor if you think it's worth trying - you should never just do something on your own based on information you get from a stupid web page.

Remember, when it comes to any medication or therapy or tool for living - your mileage may vary. Effects and side effects will be different for everyone. It's always going to be a roll of the dice when it comes to everything in life. All we can do is help you play the odds as best as possible and let you make an informed decision with as many hard facts and diverse experiences in front of you.