My name is Doug. I'm 67, and health has always interested me. Not in a clinical way (I'm not a practitioner of anything), but the way a curious person gets interested in something that matters to them personally and just keeps reading.
My doctors are excellent. I trust them completely and follow their guidance. What this site is about is the reading I find myself doing after I leave the office: the emerging research, the traditional approaches, the mind-body territory that sits just outside the edges of standard protocols. Not because that territory is better than conventional medicine. Because it's additive, and I find it genuinely interesting.
Health Insights HQ is where that reading goes. I follow the research carefully, I think hard about what it means, and when I find something presented well (a program, a guide, a structured approach) I make sure to share it. My job on this site is to read widely, think clearly, and point you toward the good stuff honestly.
I have genuine skin in the game. Arthritis runs in my family. So does high blood pressure. I'm at the age where prevention is no longer abstract. The topics I cover are the ones I'm paying attention to anyway, so I might as well write them up and share them.
Doug, Health Insights HQ
"My doctors do a lot for me. And then I go home and keep reading." That's the emotional core of this site. Not a corrective to conventional medicine. A complement to it.
The territory Health Insights HQ covers sits in a specific space: emerging research that hasn't made it into standard protocols yet, traditional approaches that complement conventional treatment, and lifestyle and mind-body findings that don't always fit neatly into a clinical visit. Some of what I explore is well-established. Some of it is newer. I try to be clear about the difference.
This isn't fringe territory. Most of what I point to is grounded in published research. It just takes time to travel from the research literature into routine practice (sometimes years, sometimes longer). I find I'm not inclined to wait.
I use careful language throughout because health content requires it: "research suggests" rather than "research proves," "appears to" rather than "is." That hedging isn't weakness. It's accuracy.
Some articles on this site contain links to programs or guides from publishers I've looked into carefully. When I find a topic well-covered by an existing resource, something that goes deeper than an article can or lays out a structured approach I think is genuinely worth following, I include a link so readers can benefit from it directly.
Where I have an affiliate relationship with a publisher, I say so clearly. Every time, on every page that contains one. The disclosure is in the recommendation itself, in the footer, and on this page. It never influences what I write about or how I write about it. The topic comes first. The resource, if there's a good one, comes after.
I don't write about things I haven't read carefully. Each article follows the same arc: the conventional explanation acknowledged first, then the mechanism or finding that conventional treatment tends not to cover, then the practical context for what it might mean. I try to represent the research honestly and flag where evidence is strong versus emerging.
Articles are living documents. When significant new research appears on a topic I've covered, I update the article and note what changed. Health content that doesn't get updated goes stale, and stale health content can mislead people. I take that seriously.
I'm not a doctor, a nutritionist, or a researcher. The medical disclaimer on every page means what it says: nothing here is medical advice. Talk to your doctor, especially before changing medications or supplements. I mean that genuinely, not as a legal formality.
I monitor new research on multiple health topics. I'll write when I find something significant, not on a schedule, just when it warrants it.
Subscribe Free → (Opens in a new tab)No spam. No daily emails. Unsubscribe any time.