Editorial policy
This page describes how the rest of the site is made. It is here so that a reader can judge the pages rather than trust them, which is a more useful thing to be able to do.
Who writes this?
dermatology-clinic.net is published by François Castellani. It is written by editors, not by clinicians, and it is not reviewed by a doctor. That last point matters enough to be stated plainly rather than buried: there is no medical reviewer, no consultant on the masthead and no « medically reviewed by » line anywhere on the site. Inventing one would be easy and would be a lie, and a health site that lies about its review process has nothing left worth reading.
What follows from that is a hard limit on what these pages are allowed to say. They describe. They explain vocabulary, structures and processes. They do not assess anybody's skin, and they do not stand in for the person who can.
Where does the site apply?
Almost everything practical in dermatology depends on where you are: how you reach a specialist, what a label on a bottle is required to say, which public bodies publish guidance. Writing as though those things were universal is one of the quieter ways a health site becomes wrong. Pages here describe the United Kingdom, and any page that describes a care pathway says so at the top.
How is a fact allowed onto a page?
Anything numerical, regulatory or official is held in a separate data file rather than typed into the prose. Each entry carries the primary source it came from, the geographical area it applies to and the date it was last checked, and the reader sees that date next to the figure. An entry without a source and a date does not display at all.
The practical consequence is that pages sometimes go out with a gap where a figure could have been. That is the intended behaviour. A missing number costs a reader very little; an invented one costs them the ability to trust anything else on the page.
Sources are primary wherever a primary source exists: the body that published the guidance, not an article about it. Anything checked more than eighteen months ago is flagged for rechecking, because public health material is revised and last year's page is not evidence of this year's position.
Which sources are usable at all is a separate question, settled before any of them was cited. Almost none of the health bodies quoted here permits its wording to be reproduced, so the rule on this site is that we link and never copy. That checking is published in full, with the date each answer was confirmed, as the reuse terms of the sources this site cites.
What is deliberately not here?
Diagnosis is absent, and so is differential diagnosis. Treatment protocols, doses, schedules and durations are absent for the same reason: they belong to whoever is prescribing. You will find no clinical photographs here, no images of lesions, and nothing arranged as a before and after comparison. Practitioners are not named. Clinics are not recommended, appointments are not booked, and there is no directory. Reader comments and testimonials are absent too, because an account of somebody's condition is health data, and collecting it casually is not something this site is equipped to do responsibly.
The absence of a symptom checker is also deliberate rather than an oversight. Matching a description to your own skin is the part that goes wrong, and it goes wrong in both directions: people talk themselves out of appointments as often as into them.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, it gets changed rather than defended. Corrections to anything factual are made directly on the page and the update date changes with them. You can reach the site at contact@dermatology-clinic.net.
How the site is funded
The site may carry affiliate links to product categories such as sun protection or emollients. Where it does, that is disclosed at the top of the page, not only in the small print. No page about a serious condition carries any commercial content at all, and no product is ever presented as a treatment for anything. If a commercial arrangement ever required softening a page, the arrangement would go rather than the page.