How to read Longevity Hacker News
The goal is not to sound certain. The goal is to show what is known, what is early, what is risky and what the source actually says.
Simple answer
Read each page in three layers: simple answer first, useful explanation second, source and regulatory detail only when you want the deeper version.
How to read this site in 60 seconds
- Start with the simple answer.
- Check whether the claim is proven in humans or mostly early science.
- Check whether the product or use is approved, off-label, compounded or experimental.
- Read what not to assume before acting on any claim.
- Open the sources if you want to inspect the original context.
The evidence ladder
We ask a simple question first: how close is this claim to proof in real people?
- 1
Proven enough for standard use
Human evidence and accepted medical use for the specific purpose.
- 2
Promising but not settled
Some human data or strong early evidence, with important questions still open.
- 3
Mostly animal or lab evidence
Interesting science, but not proof it works in people.
- 4
Theory, hype or anecdotes
People talk about it, but reliable evidence is weak.
- 5
Regulatory or safety warning
The main story is approval status, legality, quality or risk.
Our evidence labels
Human trial evidence
Tested in people. Still check study size, controls and the exact outcome.
Human observational evidence
Seen in people, but not proven by a controlled trial.
Mostly lab/animal
Useful for science, not proof that it works in people.
Early theory or anecdotes
Interesting, but weak as a reason to act.
Regulatory watch
The main question is approval, legality, product quality or risk.
Our risk labels
Lower risk
Still not personal advice, but less likely to involve major medical or legal issues.
Moderate risk
There may be interactions, overuse, uncertainty or marketing exaggeration.
High risk
Do not treat this as a casual wellness decision.
Experimental
Belongs in research or specialist care, not casual self-experimentation.
High risk
Do not use the page for dosing, sourcing or self-administration decisions.
What we do not provide
No medical advice, dosing, sourcing, protocols, vendor lists, self-injection guidance or personalized recommendations. The site helps readers understand claims and ask better questions.
Detailed editorial policyAI use, source selection, medical boundaries and corrections.+
How AI is used
AI assists with source summarization, claim extraction, structured classification, FAQ drafting and internal consistency checks. AI output is not treated as authority. Source links, evidence labels and risky medical claims require editorial review.
Source selection
We prioritize official regulators, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, peer-reviewed journals, NIH pages and primary company releases. News and social posts can appear as signals, but they are labeled as lower-confidence inputs.
Medical boundaries
We explain source material and questions to ask. We do not tell readers what to take, combine, stop, start, purchase or self-administer.
Correction policy
Corrections are welcomed through the contact page. We prioritize corrections involving regulatory status, source attribution, safety framing and dates.