About LongLifeList

If you want to know whether a supplement, a drug, a therapy or a habit is worth your money and your risk, the honest answer is usually somewhere between “probably not” and “nobody has looked properly”. That answer is hard to find, because the people who have looked properly publish in journals and the people who have not publish in podcasts.

So we built the thing we wanted: one page per intervention, graded per outcome, with the studies visible, the formula published, a named clinician’s signature and a date. If a grade changes, the change and the reviewer’s reasoning are public. If we get something wrong, the correction stays on the page.

The uncomfortable consequence is that most of our pages say some version of “probably not” or “not enough evidence”. A site optimised for engagement would not do that. We would rather be the site people check than the site people enjoy.

• Grade interventions against outcomes. Not molecules against vibes. A thing can be well-evidenced for one outcome and useless for another, and we grade the pair.
• Show the working. Every study in a grade, with its design, species, sample size, duration, risk-of-bias appraisal and whether it supports or contradicts. Formula version 1.0.0, published in full.
• Measure hype separately. The gap between how much attention something gets and how much evidence supports it is the single most useful number on the site.
• Build calculators that admit their uncertainty. Every result shows its interval as prominently as its number, and says which population the model was fitted on.
• List clinics honestly. A directory where a clinic’s services carry the evidence grades of what it sells, and where paid placement is a separate, labelled block rather than a nudge in the organic order.
• Let you hold your own data. Lab results and device data in one place, under your control, shared with a clinician only when you choose and only in the scope you choose.

Graded intervention–outcome pairs

0

Published intervention pages

0

Studies in the evidence base

0

Of those, retracted and flagged

0

Active medical reviewers

0

Grade decisions published

0

Corrections published

0

Clinics listed

0

Of those, LLL Verified

0

We publish the retracted-study count on purpose. A database that claims zero retractions is a database that is not checking.

• Sell an evidence grade, a ranking position, or the removal of a review.
• Sell health data, in any form, to anyone, for any price.
• Sell our own supplements or tests, which would make every grade on the site suspect.
• Publish a health page without a named reviewer and a review date.
• Present a grade C, D, F, HARMFUL or INSUFFICIENT claim as something to act on.
• Remove a correction notice once it has been published.
• Show a number without its uncertainty.

The point of publishing the formula, the change log and the corrections log is that you do not have to take our word for anything. If you think a grade is wrong, tell us and cite something: editorial@longlifelist.com. The evidence dataset is also available under an open licence with a citation requirement on the data page, so you can compute your own grades and tell us where ours differ.