How to verify health information

We live in extraordinary times.

On one hand — health and longevity science is developing faster than ever before. Every week brings new studies, new biomarkers, new technologies, and new possibilities to influence our health and aging.

On the other hand — we have never before been in such deep informational chaos:

• anyone can publish,
• anyone can create “expert” content,
• anyone can record a video or write an article about anything,
• and at the same time most people lack both the tools and the knowledge to distinguish facts from nonsense.

This is not a small issue. It is the main obstacle on the path to real, lasting longevity.

Even the best health protocol is useless if it is built on false assumptions, pseudoscience, or conclusions pulled out of context. If you cannot assess information quality, you cannot build a long-term health strategy.

It is worth understanding two things few people say out loud:

• A huge portion of health information online is full of errors, oversimplifications, conflicts of interest, or outright pseudoscience.
• The ability to verify information is more important than knowing any supplement, protocol, or tool.

Below you will learn the foundations that will allow you to distinguish science from marketing, facts from narratives, and reliability from chaos.

Not everyone who talks about health has your best interest at heart. And even if they do — it does not mean they have the competence.

In the longevity world, the amount of content grows exponentially, but its quality often leaves much to be desired. Before trusting someone's opinion, you must understand the logic behind different types of sources — because each plays by its own rules and follows its own interests.

Below is a clear breakdown that will help you see when someone is sharing knowledge, and when — opinion or marketing.

Today anyone can publish — and that is precisely the problem.

Algorithms reward content that triggers strong emotions — not content that is true. This is why the biggest reach goes to:

• controversy,
• sensation,
• shocking headlines,
• emotion,
• black-and-white opinions,
• oversimplifications,
• polarization.

No one checks:

• whether the data is interpreted correctly,
• whether the study methodology makes sense,
• whether the author has expertise,
• whether there is a conflict of interest,
• whether the content is biologically logical.

If something looks good on video, fits a trend, and has a “wow effect” — it gains reach.

But reach ≠ truth. The fact that a video has a million views does not mean it has value. It only means it hit the algorithm.

Here the conflict of interest is obvious: Their goal is to sell.

Therefore you will usually see:

• exaggeration of effects,
• omitting negative study results,
• manipulation of numbers (“study on 12 people = breakthrough”),
• pseudo-scientific language,
• appeals to authority,
• “internal studies” without peer review.

This is not knowledge. This is marketing dressed in scientific tone.

They are particularly deceptive because they look professional. They are often signed by a doctor or dietitian, and the text is written in correct language.

But:

• the goal is not education,
• the goal is to sell a product or brand image.

A sponsored article will always “lead” to a conclusion beneficial for the sponsor — even if subtly. It is still advertising, just more refined.

The most dangerous category.

They imitate science, pretend to be reliable, and build a facade of professionalism:

• graphs,
• references to studies,
• scientific terminology,
• elegant layout,
• serious tone.

But when you look closer:

• studies taken out of context,
• incorrect interpretation,
• methodology — missing,
• narrative — exaggerated,
• conclusions — unscientific.

Their goals:

• gain trust,
• build a following,
• sell services, courses, or supplements.

They pretend to be a laboratory — but operate like a simple shop.

The largest group — and one of the most influential.

These are people who often have good intentions, but:

• lack scientific tools,
• do not understand research methodology,
• generalize from personal experience,
• possess high confidence but low knowledge of statistics, biology, adaptation, or aging.

They usually rely on:

• one book,
• one course,
• their own experiments,
• social media trends.

And yet they can be extremely persuasive — not because their knowledge is solid, but because they are good communicators. This is not science. This is opinion disguised as knowledge.

Bryan Johnson is a truly exceptional figure in today's longevity space. He is a pioneer pushing the boundaries of what we consider possible. His discipline, consistency, and the sheer scale of work he performs on his own body inspire millions. His efforts undoubtedly accelerate the entire field.

But admiration must not overshadow common sense — because Bryan is simultaneously one of the best examples of why we must look at such individuals with respect but also with caution.

Johnson uses more than a hundred supplements a day, performs dozens of interventions simultaneously, and runs a company selling supplements and longevity gadgets. This places his activities in the center of a conflict of interest. Not because he is doing something wrong — but because it is impossible to be both “the experiment” and “the product” without blurring the line between science and marketing.

This matters because Bryan does not isolate variables, does not follow scientific experimental methodology, often does not respond to criticism of his interventions, and simultaneously promotes solutions that seem “proven,” though in reality they stem only from his personal conviction.

Therefore it must be said clearly: Bryan Johnson can be an inspiration, but he is not a source of reliable scientific data. You may admire his discipline and draw motivation from his story, but your own health decisions cannot be based on marketing — even if it comes from a friendly billionaire wanting to stay young forever.

We hardly need to convince anyone today of AI’s usefulness in everyday life. ChatGPT has brought a genuine breakthrough in how we acquire and use information.

However, there is one fundamental problem with popular chatbots — they were trained on materials available online, and thus contain:

• Information from blogs, social networks, YouTube videos, where content is not verified, often seeks sensation (because it attracts clicks), and frequently spreads harmful nonsense.
• Content from websites selling supplements or health products — a clear conflict of interest, as they must attempt to convince you of the product’s effectiveness and necessity.
• Sponsor­ed articles, where instead of objective review we see messaging serving a company’s interest.
• Pseudoscientific websites that appear credible but are not based on rigorous scientific data.
• Content from influencers who “think something,” or sincerely believe it, but cannot support it with evidence beyond personal conviction.

Popular AI chatbots are designed for general-purpose use across all domains. They lack specialization, methodology, and validated data.

Discussions about diets resemble religious wars more every year: keto vs vegans, carnivore vs plant-eaters, low-carb vs high-carb… Each group believes it has found the only correct path and the rest of the world is wrong. The problem is that emotions — not science — drive these conflicts.

Human biology is far too complex for one “ideal diet” to exist for everyone. We differ in genetics, microbiome composition, metabolism, activity level, lifestyle, health history, and even glycemic responses to identical foods.

Dr Peter Attia says it clearly: there is no single best diet — only diets more or less suited to specific individuals.

Tribal wars generate more chaos than knowledge. They create an illusion of certainty instead of teaching thinking. And they often lead to obsessions, restrictions, and poor decisions that destabilize rather than improve health.

One of the core principles of the Longevity Investment Strategy is that we do not make health decisions based on trends, influencers, fashion, or personal preference. Health is not a place for guessing — it is a place for methodology.

We do not rely on viral posts, Instagram trends, celebrity advice, or whatever is “popular.” Instead, we rely on a structured set of tools:

• biological mechanism,
• data,
• RCTs, meta-analyses, systematic reviews,
• epidemiology (if nothing else is available),
• clinical practice,
• repeatability of effects,
• effect size.

Nothing more — and nothing less. This approach protects against chaos, extremism, tribalism, and marketing. In the world of health, the winner is not the one with the loudest opinions — but the one with the best methodology.

In the longevity era — and the Internet era in general — the ability to separate facts from opinions becomes one of the most important “cognitive muscles.” Hundreds of thousands of people publish health-related content, but only a small fraction of it is based on real evidence. The rest is a mix of intuition, marketing, half-truths, and oversimplifications that can cause harm instead of helping.

That is why you need a toolbox that helps you determine whether a piece of information is:

• reliable,
• evidence-based,
• scientifically grounded,
• and above all — useful for your health.

Below is an expanded list of principles I consider to be the basic intellectual hygiene of health and longevity.

In today’s media, opinion often masquerades as knowledge — but the differences between them are enormous.

Opinion:

• sounds confident and authoritative,
• is short and emotional,
• usually presents the world in black-and-white,
• does not explain the basis for its claims,
• does not allow doubt.

Knowledge:

• is based on evidence,
• differentiates strength of certainty,
• includes context and nuance,
• can say “we don’t know yet,”
• explains mechanism, not just outcome.

Rule:
If a message sounds too absolute — it is usually not knowledge.

In the world of health, the following are NOT evidence:

• “it works for me,”
• “everyone does it,”
• “I have a good feeling,”
• “I read that…,”
• “it sounds logical.”

Evidence is:

• randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
• meta-analyses of multiple studies,
• strong epidemiological data,
• repeatability of results,
• a biological mechanism consistent with current knowledge.

Not all studies have equal value. Science has a hierarchy — and it’s worth knowing it:

Highest:

• randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on humans, meta-analyses,
• large, long-term cohorts,
• population-level clinical data.

Middle:

• observational studies,
• mechanistic studies.

Lower:

• case studies,
• expert opinion,
• animal studies,
• in vitro studies.

Rule:
The more serious the decision you want to make, the higher the level of evidence that should support it.

One of the simplest — and most ignored — questions:

👉 Is the person recommending a product earning money from that product?

If yes — you cannot treat it as an objective source. This does not mean everything they say is false. It means that every claim must pass double verification.

In biology, nothing works “magically.” If there is no solid mechanism:

• biochemical,
• metabolic,
• physiological,
• behavioral,

...then we are likely dealing with marketing, not science.

In studies, we often see the phrase “statistically significant.” But statistical significance ≠ clinical relevance.

There may be an intervention that:

• “works,”
• but changes a marker by only 1%,
• does not translate into improved health,
• and gives no practical effect.

Example:
Supplements that lower CRP by 0.1. Technically “works.” Practically changes nothing.

One of the most common mistakes.

If a study finds that people who eat more beans live longer — it does NOT mean beans cause longer life.

Other factors may matter:

• lifestyle,
• genetics,
• physical activity,
• socio-economic status,
• hundreds of other variables.

Just because two things occur together does NOT mean one causes the other.

In science, a single study:

• means nothing,
• may be wrong,
• may have poor methodology,
• may be sponsored.

What matters is the trend:

• meta-analyses,
• systematic reviews,
• repeatable results,
• consensus across independent research groups.

Scientific conclusions are not born from a single article — but from hundreds.

What you’ve read so far is only the foundation — an introduction to a world in which you understand where health information comes from and how to filter it.

But this is only the beginning of your education, because true mastery in longevity begins when you can independently, consciously, and critically evaluate every new “breakthrough,” supplement, strategy, or chart that appears online.

In the next lessons, I will walk you step by step through the entire process — a process most people never learn — which determines whether your health protocol is based on reliable knowledge or on marketing.

You will learn, among other things:

• how to professionally evaluate scientific studies — understanding not only the conclusions, but also the limitations,
• how to read numbers such as hazard ratio, p-values, and confidence intervals — and what they truly mean for your health,
• how to assess methodological quality — whether a study is well designed, who was studied, and whether results make biological sense,
• how to spot “studies that mean nothing” — those too small, too short, too weak, or sponsored,
• how to distinguish evidence from marketing — identifying framing manipulation, cherry-picking, and pseudo-scientific language,
• how to build your own epistemological filter — protecting you from information chaos, algorithms, and emotional narratives,
• how to avoid falling for pseudoscience — especially the kind that looks extremely “professional” but lacks data,
• how to assess whether an intervention actually makes sense before you spend money, time, or energy on it,
• how to extract practical conclusions from the literature and apply them to your actual health protocol.

This is not expert-only theory — it is a set of skills that protects you for life. In a world where anyone can be an “expert,” where algorithms reward controversy, and marketing imitates science, the ability to verify information is the most powerful longevity tool you can possess.

And you are just beginning to acquire it.