How we decide what to publish, and what we refuse to publish.

Every claim gets its strongest case first

Each marketed range in the registry is presented with a steelman before a criticism. This is a deliberate constraint on us, not a courtesy to sellers. Several “optimal” ranges are substantially correct, and a publication that reflexively dismissed all of them would be just as useless as one that accepted them all; it would simply be wrong in the opposite direction.

Where the consumer industry is ahead of routine clinical practice, we say so. Fasting insulin and the newer liver enzyme thresholds are two current examples.

Attribution of marketed ranges

Version 1 of the registry attributes each marketed range to the category of seller that promotes it (longevity testing platforms, hormone clinics, supplement marketing) rather than to a named company.

This is a limitation and we would rather state it than obscure it. Naming a specific company as the source of a specific number requires documenting where and when they published it, and that documentation is not yet complete. Publishing per-company attribution before it is verified would be precisely the failure mode this site exists to correct. Named attribution ships when the sourcing does.

The Panel Audit

The audit distinguishes two counts. Claimed markers is what the company advertises. Confirmed is the number of results we have independently established come from a distinct assay run on your sample, rather than being calculated from other results, imported from a questionnaire, or derived from a wearable.

Where an audit is incomplete, the confirmed column reads “Audit pending” and stays empty. Currently 5 of 8 entries are in that state. Filling those cells with the advertised figure would make the table exactly as reliable as the marketing it exists to check, so we leave them blank and take the aesthetic hit.

One entry is marked Disputed. That label means a company’s advertised count is the subject of active litigation brought by a competitor. It is not a finding by us, the allegations are unproven, and we take no position on their merits. But a buyer should know the claim is contested.

What we refuse to publish

• Dosing recommendations, protocols, or titration schedules for any compound, in any framing
• Individualised medical advice, or any tool that outputs a personal treatment recommendation
• A number we have not verified, in place of an admission that we have not verified it
• Any claim that a compounded preparation is equivalent to, interchangeable with, or the same as an approved drug
• Content funded, reviewed, or influenced by a company that sells what the content describes

Corrections

Corrections are published visibly, with a dated note, rather than edited in silently. A publication that quietly fixes its mistakes is asking you to trust it more than its record justifies.

Every registry entry and audit row carries a last-reviewed date. Reference intervals differ between laboratories and assays, and regulatory positions change; a date lets you judge how much weight a page still deserves.

Known limitations

Stated plainly, because a methodology page that lists only strengths is marketing:

• The registry currently covers 22 biomarkers: the highest-demand ones, not a comprehensive set.
• Marketed range attribution is categorical, not per-company, as described above.
• Most panel audits are incomplete, and the confirmed column reflects that.
• State rules are verified only for those flagged as restricted; others are shown as open because no unusual restriction was identified, which is a weaker statement than individual verification.
• There is not yet a named clinician on the masthead. Until there is, treat this as carefully-sourced reference material rather than clinically reviewed content.