How to Score Any Longevity Claim in 60 Seconds: The Patient’s Evidence-Graded Rubric

By Dr. Brandon Bright, DAOM, LAc · Doctor of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine · Functional Medicine University-certified · Tustin, CA · Last reviewed: June 14, 2026

Every week, a patient walks into the Tustin practice with a question that sounds like this: “My friend started [X supplement / Y stack / Z protocol]. Should I do it?” Sometimes the answer is yes. More often the honest answer is “let’s see how it scores against the things that matter.” This piece gives you that scoring rubric — six simple questions, weighted clearly, so you can evaluate any longevity claim, supplement stack, or protocol in about 60 seconds, the same way I’d do it sitting across from you. The rubric works on Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint, on the $9.99 AI health coaches, on the $499/year clinical bloodwork tools, on the latest peptide TikTok, and on everything in between.

The 55-Second Answer

Six questions. Each scored 0-2. Maximum 12 points. Anything 9-12 is worth your time and money. 6-8 is a maybe — fits some patients. Under 6 is mostly spectacle and not worth your dollars. The questions: (1) does it generate measurable change in real biomarkers, (2) does it adjust for your individual biology, (3) is the clinical evidence appropriate to the claim, (4) can you stop using it without harm, (5) does it integrate with the rest of your care, and (6) does the person selling it have anything at stake besides money. Scoring details below, plus worked examples on the longevity tools and claims patients are asking me about right now.

Why This Rubric Exists

The longevity space in 2026 is saturated with content. Some of it is real. Most of it is sales. Patients don’t have a tool to tell the difference. The mainstream press alternates between celebrity profiles (“Bryan Johnson takes 110 pills”) and breathless drug coverage (“retatrutide may produce 24% weight loss”). Neither helps you decide what to do this week.

The Four Layers of Health framework I’ve written about in the cornerstone piece is the foundation: physical / chemical / emotional / electrical, with the priority bottleneck determining what to address first. The rubric below operationalizes that into a scoring system you can apply on the fly. It’s the question I’d ask myself before I recommended anything to a patient — and it’s the question I think every patient deserves to be able to ask.

The Six-Question Rubric

Question 1 — Measurable Biomarker Change

Score 0-2.

• 0 — Vague claims of “wellness,” “energy,” “vitality,” “anti-aging.” No biomarkers named.
• 1 — Subjective markers only (sleep quality, energy, mood). Or biomarkers named but not actually tested by the protocol.
• 2 — Specific biomarkers named and measured. Pre/post data. Reproducible across users.

Why this matters: The longevity space is full of products that sell vibe and call it science. If a protocol can’t tell you which biomarker should move and by how much, it’s not a protocol. It’s content.

Question 2 — Individual Biology Adjustment

Score 0-2.

• 0 — One-size-fits-all. Same protocol for everyone.
• 1 — Adjusts by basic demographics (age, sex, weight) but no biomarker-specific reasoning.
• 2 — Adjusts based on your actual bloodwork, hormones, genetics, gut microbiome, or other measured individual data.

Why this matters: Your biology is not Bryan Johnson’s biology. A protocol that doesn’t personalize is either marketing or medicine for the average person who isn’t you.

Question 3 — Evidence Appropriate to the Claim

Score 0-2.

• 0 — Bold claims (“reverse aging,” “add a decade”) with anecdotal or no clinical support.
• 1 — Modest claims with some clinical data (single small studies, mechanistic plausibility, animal models).
• 2 — Claims matched to evidence. Clinical-grade outcomes for clinical-grade claims; wellness-grade outcomes for wellness-grade claims.

Why this matters: A multivitamin doesn’t need a phase-3 trial. A “stem-cell longevity infusion” does. The claim should match the evidence; when the claim outruns the evidence, that’s spectacle.

Question 4 — Stoppable Without Harm

Score 0-2.

• 0 — Stopping causes meaningful rebound, dependency, or harm.
• 1 — Stopping has mild rebound or you need to taper.
• 2 — You can stop anytime without harm; benefits continue or fade gracefully.

Why this matters: Anything that locks you in financially or biologically should carry a higher evidence bar than something you can walk away from in a week. This is the question most patients forget to ask.

Question 5 — Integrates With Your Care

Score 0-2.

• 0 — Operates in a silo. Doesn’t share data, doesn’t talk to your PCP or specialist, doesn’t fit into your existing protocol.
• 1 — Shares data with you but not with your care team.
• 2 — Integrates with your bloodwork, your clinicians, your other interventions. The picture stays coherent.

Why this matters: Longevity work that fragments your care is worse than no longevity work. Coordinated care wins long-term outcomes.

Question 6 — Skin in the Game

Score 0-2.

• 0 — Pure sales: you buy, they win, regardless of your outcome.
• 1 — Some outcome incentive (refund, money-back guarantee) but financial upside isn’t tied to your results.
• 2 — The person selling it has clinical, reputational, or licensure exposure tied to your outcomes.

Why this matters: A licensed clinician carries liability if their advice harms you. A DTC supplement company doesn’t. Skin in the game isn’t a complete proxy for quality, but it’s a strong one.

Worked Examples

Let’s run the rubric on what patients are asking me about right now.

Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint

• Q1 Biomarker change: 2 (he measures everything, transparently)
• Q2 Individual adjustment: 0 (the protocol is Bryan-specific; no system for adjusting to you)
• Q3 Evidence to claim: 1 (the claims outrun the n=1 evidence; plasma exchange with his teenager isn’t generalizable)
• Q4 Stoppable: 1 (some of the supplements you can stop; the lifestyle pieces are durable)
• Q5 Integrates with care: 0 (operates as a standalone media property, not a clinical layer)
• Q6 Skin in the game: 1 (his reputation is the product; financial upside is tied to subscriptions)

Total: 5/12. Worth watching as content; not worth following as a protocol.

Function Health ($499/year Comprehensive Bloodwork + AI Interpretation)

• Q1: 2 (100+ biomarkers tested twice a year)
• Q2: 2 (interpretation is individualized to your specific results)
• Q3: 2 (presents data; doesn’t overclaim)
• Q4: 2 (cancellation has no health consequence; results are yours to keep)
• Q5: 1 (great data, but the clinical-protocol design layer is still on you to assemble)
• Q6: 1 (medical advisory board; consumer service liability)

Total: 10/12. Strong tool for the data layer. Pairs well with clinical-protocol design from a clinician.

$9.99 AI Health Coach (Google Health Coach, Similar Consumer Tier)

• Q1: 1 (tracks wearable biomarkers; doesn’t generate new ones)
• Q2: 1 (adjusts to your inputs but doesn’t read your labs)
• Q3: 2 (Google is appropriately conservative; doesn’t overclaim)
• Q4: 2 (easy to cancel)
• Q5: 0 (siloed in the Google ecosystem)
• Q6: 1 (corporate liability for the platform; no clinician on the hook)

Total: 7/12. Reasonable for lifestyle optimization; not a longevity protocol.

NAD+ IV Infusion ($300-500/session, IV Clinics)

• Q1: 1 (NAD+ level moves with infusion; downstream functional biomarkers harder to confirm)
• Q2: 0 (standard dose for all patients in most clinics)
• Q3: 0 (claims outrun the human clinical data significantly)
• Q4: 2 (stoppable without harm)
• Q5: 0 (mostly operates outside the rest of your care)
• Q6: 1 (clinic owns the liability if something goes wrong; financial upside is volume)

Total: 4/12. Better evidence on oral NMN or NR for sustained use; IV NAD+ is mostly experience-buying, not outcome-buying.

Clinician-Led Peptide Therapy (Research-Grade, With Appropriate Clinical Oversight)

• Q1: 2 (specific protocols target specific biomarkers and outcomes)
• Q2: 2 (peptide selection, dosing, and cycling all personalize)
• Q3: 1 (mechanism is well-supported; long-term human outcome data still developing for many peptides)
• Q4: 1 (cycling is the model; sudden stopping is fine for most; some require taper)
• Q5: 2 (integrates with bloodwork and other care when done clinically)
• Q6: 2 (licensed clinician carries credential and reputational exposure)

Total: 10/12. Strong tool when done clinically. Cratering score if done through gray-market consumer purchase without clinical oversight.

AI Longevity Pro (The App I Built, Currently in Beta)

Full disclosure: I founded AI Longevity Pro. The beta launched Monday June 1, 2026. Reading my own product review with the rubric I just wrote is an exercise in honesty.

• Q1: 2 (operationalizes Function Health and InsideTracker biomarkers into protocol logic)
• Q2: 2 (per-user Four Layers diagnostic, 47-pair combo knowledge graph, cycle-phase awareness)
• Q3: 1 (claims are wellness-grade, not clinical-trial-grade; appropriately positioned)
• Q4: 2 (cancel anytime, no rebound)
• Q5: 2 (clinical-pipeline integration with the Tustin practice for OC patients; pairs with Function Health and InsideTracker for the data layer)
• Q6: 2 (founder is a licensed DAOM clinician carrying credential exposure; app reputation tied directly to clinical practice)

Total: 11/12. The one point dropped is on Q3 — the app is brand new, so the outcome-data base is still building. The score should improve over the next 12 months as beta data accumulates. I’d respect the rubric over my own product if it scored lower, but I built it to the rubric on purpose. If you want to test it: join the beta waitlist — 90-day complimentary period.

How to Use the Rubric on Something Not in the Examples

When you encounter a new claim or product, ask the six questions in order. Score as you go. Total in your head. The whole exercise takes about 60 seconds once you’ve used it a few times. If the score is under 6, walk away. If it’s 6-8, the question becomes “does the specific gap that’s lowering the score actually matter for me?” If it’s 9-12, that’s worth a closer look — and probably worth bringing to your clinician for the integration conversation.

The rubric is not a substitute for clinical judgment. It’s a triage tool. The point is to free up your time and attention for the longevity work that actually moves outcomes, instead of getting pulled along by the marketing wave that doesn’t.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I share this rubric with my friends? Yes. Send them the link.

What if my doctor’s recommendation scores low on the rubric? Talk to your doctor about it. The rubric is patient-facing, not anti-clinician. Sometimes the conversation reveals a gap; sometimes it reveals that the rubric is missing context your doctor has.

Doesn’t AI Longevity Pro scoring its own product high look biased? Yes, which is why I scored it transparently and showed my work. If you don’t trust the score, run your own with the rubric. The product is built to the rubric on purpose; the rubric isn’t being bent to fit the product.

What about [specific supplement / specific influencer’s protocol] not covered above? Run the rubric. Email me the result if you want a second opinion: brandonbright@gmail.com.

Should I score everything or just expensive things? Score the expensive things and the things you’d be on for years. Don’t waste time scoring a one-time vitamin C purchase.

Is the rubric different for women? The Q2 (individual biology adjustment) score weights heavier for women, because cycle-phase awareness is a meaningful determinant of effectiveness for hormonally-sensitive interventions and most products fail this dimension.

How often should I re-score things? Annually. Evidence accumulates; products iterate; your biology changes. A score from 2026 may not hold in 2028.

What to Do This Week

Pick one expensive longevity product or protocol you’re currently using or considering. Score it. If the score is under 9, ask yourself what would have to change for it to score higher — and whether the change is worth the cost or wait.

If you want to go deeper on the framework underneath the rubric: read the Four Layers of Health cornerstone.

If you want clinician-led longevity protocol design in Orange County: book a first visit at the Tustin practice. $199 in-person initial, $150 virtual. Cash, HSA/FSA, superbill for out-of-network reimbursement.

If you want the AI-Longevity-Pro tier of personalization: join the beta waitlist — 90-day complimentary period.

If you want to read what Bryan Johnson’s protocol scores like in full context: the Blueprint critique has the detailed breakdown.