An independent, reader-first platform. No VC. No pharma ties. No sponsored rankings.
ProvenLongevity was built on a simple observation: the longevity information landscape is dominated by people who benefit financially from the decisions you make. Supplement companies fund the researchers. Clinics fund the influencers. Affiliate links fund the reviewers. The result is a constant background noise of confident claims — most of which dissolve when you trace them to their primary source.
We are not a supplement retailer. We are not a clinic. We are not funded by practitioners for coverage. We are an independent research and directory platform applying a simple rule: every factual claim must trace to a primary source, labelled by the quality of the evidence behind it. If it doesn't, it doesn't go on the platform.
The UK's longevity medicine landscape is genuinely interesting and genuinely complex. There are real practitioners doing rigorous work. There are real compounds with compelling human trial data. ProvenLongevity exists to surface both — credibly, without the commercial layer that has contaminated almost every other platform in this space.
Editorial standards
We cite the original trial, not a press release, a secondary review, or an influencer summary of it. Every factual claim carries a reference to the primary source — journal, lead authors, year of publication. If we cannot cite the primary source, the claim does not appear.
The MHRA prohibits therapeutic claims that imply a product diagnoses, treats, cures, or prevents disease unless it holds a marketing authorisation. We describe what the evidence shows in human trials — not what a compound does to "your health". This is not a technicality. It is how we keep the information honest.
Practitioners are ranked by verified credential quality and patient review data — not by payment. Compounds are profiled by evidence tier — not by who approached us. Listing fees are flat and disclosed publicly. If a commercial relationship could affect editorial coverage, we do not accept it.
Every claim on this platform carries its evidence tier — Tier 1 (RCT/meta-analysis), Tier 2 (mechanistic/observational), or Tier 3 (emerging/case series). Claims without a tier assignment do not appear. Tier 1 and Tier 3 evidence mean fundamentally different things, and readers deserve to know which they are looking at.
Who we are
ProvenLongevity was founded by independent health researchers frustrated by the gap between what the published literature says and what the longevity industry communicates to the public. We are not clinicians offering medical advice. We are researchers committed to accurate, primary-source-referenced communication of what the evidence shows.
We have no venture capital funding. No pharma partnerships. No supplement revenue. The platform is funded by practitioner listing fees, which are flat-rate and publicly disclosed, and by reader support. When a funding relationship is relevant to coverage, we state it.
We are UK-based and apply UK regulatory standards — MHRA framing, GMC/BSLM credential verification, and NICE guidance — as the baseline for all content and practitioner listings.
What we are not
Clarity on what this platform is not matters as much as what it is:
Evidence framework
Every compound profile and every clinical claim on ProvenLongevity is tagged with its evidence tier. The tier system is not a value judgement — Tier 3 evidence can be important and worthy of attention. It is a transparency mechanism: readers can see immediately what kind of evidence a claim rests on.
Direct experimental evidence in humans. Randomised controlled trials with control groups, pre-registered outcomes, and adequate statistical power — or systematic reviews pooling multiple RCTs. The highest standard of clinical evidence we apply. Compounds at Tier 1 have demonstrated effects under controlled conditions in human participants.
Strong mechanistic rationale confirmed in human biology, supported by observational studies, cohort studies, or small RCTs. Clinical outcomes in large controlled human trials have not yet been established. This tier warrants serious attention — the mechanism is real, the signals are there — but confidence in clinical effect is lower than Tier 1.
Early-stage human evidence: case reports, pilot studies, small open-label trials without control groups, or preclinical data with early human signals. Mechanistically plausible but insufficiently studied in controlled human settings to draw clinical conclusions. Presented for completeness and transparency, not as a recommendation.