How we rate.

Every protocol carries two readings: where its evidence comes from, and how strong that evidence is. Bands are coarse and unranked by design — we do not pretend to a precision the evidence cannot support.

Two readings sit behind every protocol we publish: where its evidence comes from, and how strong that evidence is. We keep the two separate on purpose. A long tradition of use is not the same as a randomized trial, and the page should never let one be mistaken for the other.

The first reading: where the evidence comes from

Every protocol carries one provenance tier. The tier sets the ceiling on how plainly we are willing to speak, so the language you read is tied to the evidence behind it rather than to our enthusiasm.

• Foundational — supported by human randomized trials and consistent review. Here we may say studies suggest a finding, or that the evidence is consistent with it — still conditional, never stated as settled fact.
• Emerging — meaningful but not yet replicated at the same standard. Here the strongest phrasing we allow is that early evidence suggests a finding; firmer wording is withheld pending counsel review.
• Community — reported in practice ahead of the formal literature. Here we report only that proponents describe a practice, and note plainly that it is not yet established.

The second reading: four factors, four bands each

Each protocol is read against four factors. Every factor carries one named band drawn from a fixed set of four. The bands are coarse and unranked by design — we do not pretend to a precision the evidence cannot support. There is no numeric score, no leaderboard, no “rated” ordering, and no sub-band sorting. A band moves only when the underlying evidence, tolerability, price, or upkeep changes enough to cross a threshold we can defend in writing.

Evidence

How strong and how consistent the published research is, read against the GRADE and CEBM certainty-of-evidence framework rather than against marketing. The band reflects the body of work, not a single study.

• Strong
• Moderate
• Limited
• Insufficient

Safety

A caution-only reading of reported tolerability. The band names a level of concern to look into; it never affirms that a protocol is without risk. Discuss anything you are considering with your physician before beginning a regimen.

• Low concern
• Moderate concern
• Elevated concern
• Significant concern

Cost

What the protocol asks of your budget, read in relative terms against the others we review.

• Low
• Moderate
• Notable
• High

Effort

What the protocol asks of your week — preparation, timing, and the discipline needed to sustain the practice.

• Low
• Moderate
• Notable
• High

Read together, the provenance tier and the four bands let you reconstruct any reading on the page for yourself. Nothing is hidden behind a single number.

Where we stand

Rated under methodology rubric-v1. Pending health-tech attorney review.