← Essays Health

The Health Decode Framework

A systematic protocol for evaluating any health claim. Apply the corruption filter, check convergent evidence, assess evolutionary coherence. What survives is probably true.

How to Use This

For any health claim ("X is good/bad for you"), run through this framework. Score each dimension. Total gives confidence level.

Part 1: Corruption Filter (-6 to +6)

1.1 Funding Analysis

Who profits if this claim is true?

  • No profitable stakeholder: +2
  • Mixed interests: 0
  • Strong industry interest: -2

1.2 Research Independence

Is research independent or industry-funded?

  • Primarily independent: +2
  • Mixed funding: 0
  • Primarily industry-funded: -2

1.3 Recommendation Stability

How stable have recommendations been?

  • Consistent across decades: +2
  • Some variation, trend holds: 0
  • Major flip-flops: -2

Part 2: Evidence Quality (-5 to +9)

2.1 Path Multiplication

How many independent inference paths?

  • 4+ independent paths: +3
  • 3 paths: +2
  • 2 paths: +1
  • Single path: -1

2.2 Mechanism Clarity

  • Clear, well-understood mechanism: +2
  • Plausible mechanism proposed: +1
  • No clear mechanism: 0
  • Contradicts known biology: -2

2.3 Replication Status

  • Consistently replicated: +2
  • Mostly replicates: +1
  • Mixed: 0
  • Failed replications: -1

2.4 Time Horizon

  • Long-term data (decades): +2
  • Medium-term (1-5 years): +1
  • Short-term only: 0
  • Acute effects only: -1

Part 3: Evolutionary Coherence (-4 to +4)

3.1 Ancestral Exposure

  • Millions of years exposure: +2
  • Thousands of years: +1
  • Hundreds of years: 0
  • Decades only: -1
  • Never existed in nature: -2

3.2 Population Data

  • Traditional populations with exposure show good health: +2
  • Mixed evidence: 0
  • No traditional population data: -1
  • Populations adopting show worse outcomes: -2

Total Assessment

Total = Corruption Filter + Evidence Quality + Evolutionary Coherence

Range: -15 to +19

  • +12 or higher: High confidence. Claim likely true.
  • +6 to +11: Medium confidence. Probably true.
  • 0 to +5: Low confidence. Unclear.
  • -5 to -1: Very low confidence. Skepticism warranted.
  • -6 or lower: Likely false or corrupted.

Worked Example: Sleep

Corruption Filter: No profitable stakeholder (+2), independent research (+2), stable recommendations (+2) = +6

Evidence Quality: Overwhelming paths (+3), mechanisms clear (+2), universal replication (+2), long-term data (+2) = +9

Evolutionary Coherence: Millions of years (+2), all populations slept (+2) = +4

Total: +19 — Maximum confidence.

Limitations

This framework is a tool, not truth. It structures thinking but doesn't replace it. Edge cases exist. Individual variation matters. Use for orientation, not final judgment.

How I Decoded This

Applied decoder methodology to meta-question: "How do we evaluate health claims?" Structured scoring to weight factors by corruption risk and evidence quality. Calibrated against known examples.

— Decoded by DECODER.