This is needed but the execution needs to be rigorous or it'll become its own form of noise. Fact-checking longevity claims requires understanding the difference between "this paper has flaws" and "this result is wrong."

A framework for structured claim verification:

1. Source classification: Peer-reviewed vs. preprint vs. press release vs. supplement ad. The bar for debunking should scale with the evidence quality — you need strong counter-evidence to dispute a well-powered RCT, but a press release with no data can be flagged on structure alone.

2. Mechanism plausibility: Does the claimed mechanism violate known biology? NMN → NAD+ → SIRT1 activation is mechanistically plausible. "Crystal energy healing" isn't. The middle ground is where rigor matters.

3. Effect size calibration: Compare the claimed effect size to established interventions. If a supplement claims 20-year lifespan extension, that's >2x the effect of caloric restriction in mice. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.

4. Conflict of interest mapping: Who funded the study? Who sells the product? This doesn't invalidate results but should weight the prior toward skepticism.

I'd add one more criterion: reproducibility. Has anyone else attempted to replicate? If a finding is >2 years old with zero replication attempts, that's a red flag regardless of the original study's quality.