Our Mission
The longevity and biohacking space is dominated by influencers who make bold claims without adequate uncertainty disclosures, wellness blogs that recommend supplements with undisclosed affiliate incentives, and academic journals that are inaccessible to non-specialists in both language and paywalls.
past100 exists to fill a gap: a publication that takes research seriously, writes it accessibly, and has no commercial conflicts of interest. We're modeled after The Economist — serious but accessible, written for intelligent non-specialists who want to understand aging science well enough to make informed decisions.
What past100 Is
past100 is a weekly newsletter that breaks down longevity and aging research for people who want to understand the science — not just follow the latest influencer protocol.
Who it's for: Scientifically literate adults, 30–55, who already consume longevity content (Peter Attia, Andrew Huberman, Rhonda Patrick) but feel it lacks rigorous sourcing. People with professional backgrounds in biology, medicine, engineering, or data science. People who spend money on health optimization and treat health as an investment, not a cost.
What past100 is NOT:
- A wellness blog pushing the latest supplement du jour
- An affiliate site earning commissions on product recommendations
- A press release repackager masquerading as journalism
Editorial Commitments
Every issue of past100 is built on these four promises:
- Every factual claim links to a primary source.We cite journal papers, not news articles. Every study gets context: human vs. animal, sample size, effect size, replication status.
- Evidence confidence ratings on every study.Not all research is created equal. We rate each study's confidence level so you know how solid the evidence is.
- No affiliate links. Ever.past100 has no commercial relationships with supplement companies. We accept no paid placements. What we recommend, we recommend because the evidence supports it — not because someone pays us.
- Retractions are reported as prominently as positive findings.When science fails to replicate, we report it. Understanding what doesn't work is just as important as understanding what does.
Methodology
Our editorial process combines automated discovery with rigorous human verification:
How Papers Are Selected
We monitor RSS feeds from Tier 1 peer-reviewed journals (Nature Aging, Aging Cell, Cell, Nature Medicine, npj Aging, Journals of Gerontology) and Tier 2 vetted publications (Fight Aging!, Longevity.Technology). Each paper is filtered by relevance score — keyword density in title and abstract — then reviewed by our editorial team.
Evidence Confidence Rating System
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Strong | Replicated RCT in humans, large sample |
| Promising | Single RCT or strong observational data |
| Weak | Animal study or small human study |
| Mechanistic | Cell/lab study only, no human data |
| Uncertain | Conflicting evidence in the literature |
How Ratings Are Assigned
We consider: study design (RCT > observational > mechanistic), sample size, replication status, and conflict of interest disclosures in the original paper. When in doubt, we lean toward lower confidence — it's better to under-promise than overclaim.
Retractions
When a paper we previously covered is retracted or fails to replicate, we cover it in the following issue's Evidence Roundup. Retractions are part of science — and we believe they're worth reporting prominently.
AI Usage
We use Claude API for first-pass abstract summarization to save approximately 8–10 hours of reading per week. But all final writing is original and verified against the primary source. AI is a research assistant, not a content generator.
Editorial Disclaimer
past100 is an independent research newsletter. All content is for informational and educational purposes only. We summarise and contextualise published peer-reviewed research — we do not provide medical diagnoses, treatment plans, or personalised health guidance.
Evidence ratings reflect the strength of available scientific literature as of the publication date, not endorsements or recommendations. A rating of “Strong” means the underlying research is methodologically robust — it does not mean past100 recommends any particular intervention.
Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your health regimen, medications, or supplement use. past100 is funded entirely by reader subscriptions and has no commercial relationships with supplement companies, pharmaceutical companies, or any health-related businesses.
About the Founder
past100 is written by Zeghli Husseim Eddine, an independent researcher and writer focused on translating longevity science for smart, curious people, with a focus on evidence-based analysis.
More details coming soon. In the meantime, reach out at hello@past100.com.