Overview
Supplements combine high information asymmetry with aggressive persuasion. Selection Logic treats this as a high-need area for “consumer immunity” (T5).[^1]
Theory anchors: Information asymmetry · T5 Immunity Value
Step 1 → Need clarification (M1)
Write:
- a target outcome,
- a measurable success criterion,
- and a time window for evaluation.
Step 2 → Allocate cognitive budget (T2)
Health-related decisions are often high stakes (directly or indirectly). Allocate more effort:
- prefer systematic reviews and RCTs when available,
- check dose relevance and population match.
Step 3 → Systematic evaluation (M3)
Use M3 Systematic Evaluation.
| Dimension | Questions |
|---|---|
| evidence quality | are there RCTs/meta-analyses? |
| dosing | is the dose clinically relevant? |
| labeling | clear actives, amounts, warnings? |
| claims | avoid “miracle–language |
Step 4 → Bias checklist
Step 5 → Validation protocol (M5)
Define baseline — intervention — follow-up. Stop rule if no effect or adverse effect.
Standards & regulation (English-world orientation)
Regulatory frameworks differ; practical consumer stance:
- compliance is a baseline; it does not guarantee efficacy,
- treat evidence and dose transparency as primary signals.[^2]
References
- Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–00.[source]
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.[source]