Viral Vitalism

VIRAL VITALISM FRAMEWORKS

How Viral Vitalism scores health claims, sources, studies, and signals.

Health information moves fast. Hype moves faster. Viral Vitalism uses public scoring frameworks to slow claims down just enough to ask what happened, who says so, what the evidence shows, what it does not show, and what readers should avoid overclaiming.

Explore the system

Viral Vitalism

VV Evaluation Matrix v1.0

The core Viral Vitalism framework for classifying health claims by evidence type, biological plausibility, uncertainty, incentives, risk, and human relevance.

Explore the matrix ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Signal Score 1.0

The scoring model used to summarize how strong, useful, risky, speculative, or actionable a claim appears based on the available evidence.

Understand the score ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Brief Matrix v1.0

The rapid-brief framework for deciding whether a moving health story is timely, source-backed, important, and bounded enough to publish.

Read the brief matrix ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Brief Signal Score 1.0

A derived editorial signal score for rapid briefs, combining source proximity, verification, urgency, human relevance, importance, overclaim risk, and follow-up value.

Read the score model ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Claim Boundary Matrix v1.0

The claim-ledger framework for separating exact bounded claims from broader hype, mechanism leaps, and public overclaim risk.

Read the claim matrix ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Claim Integrity Score 1.0

A public score for how well a reviewed claim is supported, bounded, sourced, risk-aware, and connected inside the evidence graph.

Read the score model ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Source Trust Matrix v1.0

A source-role matrix that asks whether a source is strong for the claim lane being used: regulatory status, outcomes, mechanism, safety, consumer context, or trial discovery.

Read the trust matrix ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Source Fit Score 1.0

A use-case-specific score that keeps a source from being treated as equally strong for every kind of health claim.

Read the fit score ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Study Evidence Matrix v1.0

The study framework for translating papers, labels, registries, and reviews into public context without overstating what they prove.

Read the study matrix ->
Viral Vitalism

VV Evidence Utility Score 1.0

A score for how much weight a study can reasonably carry in public explanation, bounded by design, population, endpoint, limitations, and safety usefulness.

Read the score model ->
Viral Vitalism

Wellness Fog

The confusion layer created when marketing, memes, mechanisms, anecdotes, and partial evidence blur into the same feed.

Clear the fog ->
Viral Vitalism

Meme Literacy

A framework for understanding how health ideas spread online without mistaking virality for evidence.

Read the framework ->
Viral Vitalism

Signal vs Noise

A practical lens for deciding which claims deserve attention, tracking, skepticism, or dismissal.

Find the signal ->
Viral Vitalism

The Viral Vitalism Thesis

The worldview behind the publication: health information changed, so the filters need to evolve.

Read the thesis ->

Public score models

VV Brief Signal Score 1.0

Dimensions and weights

  • Source proximity 18%
  • Verification strength 20%
  • News urgency 14%
  • Human/share signal 12%
  • Clinical importance 16%
  • Follow-up value 12%
  • Confidence 8%

Bands

  • 85-100 Breakout Brief
  • 70-84 Strong Brief
  • 55-69 Watch Brief
  • 40-54 Context Only
  • Below 40 Archive

Gates and caps

  • High overclaim risk subtracts up to 16 points.
  • Single-source briefs stay carefully framed even when timely.
  • Missing optional inputs create validation warnings, not publishing blocks.

VV Claim Integrity Score 1.0

Dimensions and weights

  • Evidence confidence 22%
  • Source quality 16%
  • Applicability 14%
  • Boundary clarity 16%
  • Overclaim containment 12%
  • Harm-risk handling 10%
  • Graph support 10%

Bands

  • 85-100 Strongly Supported Claim
  • 70-84 Supported With Boundaries
  • 55-69 Partly Supported / Context-Dependent
  • 40-54 Uncertain Claim
  • Below 40 Unsupported or Overstated

Gates and caps

  • Mechanistic evidence cannot carry broad outcome claims above 60.
  • Observational evidence needs association-level wording for higher causal claims.
  • High overclaim or harm risk can cap the score until limitations and safety context are visible.

VV Source Fit Score 1.0

Dimensions and weights

  • Base trust score
  • Use-case category score
  • Claim fit
  • Proximity
  • Incentive/bias risk
  • Reusability

Bands

  • 90-100 Primary Anchor
  • 75-89 Strong Support
  • 60-74 Context Source
  • 40-59 Weak Support
  • Below 40 Discovery Only

Gates and caps

  • Scores are lane-specific: regulatory status, clinical outcomes, mechanism, safety, consumer context, trial discovery.
  • A source can be strong in one lane and weak in another.

VV Evidence Utility Score 1.0

Dimensions and weights

  • Evidence tier 18%
  • Design strength 18%
  • Applicability 16%
  • Endpoint relevance 16%
  • Limitations transparency 12%
  • Safety signal usefulness 10%
  • Publication/source strength 10%

Bands

  • 85-100 Strong Public Evidence
  • 70-84 Useful Public Evidence
  • 55-69 Limited Public Evidence
  • 40-54 Early Signal
  • Below 40 Weak or Indirect Evidence

Gates and caps

  • Claims stay bounded by population, design, endpoint, and limitations.
  • Surrogate, animal, cell, registry, and abstract-only evidence cannot carry broad outcome claims.

Claim strength ladder

Anecdote or case-level evidence

reported, described, case-level, early signal, worth watching

Early evidence

may, suggests, preliminary trial evidence, needs replication

Moderate evidence

associated with, linked to, trial evidence supports, observed in this population

Strong evidence

shown in randomized trials, supported by meta-analysis, approved for, label includes

Highest caution terms

avoid proves, cures, prevents, guarantees, risk-free, miracle, detoxes unless directly supported

What scores do not mean

Scores are not truth machines or fake precision.
A high score is not medical advice or a reason to change treatment.
A low score does not mean a source or study is useless; it means the claim it can support is narrower.

How the frameworks work together

  1. 1A claim appears.
  2. 2The source lane is identified.
  3. 3VV Evaluation Matrix v1.0 classifies the evidence.
  4. 4Brief, source, or study scores summarize public utility.
  5. 5VV Signal Score 1.0 summarizes durable claim strength.
  6. 6Claim language is capped by the evidence.
  7. 7The reader gets a clearer view of uncertainty, relevance, and risk.

Viral Vitalism is an educational publication, not medical advice.