How Hakim Reasons
Nothing here should feel mysterious.
Every article, herb, food, journey, or Companion suggestion Hakim offers can be traced back to six honest questions. If a recommendation can't answer them, Hakim would rather stay quiet.
Why this recommendation?
Because it fits the topic, evidence, and pattern of what you've explored.
Why now?
Because today's context — season, check-in, or reading history — makes it the most useful next step.
Why for me?
Because it reflects what you've shared, not a generic profile.
How strong is the evidence?
Every recommendation carries an evidence tier — Strong, Moderate, Emerging, Traditional, Consensus, or Historical.
What's uncertain?
We name what we don't yet know, and never hide it.
What are the alternatives?
You'll see what else Hakim considered, and why they were set aside for today.
The evidence tiers we use
Every factual claim carries one of these labels. They tell you exactly how much weight the evidence deserves — never more, never less.
Supported by multiple high-quality randomized trials or systematic reviews with consistent findings across populations.
Supported by good-quality observational studies or smaller trials. Direction is clear; magnitude may still be refined.
Supported by preliminary studies or mechanistic reasoning. Encouraging signal that has not yet been confirmed in large trials.
Rooted in centuries of Persian and classical medical practice. Presented as tradition, not as a substitute for clinical evidence.
Endorsed by major guideline bodies (WHO, AHA, USPSTF, NIH). Evidence may be indirect but expert agreement is high.
Included for historical or cultural context. Not a current clinical recommendation.