@adamleefit
1 post audited · 6 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 6 claims across 1 audit
2
Supported
33%
2
Overstated
33%
0
Misleading
0%
2
No Evidence
33%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @adamleefit claims actually are
We separate claims into three buckets: backed by evidence, factually incorrect, and grey — like animal-only findings sold as human fact (e.g. BPC-157 “fixes Achilles” from rat studies).
Evidence-based
33%
2 claims
Claims that align with published human or clinical evidence at the stated strength.
Ex: “Semaglutide can reduce body weight in adults with obesity” — supported by large RCTs.
Factually incorrect
0%
0 claims
Claims that conflict with the evidence, invent certainty, or omit critical safety/context in a misleading way.
Ex: “Peptides have no side effects” — contradicts known adverse-event profiles.
Grey / overstated
67%
4 claims
Plausible direction but wrong certainty — animal-only data sold as human fact, dose/effect overstated, or no adequate published support yet.
Ex: “BPC-157 fixes Achilles tears” — often rests on rodent tendon models, not proven human Achilles repair trials.
Evidence mix
Share of audited claims in each bucket
Verdict detail
Grey splits into overstated (wrong certainty) vs no published support
Claims over time
Stacked by bucket as audits land — plus the running evidence grade
Gold line = running science evidence grade (Supported + ½ Overstated ÷ total claims).
Audit history(1 post)
“STOP WASTING MONEY ON PEPTIDES 💸 Shop on Peptira.com use code: Peptidesave10 to get 10% off #peptira #peptirapromocode #peptiradiscountcode #peptirapartnercode #peptiradiscount #fyp”
The Glow blend claim (claim 1) and BPC-157 claim (claim 6) lack human clinical evidence, though individual components (GHK-Cu) have active Phase 2 trials underway. NAD+ (claim 4) is supported by three active/completed human trials investigating energy and metabolic outcomes. GHK-Cu alone (claim 5) is directly supported by Phase 2 human trial evidence. Melanotan II (claim 2) is overstated because the 'no side effects' assertion contradicts documented safety literature. MOTS-c (claim 3) lacks human clinical evidence for energy claims despite mechanistic plausibility. Overall, claims mixing unproven blends with overstated safety profiles, tempered by some genuine clinical trial activity for NAD+ and GHK-Cu individually.
Audit another post from @adamleefit
Paste their social post link to add a new audit