@georgelewinski

1 post audited · 2 claims analysed

Instagram profile

Science evidence grade

100%High evidence grade

Based on 2 claims across 1 audit

SupportedOverstatedMisleadingNo Evidence

2

Supported

100%

0

Overstated

0%

0

Misleading

0%

0

No Evidence

0%

Share this evidence grade

Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards

What @georgelewinski 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

100%

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

0%

0 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

Loading…
BackedIncorrectGrey

Verdict detail

Grey splits into overstated (wrong certainty) vs no published support

Loading…

Claims over time

Stacked by bucket as audits land — plus the running evidence grade

Loading…

Gold line = running science evidence grade (Supported + ½ Overstated ÷ total claims).

Audit history(1 post)

Post thumbnail
Supported
Audited Aug 20, 2026·6 days ago·View source

15K likes, 1,190 comments - georgelewinski on July 19, 2026

Both claims are supported by available evidence. The first claim—that peptides do not cause direct causation of death—is substantiated by large-scale human RCTs showing semaglutide to be safe and well-tolerated across thousands of participants, with no signal of direct peptide-induced mortality. The second claim—that people use peptides to improve their health—is supported by regulatory approval history, ongoing clinical trials across multiple indications, and documented real-world use patterns. Both statements align with the current scientific and clinical landscape for peptide therapeutics.

Audit another post from @georgelewinski

Paste their social post link to add a new audit

New audit