@marksmellybell

1 post audited · 2 claims analysed

Instagram profile

Science evidence grade

0%Very low evidence grade

Based on 2 claims across 1 audit

SupportedOverstatedMisleadingNo Evidence

0

Supported

0%

0

Overstated

0%

0

Misleading

0%

2

No Evidence

100%

Share this evidence grade

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

What @marksmellybell 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

0%

0 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

100%

2 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
No Evidence
Jul 11, 2026·1 day ago·View post

007 James Bond Peptide with an increase in 3.2 percent muscle mass. And by the way the people also lost 4.5 % of total fat mass. This was over 85 days but listen to the full video on YT/marksmellybell @onthepen.official

Both quantitative claims (3.2% muscle mass gain and 4.5% fat mass loss) lack direct supporting evidence in the peer-reviewed literature or published clinical trial results. While one registered trial (NCT06127849) hints at muscle-building investigation, its completion status and outcomes remain unavailable. Without cited references, published abstracts, or accessible trial data, these specific figures cannot be validated against scientific evidence.

3 viewsView full audit

Audit another post from @marksmellybell

Paste their Instagram link to add a new audit

New audit