@peakbymd
1 post audited · 6 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 6 claims across 1 audit
2
Supported
33%
0
Overstated
0%
0
Misleading
0%
4
No Evidence
67%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @peakbymd 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)
“Dr. Mark Explains: PEPTIDES What are they? What do people need them for? Want to know more? Drop a question below 👇 #peptides #drmarkexplains #peakbymd #peptidetherapy #longevitylifestyle #functionalhealth #jerseycitynj Peak by MD 95 Coles Street Jersey City, NJ 07302 Text to book: 973-500-2524 Link to book: bit.ly/peakbymd”
Claim 1 (peptides are short amino acid chains) is foundational biochemistry and is supported. Claims 2–6 (fat-burning, muscle-building, energy, focus, anti-aging) all lack direct human clinical trial or peer-reviewed PubMed evidence when evaluated as broad peptide category claims. While specific peptides (e.g., BPC-157, GHK-Cu, MOTS-C) may have preclinical or limited human data, no creator citations were provided, and the recovered clinical trials do not isolate peptide effects for these outcomes in healthy populations. The evidence gap is genuine: the broad claims exceed the available validated literature.
Audit another post from @peakbymd
Paste their Instagram link to add a new audit