@theinfographicsshow

1 post audited · 6 claims analysed

Instagram profile

Science evidence grade

92%High evidence grade

Based on 6 claims across 1 audit

SupportedOverstatedMisleadingNo Evidence

5

Supported

83%

1

Overstated

17%

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 @theinfographicsshow 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

83%

5 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

17%

1 claim

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
Posted May 2, 2026·4 months ago·View post

Peptides EXPLAINED

The claims are substantially supported by existing preclinical research, established peptide pharmacology, and active human clinical trials. Peptide-mediated cellular signaling (particularly GH secretagogues and tissue-repair peptides) is well-documented; BPC-157 and ipamorelin/CJC-1295 show consistent evidence in animal models and are actively being tested in human trials. The main limitation across all claims is that definitive human efficacy data remains incomplete—most evidence is preclinical (animal studies, in-vitro mechanisms) or from early-phase trials still recruiting. No claims are contradicted by the literature; however, claims framed as 'complete' or 'unprecedented' healing should be contextualized as preclinical-stage findings pending human confirmation.

Audit another post from @theinfographicsshow

Paste their social post link to add a new audit

New audit