@brettfirdman
1 post audited · 2 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 2 claims across 1 audit
1
Supported
50%
0
Overstated
0%
0
Misleading
0%
1
No Evidence
50%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @brettfirdman 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
50%
1 claim
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
50%
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
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)
“On my way to something new… my peptide era at @medlounge_co 🧬✨ But first—coffee. Always coffee ☕️ Everyone’s talking about peptides and I was like… okay, but what are we actually talking about? So I got curious, did the labs, and here we are. Starting at square one + sharing it all. Stay tuned 🤍”
The NAD+ claim is supported by strong preclinical evidence (mouse models showing improvements in energy metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and physical activity) and active Phase 2 human trials investigating NAD augmentation for age-related disease. The GHK-Cu claim cannot be assessed because relevant abstracts were referenced but not provided for evaluation. To complete the GHK-Cu analysis, retrieve and review the Pickart & Margolina (2018) review and available PubMed abstracts on GHK-Cu and skin/collagen biology.
Audit another post from @brettfirdman
Paste their social post link to add a new audit