@coach_leo.2
1 post audited · 5 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 5 claims across 1 audit
0
Supported
0%
2
Overstated
40%
0
Misleading
0%
3
No Evidence
60%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @coach_leo.2 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%
5 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)
“The only 3 peptides you need Comment “PROTOCOL” and I'll send you a breakdown of how to use each one”
The claims presented lack robust scientific support, with no substantive clinical or preclinical research validating the proposed effects of these peptides. More rigorous scientific investigation is needed to establish their potential benefits.
Audit another post from @coach_leo.2
Paste their social post link to add a new audit