@davistalksmorepeps
1 post audited · 5 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 5 claims across 1 audit
3
Supported
60%
0
Overstated
0%
0
Misleading
0%
2
No Evidence
40%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @davistalksmorepeps 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
60%
3 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
40%
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
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)
“Guarde esto”
Claims 1–2 and 4 are directionally supported by established mechanisms (tesamorelin's GHRH action, GH's preferential effect on visceral fat, and GH-induced lipolysis), though human-level evidence for the specific mechanistic details is limited. Claim 3 (visceral fat cell-specific GH receptors) and Claim 5 (tesamorelin + retatrutide combination) lack supporting evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. The post conflates well-established GH physiology with specific cellular claims and a novel drug combination that has not been clinically studied, inflating the certainty of the mechanistic assertions beyond what current evidence supports.
Audit another post from @davistalksmorepeps
Paste their social post link to add a new audit