@dr.lucasluquetti
1 post audited · 3 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 3 claims across 1 audit
2
Supported
67%
0
Overstated
0%
0
Misleading
0%
1
No Evidence
33%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @dr.lucasluquetti 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
67%
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
33%
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)
“O SS-31 acaba de ser liberado pela FDA. Um peptídeo mitocondrial que reduz estresse oxidativo, melhora a função celular e potencializa a performance metabólica. A ciência segue avançando e nós seguimos juntos.”
SS-31 (elamipretide) has credible preclinical support for reducing oxidative stress and enhancing mitochondrial bioenergetic performance in cell culture and animal models. The oxidative stress reduction claim is well-documented across multiple independent studies. However, all available evidence is from in-vitro or animal research; no peer-reviewed human clinical trials confirming these outcomes in humans were found. The claim about 'improved cellular function' lacks specific literature. Creators should note that while the mechanistic direction is scientifically supported, human efficacy remains unproven.
Audit another post from @dr.lucasluquetti
Paste their social post link to add a new audit