@drmichaelsays
1 post audited · 6 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 6 claims across 1 audit
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 @drmichaelsays 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
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)
“Doctor Ranks ALL Peptides: The Truth About What Actually Works”
Five of six claims are directly supported by scientific literature or regulatory fact (Melanotan II mechanism, side effects, AOD 9604's weak human evidence, PT-141 FDA approval, and IGF-1 oncology risk). One claim (Melanotan II → melanoma causation) is overstated—the connection is theoretically plausible but not empirically proven in humans. Across all claims, the creator has presented accurate mechanistic concepts and regulatory facts, though notably without explicit citations; where internal PeptIQ references exist (PT-141 FDA approval, Ipamorelin selectivity), they confirm the creator's statements. The overall body of claims reflects an honest, evidence-aligned assessment of peptide pharmacology and regulatory status.
Audit another post from @drmichaelsays
Paste their social post link to add a new audit