@lizbakerplosser
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 @lizbakerplosser 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)
“Peptide-curious? Me too. Here’s what I found in my reporting…and testing. 🫣🧬 Link in my bio for the full piece.”
The foundational claims about peptide biochemistry (Claims 1–4) are all accurate and well-supported by established science and clinical evidence. Claims 5 and 6 on BPC-157 are directionally supported by preclinical animal research, but Claim 5 (human efficacy for tendon/ligament/joint healing) is overstated — current evidence is limited to animal studies and a single, methodologically flawed human case series, not the robust clinical validation the language implies. A rigorous risk-benefit and evidence-quality conversation with healthcare providers remains essential before clinical use.
Audit another post from @lizbakerplosser
Paste their social post link to add a new audit