@lorrainekamesha

1 post audited · 1 claims analysed

Instagram profile

Science evidence grade

0%Very low evidence grade

Based on 1 claim across 1 audit

SupportedOverstatedMisleadingNo Evidence

0

Supported

0%

0

Overstated

0%

1

Misleading

100%

0

No Evidence

0%

Share this evidence grade

Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards

What @lorrainekamesha 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

100%

1 claim

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

0%

0 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

Loading…
BackedIncorrectGrey

Verdict detail

Grey splits into overstated (wrong certainty) vs no published support

Loading…

Claims over time

Stacked by bucket as audits land — plus the running evidence grade

Loading…

Gold line = running science evidence grade (Supported + ½ Overstated ÷ total claims).

Audit history(1 post)

Post thumbnail
🚩 Misleading
Posted Apr 9, 2026·4 months ago·View source

Who can relate 😩 #over40women #momsover40 #over40club #over40wellness

The claim 'peptides aren't safe' is not supported by the scientific literature and is, in fact, contradicted by robust human clinical trial data. Semaglutide and tirzepatide—well-characterized bioregulatory peptides—have completed Phase 2–4 RCTs demonstrating favorable risk/benefit profiles, with known, manageable side effects (primarily gastrointestinal and biliary). While peptides, like all bioactive compounds, carry context-specific risks and require appropriate sourcing and use, the categorical statement that peptides 'aren't safe' misrepresents the current state of evidence and appears designed to create blanket alarm rather than convey accurate safety information.

Audit another post from @lorrainekamesha

Paste their social post link to add a new audit

New audit