@nextself.samantha
1 post audited · 3 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 3 claims across 1 audit
1
Supported
33%
0
Overstated
0%
0
Misleading
0%
2
No Evidence
67%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @nextself.samantha 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
33%
1 claim
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
67%
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)
“Please please people stop taking this every day if you are, it’s STILL effective at an every other day d0se and there’s no need to run there 3 risks that cause severe inflammation and heart disease #mitochondrialdisease #cardiovascularhealth #oxidativestress #motsc”
No credible scientific evidence—from PubMed or clinical trial registries—was found to support or refute any of these three claims. None of the claims were accompanied by specific study citations, and broad searches yielded no relevant literature examining daily peptide supplementation and inflammation, cardiovascular risk, or alternate-day dosing efficacy. Without evidence in either direction, these claims cannot be evaluated as supported, overstated, or misleading; they remain unsubstantiated by current published science.
Audit another post from @nextself.samantha
Paste their social post link to add a new audit