@sjf_master_aesthetic_injector
1 post audited · 5 claims analysed
Science evidence grade
Based on 5 claims across 1 audit
0
Supported
0%
4
Overstated
80%
0
Misleading
0%
1
No Evidence
20%
Share this evidence grade
Claim-level evidence grades — not a character judgment. Methodology · Right of reply · Leaderboards
What @sjf_master_aesthetic_injector 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
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
100%
5 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)
“Glow Peptide for the husband ✨ Men feel the benefits just as much as women — boosted energy, faster muscle recovery, better metabolism, improved skin, and overall vitality. Husbands need optimization too. 😉🖤 #MensVitality #GlowPeptide #AgelessByDesignLifestyle #IAMLuxe #evolvedbySJF”
Glow Peptide lacks any identifiable presence in clinical trial registries, peer-reviewed literature, or PubMed databases. No studies—human, animal, or in-vitro—support any of the five claims (energy, muscle recovery, metabolism, skin, or vitality). The single literature reference provided (a Phase 2 prostate cancer trial) is unrelated to the product and does not constitute relevant evidence. Without basic scientific documentation, these claims cannot be assessed as supported.
Audit another post from @sjf_master_aesthetic_injector
Paste their social post link to add a new audit