Live claim engine
The independent, evidence-based claim-checker for the longevity industry. We test what influencers and brands claim about supplements, peptides, devices and protocols against what the evidence actually shows: sources cited, evidence graded, conflicts of interest flagged, and the limits named out loud.
Recent verdicts
New: we checked all 103 claims and counted the verdicts. Read the State of Longevity Claims report
The promise
Every check cites real sources, quotes them exactly, grades the evidence GRADE-style, and follows the funding. Strict about the method, honest about the limits, including when the honest answer is “we don't know yet.”
Absence ≠ absence
“No trial yet” is not “doesn't work.” We refuse both errors, the hype that overclaims and the cynicism that dismisses anything unproven. Most things won't get trials; we say so, and explain the mechanism instead.
Follow the funding
We check who funded the study, and who pays the person making the claim. A conflict of interest doesn't settle a verdict, but you deserve to see it on the table.
You are not the average
Studies are essential, and they are the backbone of every verdict. But evidence describes populations, not people. What works for most can do little, or the opposite, for any one person. We give you the strong prior, never a personal prescription.
Does long-term fine-particle air pollution (PM2.5) shorten lifespan, and does cutting it add years?
Claim attributed to Environmental-health researchers and longevity advocates
Large cohorts on three continents, a clear dose-response with no safe floor, and natural experiments all point the same way: long-term PM2.5 raises mortality, and cutting it buys back life expectancy. The evidence is observational by necessity, not by neglect, which keeps it at B rather than A.
Read the full checkTrace the claim to its primary source. No source, no verdict.
Quote it exactly, what was said, not the paraphrase.
Grade the evidence GRADE-style: A high → D very low.
Follow the funding, who paid for the study, and the claimant.
Name the limit, and whether it's untested or disproven.
Read the study, not the thread.