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
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.
Does NMN slow aging and extend lifespan?
Claim attributed to David Sinclair
NAD+ goes up; human lifespan has never been measured. Plausible, sponsor-heavy, and unproven, and the strong “reverses aging” framing tips into misleading.
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.