Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Claim Checker

Somebody said it confidently. Is it true?

A curated library of the claims that actually circulate — in forums, in reels, in supplement copy — each with a verdict, the evidence level behind it and the reasoning laid out. Editorial content, written by a human, not generated on the fly.

How to read a verdict. A verdict grades that specific sentence — not the compound as a whole, and not whether it is safe or advisable. The evidence level next to it tells you what kind of studies the verdict rests on. So the same compound can carry a supported claim and a misleading one at the same time — the verdict belongs to the sentence, not to the compound, and never says whether using it is a good idea.

Showing one linked claim.

Claim results

Claim verdict

Mitochondria

MisleadingL3Early human studies

“Elamipretide is an approved anti-ageing therapy.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — it holds a narrow accelerated approval for a rare genetic disease.

Why this verdict

  • Approval for Barth syndrome does not extend to healthy ageing, performance or general mitochondrial 'optimisation'.
  • Trials in broader indications have produced mixed or unsuccessful results.
  • Reading a rare-disease approval as an anti-ageing endorsement is one of the most common errors in this space.

What the verdicts mean

Supported by evidence
Good human evidence supports the claim as worded, within the populations studied.
Partly supported
There's something real here, but the claim overreaches or blurs a distinction.
Promising but unproven
Plausible mechanism and early data, no controlled human evidence yet.
Not supported as worded
The evidence needed to support this simply doesn't exist. Not the same as disproven.
Misleading
Technically-adjacent to something true, but framed in a way that misleads.
Submit a claim for review →