Spotting a bad claim

You now have the tools. This lesson is the checklist. Six questions, in the order that catches the most.

1. Is there a citation you can open? "Studies show" with no link is a claim about the existence of evidence, not evidence. If the page cannot name the study, assume it cannot survive you reading it.

2. What species? Open the study. If the participants had tails, the claim is about rats. That is not a small caveat; it is the difference between grade D and everything else.

3. Is the mechanism being offered as the proof? "It increases growth hormone, therefore it builds muscle" is a hypothesis, not a result. Ipamorelin does raise growth hormone; nobody has measured whether people on it gain muscle. Mechanism tells you why something *might* work. Only a trial tells you whether it does.

4. Is a testimonial doing the work? Someone felt better after taking something. People also feel better after taking placebo — reliably, measurably, by about the same amount in many conditions. A story with no comparison group is the lowest rung of the ladder, however sincere.

5. Is a dose stated as though it were established? For unapproved compounds, no dose has been established in humans, because that is what trials are for. A precise number — "250 mcg twice daily" — carries an authority it has not earned. Precision is not evidence.

6. Who benefits if you believe it? Not a reason to dismiss a claim, but a reason to check it harder. A page that sells the product, or earns a commission when you buy it, has a reason to round up. Apply the question to every source, including this one — which is why LYO publishes its method and its data for you to check.

Run a claim through all six and one of two things happens. It survives, and you have found something worth reading — or it doesn't, and you have saved yourself the money and the risk. Both are good outcomes.

Check