4 Elite spots open for fall 2026See the Elite program →
Tools

Is that health claim true?

Paste a caption, a label or a line you heard at the gym. The tool splits it into claims, searches PubMed, keeps only papers from journals with an impact factor of 3 or more, and writes one verdict per claim. It is the same check JD Botezelli PhD runs before he records a reel.

Why not just ask a chatbot?

A general AI chat writes the answer that sounds most likely. It can mix a strong trial with a blog post, and it can quote a study that was never published. This tool works the other way round. It finds the studies first, throws out the weak ones, and only then lets the AI read what is left.

How a general AI chatbot and this fact-check differ
Question General AI chatbot This fact-check
Where the answer comes from What it learned in training or finds on the web. Blogs, news, forums and studies, all mixed together. PubMed only, the US National Library of Medicine's index of peer-reviewed research. Human studies from the last 25 years.
Which studies count No fixed rule you can see. A mouse study and a large trial can carry the same weight. Ranked by design, strongest first. Only the top 12 papers per claim reach the AI.
Weak journals No floor. Only journals with an impact factor of 3 or more can be cited. A journal we cannot score is left out.
Made-up references Can happen. A real-looking title, authors and year for a paper that does not exist. Blocked by the server. Any citation that did not come back from the search is deleted. If nothing is left, the verdict is Not proven.
How strong the words are Nothing stops it from calling a lab result "proven". The words follow the evidence. Only pooled studies and controlled trials can say "reduces" or "increases". Observational studies only get "is linked to".
Can you check it? Often no link, or a link that does not open the paper. Every study shows its PMID and opens on PubMed, so you can read it yourself.

How we rank the studies

Not all studies are equal. The order below is the one evidence-based medicine has used for decades, and the verdict always leans on the strongest study the search found.

  1. Many studies pooled together. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews. One study can be a fluke. Pooling several averages the flukes out.
  2. A controlled trial. People are split at random and only one thing changes. It is the only design that shows cause and effect.
  3. People observed, not tested. Cohort and survey studies. They show a link, not a cause: people who eat one way often live differently in other ways too.
  4. Lab, animal or expert opinion. Where ideas start, not where they are proven. These never carry a verdict on their own: a claim that rests only on a mouse study is Not proven.

Why a journal floor?

A journal's impact factor counts how often other scientists cite its papers. It is a rough signal, not a perfect one. It still clears out the long tail of journals with little real review, including the ones that publish almost anything for a fee.

The cost is that a good study in a small journal can be missed. We accept that, so a weak study never sneaks in as the proof.

What it does not do

  • It reads each study's summary (the abstract), not the full paper.
  • It can only judge what the search found. A study it missed does not count.
  • It checks claims. It does not give medical advice, and medication questions stay with your prescriber.

Want someone to read the evidence for you?

A free 20-minute call to talk through where you are and whether a program fits. No pitch, no pressure.