Simple answer
Is BPC-157 actually proven?
Not for broad tendon or gym-injury recovery in humans. Most support is still animal, lab or indirect evidence.
Read the simple answerStart here: longevity without the hype.
New to peptides, rapamycin, NAD, biological age testing or gene therapy? This page gives you the simple map before you dive into the details.
Plain English first
Simple answers before labels and study detail.
Sources when you want them
Original sources stay attached to every serious claim.
No protocol guidance
No dosing, sourcing, stacking or self-administration instructions.
Simple answer
This site checks 18 common longevity claims in plain English. Start by asking whether the claim is proven in humans, whether it is approved for the exact use, what risks are being downplayed, and where the original source is.
The five questions to ask about any longevity claim
1
Is this proven in humans?
2
Is it approved, off-label, compounded or experimental?
3
Is it a supplement, drug, peptide, test or therapy?
4
What are people claiming it does?
5
What should I not assume?
What kind of claim are you looking at?
A peptide people talk about online
Start by checking whether it is an approved medicine, a compounded product, an investigational idea or an internet recovery claim.
Choose this pathA drug being discussed for longevity
Ask whether the drug is approved for another use, whether longevity evidence is human or animal, and what risks are being skipped.
Choose this pathA supplement or NAD booster
Separate raising a biomarker from proving better healthspan, lifespan or meaningful clinical outcomes.
Choose this pathA biological age test
Treat the number as a measurement claim, not a crystal ball. Ask what the test can and cannot tell one person.
Choose this pathGene therapy or age reversal
Assume frontier claims are experimental until proven otherwise. Look for approved uses, human trials and safety context.
Choose this pathA basic lifestyle claim
Check whether the basics have stronger human evidence than the shiny experimental idea.
Choose this pathThe evidence ladder
We ask a simple question first: how close is this claim to proof in real people?
- 1
Proven enough for standard use
Human evidence and accepted medical use for the specific purpose.
- 2
Promising but not settled
Some human data or strong early evidence, with important questions still open.
- 3
Mostly animal or lab evidence
Interesting science, but not proof it works in people.
- 4
Theory, hype or anecdotes
People talk about it, but reliable evidence is weak.
- 5
Regulatory or safety warning
The main story is approval status, legality, quality or risk.
What is usually safe to learn about
Definitions, source links, human-vs-animal evidence, approval status, common marketing claims and questions to ask a qualified clinician.
What requires professional guidance
Drugs, peptides, gene therapies, senolytics, injections, combinations, personal medical history, lab results and any decision to start, stop or combine interventions.
Beginner glossary
peptide
compounded
off-label
FDA-approved
investigational
human trial
animal study
NAD
biological age
Most people arrive here asking...
Start with a simple answer. Open the evidence only if you want more detail.
Simple answer
Is rapamycin an anti-aging drug?
It is a real medicine approved for other uses, but human longevity benefit is still not proven.
Read the simple answerSimple answer
Do NAD supplements work?
Some can affect NAD-related biology, but that is not the same as proving they slow aging.
Read the simple answerSimple answer
Are biological age tests useful?
They can be interesting, but one score should not be treated as proof a protocol is working.
Read the simple answerReady to go deeper?
Get the weekly longevity evidence briefing.
One plain-English email on the claims, studies and regulatory updates worth knowing - without protocols, hype or miracle claims.
No protocols. No miracle claims. No spam.
I'm new to longevityPeptides and regulationRapamycin and longevity drugsNAD and supplementsGene therapy frontierBiological age and testing