Evidence-based analysis of health and tech claims

Quackfiles analyzes misleading, exaggerated, or unproven claims in health, wellness, and emerging technologies. We examine how claims are presented, what evidence actually exists, and where uncertainty or risk may be overlooked — helping readers separate evidence from marketing hype.

Topics include supplement myths, detox narratives, miracle cures, overhyped AI health tools, and expert impersonation through deepfakes or misleading demonstrations.

Start with the FAQ Explore topics
Detox myths Supplements Miracle cures AI health apps Deepfake experts
What you’ll find

Plain-language explanations, common misconceptions, and summaries of available evidence, including known limitations, risks, and areas where scientific consensus is weak or evolving.

What you won’t find

Medical advice, diagnoses, treatment recommendations, miracle cures, affiliate promotions, or content designed to persuade rather than inform.

Why this exists

Misinformation spreads quickly. Calm, referenced explanations help people make safer, better-informed decisions.

Topics Quackfiles covers

Health & wellness claims

Supplements, detox programs, alternative remedies, and miracle treatments often promoted without adequate clinical evidence or with overstated benefits.

AI & tech misinformation

Overhyped AI diagnosis tools, misleading health apps, fake demos, and deepfake experts presented as authoritative sources.

Verification basics

How to assess evidence quality, recognize consensus versus anecdote, understand reproducibility, and spot common red flags in misleading claims.

How we evaluate claims

Claims are evaluated by reviewing peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, regulatory guidance, and statements from recognized expert bodies. We consider the quality of evidence, study design, conflicts of interest, and whether claims align with established scientific consensus.

When evidence is limited, mixed, or absent, this uncertainty is stated clearly. The absence of evidence is not treated as proof, and extraordinary claims are expected to meet a higher standard of support.

Editorial principles

Quackfiles follows a neutral, evidence-first approach. Content is written to explain, not persuade, and is not sponsored by supplement brands, clinics, or technology vendors. Sources are cited where applicable, and content may be updated as evidence evolves.

Frequently Asked Questions

Quackery refers to misleading or unproven claims promoted as effective despite a lack of reliable evidence. Such claims often rely on anecdotes, exaggerated benefits, or scientific-sounding language without proper support.

No. Quackfiles provides informational and educational content only. It does not offer medical, diagnostic, or treatment advice, and should not be used as a substitute for professional guidance.

Claims are evaluated by reviewing peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, regulatory guidance, and expert consensus. Evidence quality, study design, conflicts of interest, and known risks are all considered.

Some claims use technical language, isolated studies, or impressive demonstrations to appear credible. Scientific validity depends on reproducibility, independent verification, and consistency with existing evidence.

Yes. You can suggest a claim, product, or topic for review using the contact information on this site. Suggestions are reviewed but do not guarantee coverage.

Contact

Suggestions or collaborations: contact us