Miracle supplement, or marketing? Verifying health claims with AI and PubMed

Here's a health claim that reached me:
[paste the headline, chain-email text, or ad transcript]

Don't search for anything yet — just break the claim down like a
media analyst:
1. What exactly is being claimed? Rewrite it as one sober,
   emotion-free sentence.
2. What numbers does the claim contain — are they relative or
   absolute? If relative with no baseline, say what would be
   needed to fill that in.
3. Is it claiming an association, or a cause? Quote the words
   that give it away.
4. What marketing or hoax signals do you see in the text (urgency,
   "doctors don't want you to know," a discount code, anonymous
   "scientists")?
5. What would a study have to show to support this claim? Phrase
   it as a question we'll go verify next.
Be skeptical, but fair — don't write "hoax" until we've actually
checked something.

Take this real health headline: [paste headline and link]
and run me a game of "science telephone" — reconstruct what the
individual steps between the study and the headline probably
looked like:
1. What the cautious conclusion in the original study probably
   said (in typical scientific language, with caveats)
2. What the university press release made of it
3. What the news article made of it
4. What the headline made of it, and what social media sharing
   made of it
At each step, flag exactly what got lost or sharpened.
At the end, write 3 questions I should ask myself before I share
a headline. This is a media-literacy exercise — clearly label the
invented steps as reconstruction, not as facts about this
particular study.

You have the PubMed connector attached. Try it on a neutral query:
find the 3 most-cited systematic reviews on the effect of sleep
on immunity in adults from the last 10 years.
For each, return: title, authors, journal, year, PMID, and a
two-sentence summary of the abstract in English. Don't make
anything up — if the connector returns no results, tell me
plainly, including the error message.
At the end, briefly describe what query you sent to PubMed.

You're my assistant for verifying health and scientific claims.
Rules that apply in every conversation in this project:
1. You're not a doctor and you don't give treatment advice. If my
   question veers toward dosage, starting or stopping medication,
   or symptoms, stop and remind me that this belongs with a
   doctor.
2. Every claim about a study is backed by a PMID from the PubMed
   connector. A study with no traceable PMID doesn't exist.
3. Always state the study type (case report, observational, RCT,
   meta-analysis), the sample size, and who or what it studied
   (humans/animals/cells).
4. Actively look for counterarguments: for every conclusion,
   mention the strongest study or argument AGAINST it.
5. Distinguish "is associated with" from "causes," and convert
   relative numbers to absolute ones ("X people out of 100")
   whenever the data allows it.
6. Speak English, and explain technical terms the first time
   you use them.

I'm verifying a claim from an ad for a kids' dietary supplement.
The ad says: [paste the ad text verbatim, e.g. "syrup with
extract X supports your child's immunity and focus — clinically
proven"].
Ingredients per the online store: [list the declared active
ingredients].

Break this down into verifiable questions using the PICO method
(population, intervention, comparison, outcome) — in plain
language, not academic:
1. How many separate claims does the ad actually contain?
   ("immunity" and "focus" are two different claims)
2. For each claim, write a one-sentence PICO question, plus
   English keywords for searching PubMed.
3. Flag any claim that's phrased so vaguely it can't be verified
   at all — and what the ad would have to say instead to make it
   verifiable.
Don't search yet, just prepare the questions. I'm a parent, not
a scientist — explain it without jargon.

I got a chain email with this claim: [paste the claim, e.g.
"scientists have found that reheating food in a microwave
destroys nutrients and creates carcinogens"]. The email cites no
source.

1. Break the claim into separate verifiable questions (PICO,
   plain language).
2. For each question, sketch what the world would look like if
   the claim were true: what would we expect to find in the
   literature? (large studies, official statements, reviews)
3. Prepare PubMed search queries — both to confirm it AND TO
   DISPROVE IT: also phrase a query that would surface studies
   showing the opposite.
4. Try to trace where the claim historically comes from — it's
   often a misreading of one specific old study. If you're not
   sure, say so.

An influencer claims: [paste the claim, e.g. "new study:
supplement X improves endurance performance by 15%"]. The post
has a screenshot of a graph with a caption reading [transcribe
whatever's legible: author's last name, year, journal name,
anything at all].

1. Try using the PubMed connector to trace which study this is
   (search by author, year, and topic). Return candidates with
   PMIDs, and for each, note how well it matches the screenshot.
2. If you find the study, compare: what exactly does the abstract
   claim, versus what the post claims? List the differences.
3. If you can't find it, say so clearly — and explain what that
   means (maybe a preprint, maybe a conference poster, maybe it
   doesn't exist). Don't speculate about the results of a study
   you haven't actually seen.

Use the PubMed connector. My question (from the PICO breakdown):
[paste the question, e.g. "does extract X reduce the number of
respiratory infections in school-age children compared with
placebo?"]
Keywords: [paste the English keywords from Phase 1]

Search in this order, and pause after each step:
1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the question from the
   last 10 years. Return up to 5 of the most relevant: title,
   year, PMID, how many studies and participants they include,
   the main conclusion in one sentence.
2. If none exist, the largest randomized controlled trials.
3. If none of those exist either, tell me — and list what does
   exist on the topic (observational studies? animals?), so I can
   see what stage of understanding the topic is at.
For each result, state exactly how well it matches my question:
same population? same form of the substance? same measured
outcome? List the differences — "roughly the same" isn't good
enough for me.

Stay on my question. Before we dive into individual studies,
describe the landscape of evidence to me — like you're sketching
a map:
1. Roughly how much exists on this question? (order of magnitude:
   a handful of studies, dozens, hundreds?)
2. Which types dominate — cells/animals, observational, RCTs,
   reviews?
3. Do the results agree, or is the field divided? If divided,
   along what lines (older vs. newer, industry-funded vs.
   independent, different populations)?
4. Is there a visible pattern over time? (enthusiastic small
   studies early on, more sober large ones later — that's a
   common pattern)
Back every claim with a specific PMID you've found in step 1, or
go find more. Where you're not sure, say so.

The search for the question [question] returned almost nothing.
Before we conclude the literature doesn't exist, try widening it
systematically:
1. Rephrase the query 3 ways: broader terms, synonyms for the
   active substance (chemical name, common name, older
   literature's names), related outcomes (instead of "focus,"
   maybe cognitive tests).
2. Loosen the population: if there's nothing on children, what
   about adults? But tell me clearly that it's now a different
   population.
3. Check related articles around the little we did find.
If there's still nothing — write the conclusion: "the claim is
unsupported, because the literature on it is essentially
nonexistent," and explain why that's a different verdict from
"studies have proven it doesn't work."

Use the PubMed connector to pull the abstract of study PMID
[number] (if the full text is in PubMed Central, pull that too).
Translate it into plain language, structured:

1. QUESTION: What was the study asking? (one sentence)
2. WHO: How many participants, what kind (age, health, country),
   humans/animals/cells? How many completed the study?
3. HOW: Study type (explain what that type means). What exactly
   did they receive or do, for how long, and what was it compared
   against?
4. WHAT CAME OUT: The main results, IN NUMBERS. Convert relative
   figures to absolute ones ("out of 100 people…") wherever the
   data allows. What was significant and what WASN'T — list the
   measured outcomes with no difference too.
5. CATCHES: Sample size, follow-up length, who funded the study,
   how conflicts of interest are disclosed, anything the authors
   themselves admit in the limitations.
6. IN ONE SENTENCE: What does this study say about my claim
   [claim] — and what does it not say about it?
Stick strictly to what's in the text. Where the abstract doesn't
cover something, write "the abstract doesn't say" — don't fill it
in from guesswork.

Stay on study PMID [number]. Now just the numbers, slowly and
plainly:
1. What was the result in the CONTROL group and what was it in
   the INTERVENTION group? Give both numbers side by side, not
   just the difference.
2. Convert the effect into an absolute expression: "Out of 100
   children who took the syrup, X avoided one extra infection" or
   similar. If that can't be calculated from the abstract, say so.
3. Statistical versus practical significance: even if the result
   is statistically significant, is the difference big enough
   that a person would actually notice it in everyday life?
   Compare it to something tangible.
4. Confidence interval, if given: what's the worst-case and
   best-case outcome the data are compatible with? Explain it to
   me on this specific case, not a textbook definition.
I'm a layperson — accompany every number with a sentence about
what it means for a "buy/don't buy" decision, but leave the
actual decision to me.

I have a claim: [the original claim from the ad/email/Instagram
post]. I have a study, PMID [number], that we've gone through.

Put them side by side in two columns:
- What exactly the ad/post claims
- What exactly the study showed
Then list EVERY gap between them. Typically: a different
population (adults vs. children), a different dose or form, a
different measured outcome (a blood marker vs. an actual illness),
a different duration, an association presented as a cause, one
result cherry-picked out of many measured.
For each gap, note how big a problem it is: cosmetic difference /
substantial difference / the claim doesn't hold up.

For the studies we found on the claim [claim] (PMIDs: [list]),
build a hierarchy-of-evidence table:
| study | type | level on the ladder | sample | duration | population | funding |
Below the table, write:
1. What's the HIGHEST level of evidence this claim actually has?
   (one sentence)
2. What's missing from the ladder — and is that suspicious? (e.g.
   the substance has been sold for 20 years, would be easy to
   test against placebo, and no RCT exists)
3. If the claim were true at the strength it's being sold at, what
   would the evidence landscape look like? Compare that with
   reality.
For the study type, rely on the abstract and metadata, not
impression — if the type isn't clear, write "unclear from the
abstract."

Summarize the strength of the evidence for the claim [claim]
based on what we've found, then run it through three different
thresholds of demand:
1. "Interesting enough to keep an eye on" — a consistent signal
   from observational studies would be enough. Does it clear this?
2. "I'd spend money on it" — I'd want at least one solid RCT in a
   population similar to mine. Does it clear this?
3. "I'd change my behavior long-term because of it" — I'd want a
   review/meta-analysis or multiple independent RCTs. Does it
   clear this?
One sentence per threshold, yes or no and why. Reminder: this
isn't about treatment or medical advice — it's a calibration of
how strong the evidence is against what I'd actually do based on
it. The decision is mine, and anything health-related belongs in
consultation with a doctor.

For the claim [claim], based on the research so far, I'm leaning
toward the verdict: [your working verdict, e.g. "weak evidence,
mostly marketing"].

Now be opposing counsel. Your job is to take my verdict apart:
1. Use the PubMed connector to find the strongest studies that
   argue AGAINST my verdict. No straw men — the best the other
   side has. With PMIDs.
2. List the weaknesses in my research so far: what might I have
   overlooked, what population or framing did I fail to consider,
   where might I have slid into confirming my own opinion?
3. Under what circumstances would the person spreading the claim
   actually be right? Formulate the strongest honest version of
   their position (a steelman).
At the end, do NOT write a conciliatory "both sides have a point"
— write whether your counterarguments actually threaten my
verdict or not, and why.

Take the key study of our verification (PMID [number]) and map
its surroundings:
1. Find related articles and newer papers on the same question.
   Did anyone independent replicate the result? With PMIDs.
2. Are there studies asking the same question with the OPPOSITE
   result? Actively search for them — phrase the query so it
   would find them (e.g. terms like "no effect," "failed to
   replicate," and similar).
3. Do newer reviews cite this study? And how do they treat it —
   as support, or with reservations?
4. A verdict on its standing: is this study part of a mainstream
   (multiple independent teams, similar results), or a lone
   outburst (one group, nobody replicated it, reviews ignore it)?
If the findings are mixed, describe WHAT DIVIDES them — that's
usually more informative than a 3:2 scoreboard.

For the key studies of our verification (PMIDs: [list]), run a
background check:
1. Has any of them been retracted, or does it carry a warning or
   correction (correction, expression of concern)? Check the
   record's metadata; if the connector can't tell, say so and
   suggest where I can check manually.
2. Who funded the studies, and what conflicts of interest do the
   authors disclose? Quote what's in the record; where it's
   missing, write "not disclosed."
3. Has the lead author's group published a suspiciously large
   number of similar papers on this topic? (one group can create
   the appearance of a consensus all by itself)
None of this disqualifies a study on its own — list the findings
neutrally and flag which ones are worth noting in the registry.

The verification is done. Create a registry entry in exactly this
markdown structure: [paste the template, or say you have it in
the project instructions].
Rules:
- Pick the verdict from our scale (strongly supported by evidence
  / mixed / weak evidence / unsupported / disproven / can't be
  assessed) and justify it in one sentence in the strength-of-
  evidence field.
- Put every PMID we worked with into the sources field, plus a
  brief note of what we searched for and did NOT find.
- Phrase the "reopen when" field concretely — what type of study
  or event would change the verdict.
- Write the note for the family in plain language, no jargon, no
  more than two sentences, no health advice — just what we know
  about the evidence.
Return clean markdown to paste into the file, nothing else.

Our registry (you have it in the project) has an entry for
"Syrup XY." I've come across a new product with the same extract
and claim: [paste it].
1. Tell me what we found back then, and what verdict we reached —
   briefly, in the entry's own words.
2. Check via the PubMed connector what's been added to the
   literature since the verification date [date]. I'm mainly
   interested in studies that meet the "reopen when" condition
   from the entry.
3. If nothing substantial has been added, just suggest updating
   the review date. If something has been added, let's go through
   it again starting from Phase 3, and rewrite the entry.

Quarterly review of the claims registry (you have the file in the
project):
1. Go through every entry and, for each, check via the PubMed
   connector whether the "reopen when" condition has been met
   since the verification date.
2. Return a table: claim | verdict | unchanged / NEEDS REVIEW |
   why.
3. For items marked NEEDS REVIEW, add the PMIDs of the new papers
   and one sentence on what changes.
Don't edit the registry yourself — I edit the file after
reviewing. If everything's unchanged, one sentence and a date is
enough.

Quick check with the PubMed connector — all in one step, but
honest. Claim: [paste the claim and where it's from].
1. Rewrite the claim as one verifiable question (who, what,
   compared to what, what outcome).
2. Find the highest available level of evidence: reviews and
   meta-analyses first, then RCTs, then the rest. Up to 5 papers,
   with PMIDs.
3. Summarize what they say — in numbers, absolute, including what
   wasn't significant.
4. Actively mention the strongest finding AGAINST whatever the
   conclusion is leaning toward.
5. A verdict on the scale: strongly supported by evidence / mixed
   / weak / unsupported / disproven / can't be assessed — plus one
   sentence why, and one sentence on what would change the
   verdict.
Explicitly flag what came from abstracts versus full texts, and
what's your judgment versus what's actually in the studies. Don't
claim anything without a PMID. And if the question touches
treatment or symptoms, stop and refer me to a doctor.

I'm about to talk to [my mom / a friend / my brother] about a
claim from our registry: [paste the entry]. This person believes
the claim, shares it, and it's tied for them to [health worry /
distrust of doctors / a good personal experience — describe what's
likely behind the belief].

Prepare me a conversation using the bridge technique:
1. Common ground: 2 sentences to open with — what I honestly share
   with them.
2. The rational kernel in their position: what's actually
   reasonable about their stance, and how to acknowledge it out
   loud, with no irony.
3. The bridge: how to offer what I found as a joint investigation
   — including one specific interesting detail from the
   verification that works like a story, not a lecture (e.g.
   where the claim actually comes from).
4. Three sentences to avoid, because they'll close the door.
5. A fallback plan: how to end the conversation gracefully if it
   gets stuck — the goal isn't to win today, it's to keep the door
   open.
Write it in my voice, no psychology textbook language.

Run through a practice conversation with me. You are [my mom, 68,
believes claim X because — describe the context; distrusts both
advertising and "official" information, is sharp, and hates being
lectured].
I'll try the bridge technique.
Rules:
- React realistically, not as a caricature: you have good
  counterarguments ("everyone finds what they want online,"
  "doctors don't know everything either").
- If I slip into lecturing, sarcasm, or overloading you with
  facts, react the way she would — then, outside the role, briefly
  tell me where I went off track.
- After at most 10 exchanges, end the conversation and give me
  feedback: what worked, what didn't, one thing to do differently
  next time.