What is actually supported by evidence → and what is not.
Short, neutral explanations of popular claims and concepts, with links to peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and official sources. No sensationalism. No politics. Just evidence.
Most-searched terms
A starting point. Status reflects the current state of evidence in the available literature. See all 288 terms →
5G and human health
MixedNo adverse health effects have been causally linked to 5G radiofrequency exposure at levels within international safety guidelines. Extreme claims, such as that 5G causes cancer or spread COVID-19, are without scientific basis, though some researchers call for continued monitoring of long-term non-thermal effects.
Chemtrails
FalseThe persistent white trails left by aircraft at high altitude are condensation trails (contrails) made of ice crystals formed when hot exhaust meets cold, humid air. There is no scientific evidence of any covert large-scale atmospheric spraying program.
Vaccines and autism
FalseDecades of large-scale epidemiological research across multiple countries have found no causal link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. The original 1998 study that sparked the controversy was retracted after being exposed as deliberate scientific fraud.
Human-caused climate change
SupportedThe IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2021-2023) concludes it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. More than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists and over 99% of peer-reviewed climate papers endorse anthropogenic climate change.
GMO food safety
SupportedMajor scientific and regulatory bodies worldwide, including WHO, EFSA, and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, have concluded that currently approved genetically modified foods are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts. More than 3,000 studies support this conclusion.
Fluoride in drinking water
MixedCommunity water fluoridation at recommended levels (0.7 mg/L in the U.S.) has strong evidence of reducing dental decay by approximately 25%. A body of recent research has raised concerns about possible neurodevelopmental effects at higher fluoride exposures, primarily above 1.5 mg/L, leading to active scientific debate about optimal levels and regulatory review.
Browse by topic
19 categories, from public health to internet scams. All topics →
How we assign status
The evidence hierarchy follows evidence-based practice standards. Read the methodology →
1. Systematic reviews
Cochrane, NICE, NHMRC and other meta-analyses carry the most weight because they aggregate many studies.
2. Guidelines & consensus
WHO, EFSA, EMA, IPCC and national science academies form the next layer of authority.
3. Primary studies
RCTs, cohort and observational studies from peer-reviewed journals, with the evidence level clearly indicated.
4. Disclosure
This site curates verified sources; it tracks the current state of evidence rather than claiming absolute truth.