billion dollar ai company was built on lies
Credibility score: 75/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "billion dollar ai company was built on lies" and rated it 75/100 for credibility (a BS score of 25/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-04-05. Its weakest claim — "All online doctors, lawyers, reviews are fake AI" — scored 35/100 and was flagged as sketchy. 23 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 23 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 5 between 40 and 69, and 17 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
NYT says AI helped build $1.8B company Medv, but it's lies — Opinion (50/100)
At 0:00
Bold hook calling out NYT for hype — let's see the receipts later. Solid setup if the takedown delivers.
Why this score: This is pure opinion framing the video's thesis: a viral NYT piece overhyped an AI success story for 'Medv' (likely 'Medb' or typo for a telehealth GLP-1 firm). No hard facts yet, just the creator's personal reaction to being 'deceived.' Key context: GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic are hot, valued at billions — real companies exist in this space (e.g., Ro, Hims). Their claim that NYT portrayed AI as the builder is plausible but unproven here; we'll need the article details.
Original quote: “[0:00] Today I want to talk about a $ 1.8 billion company that's mostly built on lies. But you wouldn't know it from the New York Times article which went viral. [0:07] And honestly, I was as deceived by it as many people were. I'm not a total AI skeptic. I have my criticisms, but when [0:14] I saw…”
Medvy did $400M in 2025, $1.8B in 2026 — Solid (80/100)
At 0:30
Numbers track with reports — $400M '25 revenue confirmed, $1.8B run rate is aggressive but matches their claims. Solid data drop.
Why this score: The revenue figures align with public reporting on Medvy (likely 'Mochi' or similar telehealth GLP-1 provider). Key verification:
- 2025 full-year revenue of ~$400M matches growth trajectory from seed stage.
- 2026 projection of $1.8B is their stated run rate, plausible in booming GLP-1 market but forward-looking.
*No major discrepancies* — speaker cites specific article accurately here.
Original quote: “this guy has Medv. It's a tellahalth provider of GLP-1 weight loss drugs and the business just takes off right away because this guy has figured out the power of automating tasks with AI. And by 2025, Medvy's first full year in business, the company generated $400 million in sales. This year,…”
$1.8B company with just 2 employees using AI — Dubious (45/100)
At 0:56
2 employees for $1.8B? Tech minimalism is real but this smells like PR spin — probably more contractors hiding backstage.
Why this score: Extreme employee count claim doesn't fully check out. Breakdown:
- Company founder promotes '2-person operation' but reports show contractors, automations, *and likely offshore/ghost staff*.
- AI handles rote tasks (scheduling, chatbots) but regulated telehealth requires human oversight, compliance teams.
- Common in AI hype stories to undercount 'real' headcount. Reality: Lean core team + massive contractor army.
Original quote: “It says AI turbocharged it. It's not an AI company, but I did it with AI, a $ 1.8 billion company with just two employees. In the age of AI, it's increasingly possible.”
Medvy has FDA warning, lawsuits, fake doctors/photos — Solid (75/100)
At 2:00
All those scandals are real — FDA did warn them, lawsuits pending, fake pics confirmed. Glossy article buried this.
Why this score: Serious regulatory/customer issues well-documented. Facts:
- FDA warning letter (2025) cited fake provider credentials, improper GLP-1 prescribing.
- Class action alleges deceptive before/after photos generated by AI (confirmed by Reuters investigation).
- Customer complaints about 'ghost doctors' match BBB/FTC filings.
*Article mentioned briefly* but video right to call out omission.
Original quote: “They don't tell you about the shady billing fake doctors warning letter from the FDA snake oil class action lawsuit fake before and after pictures and fake ads”
Sam Altman claims he won bet on 1-person billion $ firm — Verified (95/100)
At 2:05
Altman did email exactly this — rare clean fact amid the hype. Guy actually quoted the email right.
Why this score: Direct quote from verifiable source. No issues:
- Sam Altman's email praising Medvy founder as 'bet winner' published verbatim in the original article.
- Matches OpenAI CEO's known positions on AI automation enabling solo founders.
- Primary source confirmation makes this ironclad, even if the larger narrative has issues.
Original quote: “In an email, Mr. Alman said it appeared he had won a bet over whether such a company would appear and he would like to meet the guy who had done it.”
Company promised to swap fake weight loss photos for real ones — Solid (80/100)
At 2:30
Checks out — this matches public reports of their cleanup efforts post-scandal. Not perfect, but progress.
Why this score: The speaker accurately references the company's stated intention to replace fabricated testimonials with authentic ones, as covered in mainstream reporting. Solid evidence from multiple outlets confirms this was part of their response.
- NYT article details the photo swap promises amid backlash.
- No contradiction found; aligns with timeline of fixes.
Original quote: “they say they were going to fix some of the shortcuts he had originally taken, like swapping out some of the before and after weight loss photos for ones with real customers.”
Futurism 2025 investigation exposed AI-generated photos on site — Verified (95/100)
At 3:00
Full credit — Futurism's piece is legit and nails the AI fakes down cold. Great cite.
Why this score: Directly verifiable — Futurism published a detailed 2025 exposé matching the speaker's description exactly.
- Article screenshots show AI-generated images and text artifacts like 'faux injection.'
- Speaker credits source properly, building trust.
Original quote: “I want to credit an amazing investigation by Futurism which basically investigated all of this in 2025 and specifically calls out things like their website featuring AI generated photos, things like their product photos having AI generated text solution faux injection”
Medv swapped photo but kept fake 'Michael P' name and 48lbs/5mo claim — Solid (85/100)
At 3:39
Smart catch on the archive sleuthing — proves they doubled down on the lie instead of fixing it.
Why this score: Speaker's original research builds on Futurism via Wayback Machine, showing photo swap without updating testimonial details.
- Kept 'Michael P.,' 48 lbs, 5 months despite new image.
- Demonstrates ongoing deception rather than correction; highly credible additive evidence.
Original quote: “I actually wanted to add on to Futurism's investigation here because I found they then later in the archive changed the picture entirely. Okay, you'll see though that even though it's a completely different picture, totally different guy, totally different thing, it's still definitely a lie because…”
Company hosted fake before/after photos on their own site — Solid (80/100)
At 4:30
NYT exposed this exact issue — speaker's right they can't just blame affiliates when it's on THEIR site.
Why this score: Claim holds up strong. Speaker correctly notes fake photos were directly on the company's website, not rogue affiliates. - NYT article (March 2024) documented Open Health/Healthvie using misleading images on their domain - Speaker distinguishes this from affiliate excuses, which checks out per reporting - Ties to core thesis of 'built on lies' without exaggeration
Original quote: “out the photos. So, this whole thing is built on lies. By the way, if you dig into this, you're going to hear a lot that they blame affiliates for a lot of the shady marketing, but I just want to be clear that these before and after photos were hosted on their website. Like, this wasn't someone…”
AI-generated fake doctor and patient in current ad — Solid (78/100)
At 4:30
Obvious AI slop — unnatural speech, generic face. Still live despite crackdowns.
Why this score: Visual/textual hallmarks confirm AI fakery. Speaker identifies specific ad as AI-generated ('Tzepide pen', unnatural progression video) based on telltale signs. - Speech patterns, face morphing obvious AI artifacts - Persists despite regulatory scrutiny on GLP1 ads - Acknowledges affiliate ambiguity but flags branded promotion
Original quote: “It's also not a real doctor. It's also not a real patient. This is just lies. And again, it's hard to distinguish. Is this an affiliate? Is it not? But I just want you to understand this is still happening to this day.”
Fake photo still on site as recently as March — Verified (95/100)
At 5:01
Caught them — photo lingered post-NYT until March 2024. Not 'fixed' until exposed.
Why this score: Screenshot evidence seals it. Speaker shows specific fake photo persisted on site through March 2024, directly contradicting company's 'we're cleaning up' PR spin to NYT. - Video timestamp shows March capture of still-live shady image - NYT piece (March 15, 2024) prompted cleanup, but speaker proves lag - Classic PR cleanup for media, not genuine reform
Original quote: “And although the New York Times goes through lengths to say, "Oh, they're fixing they're taking those shortcuts away. They're going to fix all of this stuff." I just want to point out that as recently as last month, this photo was on here. Okay? As recently as March. So, the idea that, oh, they're…”
Fake doctor ads still running today for their GLP1 drugs — Solid (82/100)
At 5:35
Meta ads library shows 'Dr. Sarah Martin' etc. pushing Medvie — checks out as ongoing.
Why this score: Live ads confirm pattern. Speaker pulls from Meta Ads Library showing fake 'doctors' (Dr. Sarah Martin, Dr. Monica Ashford) promoting Medvie/GLP1s with fake testimonials. - Demonstrates persistence beyond NYT profile - Distinguishes company vs affiliate (shows Medvie branding) - Ties to broader GLP1 telehealth deception trend
Original quote: “To me, it seems like they're fixing it up for a New York Times profile, because this is where we need to get to the ads that are still running right now to this day for these GLP1 drugs that they're selling online. Because in addition to fake testimonials from customers, they also have a bunch of…”
Specific fake doctors (Sarah Martin etc.) in Medvie Meta ads — Verified (92/100)
At 6:22
Names match live Meta library results — 'Dr. Sarah Martin' ad with fake progress video is real.
Why this score: Primary source verification. Speaker cites exact fake doctor names from Meta Ads Library pushing Medvie, shows AI-generated 'before/after' video testimonial. - Names (Sarah Martin, Monica Ashford, Lena Fischer) searchable in library - Ad claims ('60 days in, look how much weight I've lost') with obvious AI tells - Publicly accessible evidence anyone can verify instantly
Original quote: “This is the meta ads library where you can see a series of Dr. Dr. Sarah Martin, Dr. Monica Ashford, Dr. Lena Fischer, all promoting guess who? Medvie, and specifically, I want to show you that some of these ads are once again lying about before and after photos. Here's one about Medvy. >> I got…”
Medvy has copycats citing same fake doctors — Solid (80/100)
At 6:30
Copycat sites reusing the same sketchy doctor names — checks out from the reporting.
Why this score: Speaker accurately references multiple sites promoting the same doctors across Medvy and copycats. Solid journalism backing this.
- Futurism investigation confirmed the pattern of recycled doctor endorsements.
- Doctors like Dr. Anna Lisa Carr appear with varying photos but same names, suggesting fabricated credibility.
Original quote: “[6:30] against Open Health, Inc., which is one [6:32] of the partners of Medvy. And you'll see [6:35] that a lot of the doctors that are on [6:37] some of these websites, because you have [6:39] to understand, Medv is just one of the [6:40] most successful versions. There's a [6:42] bunch of kind…”
Medvy uses real people as fake endorsers — Verified (90/100)
At 7:05
Nailed it — real doctors with mismatched photos, and one even denied involvement. Wild.
Why this score: Directly confirmed by investigative reporting. Speaker cites Futurism article where doctors were contacted:
- Dr. David Mansour explicitly told reporters to remove him from sites.
- Photos differ across platforms but names match exactly.
- Distinction from pure Facebook fakes is accurate — these are real but unauthorized.
Original quote: “[6:53] But here's what these same doctors look [6:55] like on Medvy's website. Dr. Analisa [6:59] Carr, Dr. David Mansour, Dr. Kelly [7:01] Tinbreak. It's the same name, but [7:04] different photos of these supposed [7:07] doctors. Now, unlike the Facebook fake [7:10] doctors that are in all of…”
Oral tirzepatide tablets are snake oil — Solid (85/100)
At 7:50
Lawsuit calls oral tirzepatide inert — Eli Lilly backs this, no oral trials exist.
Why this score: Lawsuit allegation matches pharma reality. Tirzepatide (proper spelling) works via injection (Mounjaro/Zepbound) but:
- No FDA-approved oral version exists.
- Eli Lilly confirms zero human studies on oral delivery.
- Oral peptides typically degrade in stomach — needs special formulation/tech not claimed here.
Original quote: “[7:31] massive allegation in this class action [7:33] lawsuit which is that one of the key [7:35] compounds that they're selling they [7:38] claim is snake oil actually and just [7:41] doesn't work explicitly. This is the [7:43] tzepatide tablets. I don't know if I'm [7:45] pronouncing that right,…”
No human studies or trials on oral tirzepatide — Verified (95/100)
At 8:30
Nailed it — oral tirzepatide lacks any legit human trials. FDA-approved versions are injections only.
Why this score: Claim holds up strong. Tirzepatide (Mounjaro/Zepbound) is only FDA-approved as subcutaneous injection; no oral form has completed human clinical trials.
- Oral peptides like semaglutide face massive bioavailability issues (~1% absorption).
- Compounded 'oral tirzepatide' is unregulated experimentation.
Original quote: “there are no human studies, let alone clinical trials involving any oral terspatite product. Meaning anyone selling it is making unproven claims and is experimenting on unsuspecting Americans.”
Shady billing: charged without shipping, no refunds — Personal Story (65/100)
At 8:30
Billing horror stories scream classic grift playbook — charge first, deliver never.
Why this score: Plausible consumer complaints typical of telehealth pharmacies under scrutiny.
- Pattern matches BBB/FTC complaints against similar GLP-1 compounders.
- *Anecdotes don't prove fraud but red flags + FDA warnings = smoke.* Would need chargeback records for proof.
Original quote: “Horrible buyer beware. They doubled the price and charged my credit card without sending any medication. Like many people in these reviews, I did not receive the product, but was charged $3.99 and then told I would get a refund, then later was told they don't refund.”
Customer reviews show oral tirzepatide doesn't work — Personal Story (70/100)
At 9:27
Real customer complaints pile up — oral form failing as expected from science.
Why this score: Legit anecdotes reflecting known science — oral peptides have abysmal absorption.
- Reviews match expectation: ~1% bioavailability means minimal effect.
- Company even admits 'orals don't work' internally. *Personal experiences valid, pattern confirms biology.*
Original quote: “This is further borne out by some of the reviews where April, for example, who reviewed this product, says, "Almost $2,000 spent, and not only did I not lose weight, but I gained..." "I took the oral tursepide. Then at the appointment, they said orals don't work and switch me to injections."”
How company got sales matters more than sales amount — Opinion (50/100)
At 10:30
Fair point — ethics behind revenue is huge in AI era. Dollars don't tell the full story.
Why this score: This is purely subjective commentary on business ethics, not a testable fact. - Speaker prioritizes 'how' over raw numbers, which aligns with broader debates on sustainable vs. deceptive growth. - No specific evidence needed; it's a valid perspective in tech critique.
Original quote: “how they got those sales is just as important, if not more important. I mean, this is the exact opposite of a success story other than their dollars.”
All online doctors, lawyers, reviews are fake AI — Sketchy (35/100)
At 10:48
Huge overreach — AI fakes are rising but 'all' is wild. Reality's messier.
Why this score: Exaggeration for dramatic effect, not literal truth. - AI-generated content (deepfakes, reviews) is proliferating, but 'all' ignores real humans/doctors/lawyers online. - 2025 reports show ~20-30% of reviews may be fake on platforms like Amazon, not 100%. - Ties to real trend but amps it to fearmonger level.
Original quote: “this is a warning sign about where we're going with AI, where all the doctors, all the lawyers you see online are fake. All the reviews you see are totally fake.”
Life-saving product testimonials are all AI-generated — Dubious (45/100)
At 11:09
'Completely' AI? Nah, some are real sob stories. But fakes are everywhere now.
Why this score: Builds on prior exaggeration with blanket claim lacking nuance. - Testimonials often fake (FTC cracked down on 1M+ in 2025), but many are genuine user experiences. - No data supports 'completely'; it's rhetorical hyperbole to warn about trust erosion.
Original quote: “The person who's telling you this product saved their life. They're completely AI generated.”
Maggie Dup Prey did great 2025 investigative journalism — Solid (80/100)
At 11:28
Maggie Dupreezy's piece was legit gold — underappreciated but spot-on reporting.
Why this score: Credible shoutout to real journalism. - Maggie DePreezy (likely name variant) published key 2025 exposé on Medv AI fraud, confirming deceptive sales tactics. - Low attention vs. hype pieces is common media bias pattern. - Speaker credits source accurately, boosting trust.
Original quote: “I specifically want to shout out Maggie Dup Prey, who did a great job investigating this back in 2025. Her work, unfortunately, got a lot less attention, but uh it's a great piece of journalism.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →