Hype against randomized trials for one topic, computed and dated 30 October 2026. It rates the topic, never a person, and gives no dosing and no sourcing.
The short version
334Kyearly wiki viewsEnglish Wikipedia, to 30 Sep 2026
429randomized-trial paperstyped on PubMed
777views per trial paperlower is better backed
Receipts check outthe verdictby the published rule
Magnesium
Receipts check out
777yearly views per trial paper
hype334K views a yearproof429 trial papers
The trial record is deep next to the attention it gets.
English Wikipedia readers opened the Magnesium article about 334K times in the year to 30 September 2026. PubMed holds 429 papers typed as randomized trials for it, which is 777 yearly views per trial paper. By the published rule that earns the verdict Receipts check out.
That is a statement about the gap between attention and trial record. It does not say whether Magnesium works or whether it is safe for anyone.
How does it compare with the others?
Magnesium next to the other fourhype above, proof below, read 30 October 2026
Top chart: attention. Bottom chart: randomized-trial papers typed on PubMed. The highlighted bar is Magnesium. A big top bar over a small bottom bar is what the meter reads as hype ahead of the trials.