Snopes said what about stem cells?
A brief search of Snopes for “stem cells” produces some wacky claims about our favorite cells. They tackle some stem cell myths floating around out there that overlap somewhat with a post I did about 5 years ago on stem cell myths.
I’ve listed below the search results on the first page from Snopes for stem cells, with below each one my thoughts on it.
Should You Save Baby Teeth for Stem Cells?
Eh, maybe…maybe not.
Can a Fetus Send Its Own Stem Cells to Repair Its Mother’s Damaged Organs?
A few hang around.
Scientists Discover a Drug That Regenerates Teeth?
Not exactly, but perhaps stem cells can regrow new teeth and depending on the stem cells they can be considered collectively as a “drug”.
Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives
This is a myth, as I’ve covered before.
Simply testing chemicals on fetal cells grown in a dish doesn’t mean any of that cellular material ends up in your Pepsi (or Coke, cookies, chips, etc.)
Is This a Red Blood Cell on the Tip of a Needle?
Nope. Composite of two photos.
Do Women Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Ever Slept With?
Snopes has their own replies to these questions, but they mostly fit with my perspectives too.
They also mentioned the “nose growing on the head” report that I’ve covered before that appears to be true. See image above.
The other pages of results for “stem cells” kind of drift away from being specifically about stem cells in some cases. There are a lot of strange claims in there including about chimeras.
1 thought on “Stem cells on Snopes, wacky claims checked”
Sounds like you’re on the fence about stem cells from baby teeth. What are the pros/cons, in your opinion? There are quite a few trails underway using different types of mesenchymal stem cells…