We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
The claims that PRP actually contains stem cells are very, very feeble, and when you look at the literature and you talk to anyone expert in the stem cell field, they will tell you that it's, the number of stem cells in PRP is infinitesimally small. In fact, so much so that these places that inject PRP for injuries are not allowed to advertise through the use of the words stem cells. It's actually illegal at this point, at least as far as I know.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
here's the deal it has never been shown whether or not the injection itself is what's actually creating the effect the claims that PRP actually contains stem cells are very very feeble and when you look at the literature and you talk to anyone expert in the stem cell field they will tell you that it's the number of stem cells in PRP is infinim small