Stem cells in your YouTube feed: The complex landscape and unexpected mediators of online information

Summary

This Forum article explores 4,481 YouTube videos about stem cells to map how medical knowledge is shaped online. By analyzing content and user metrics, the article identifies key mediators and influential creators, revealing a complex discourse dominated by celebrity influencers in the promotion and discussion of putative stem cell treatments.

In this article, Grundtvig and Munsie provide a large-scale analysis, identifying 4,481 stem cell-related videos on YouTube across 1,734 channels and attracting 134 million views. The article explores how, and by whom, information about stem cells is presented on YouTube, one of the leading information platforms online.

Introduction

Health communication is increasingly moving away from traditional means of communication and into social media platforms, raising concerns about authority, reliability, and accuracy of this information source (Afful-Dadzie et al., 2023; Osman et al., 2022). One prominent online platform that is experiencing a rapid increase in health content is the video-sharing and social media platform YouTube (Osman et al., 2022; Allgaier 2018). With two billion monthly users, YouTube is the second most visited website on the internet and, even more importantly, the top website in the world where users spend most continuous time (Similarweb 2025). All videos on YouTube are uploaded to specific YouTube channels created by individuals or organizations. Content is publicly accessible and curated by channel hosts with viewers encouraged to indicate when they like a video, provide comments for others to read, as well as subscribe to channels of interest for ongoing access to content. A review from 2023 (Afful-Dadzie et al., 2023) revealed an alarming amount of troublesome health information on YouTube, both with respect to content and means of communication, particularly related to cancer and diabetes healthcare.

While it has been shown that patients often rely on web browsing to find information (Arthurs et al., 2022), the potential impact of YouTube as a platform for health communication has led to calls for greater and more comprehensive scrutiny (Afful-Dadzie et al., 2023; Osman et al., 2022). This is particularly pressing given the pivotal role YouTube plays in the general web ecosystem, with video previews from its archives frequently appearing alongside other links in response to search engine inquiries. Furthermore, it remains unclear who is sharing this content (Allgaier 2018) and how, or even if, the health information encountered on YouTube influences decision making about their health.

Previous studies about how stem cell treatments are presented on YouTube have examined the content of videos with respect trustworthiness of information, or lack thereof (López-Jornet et al., 2017; Unal-Ulutatar and Ulutatar 2022), as well as explored the utilization of patient testimonials as a mean of communication (Hawke et al., 2019). However, given that misinformation already abounds online about unproven stem cell procedures, there is a need to revisit this topic and gain a deeper insight into what is being presented on YouTube and by whom. In this Forum article, we take a systematic and large-scale data approach to map stem cell videos on YouTube and identify the influential mediators and content creators. The contemporary stem cell landscape on YouTube turns out to be more surprising and complex than expected.

Mapping stem cell information landscape on YouTube

A post on an authoritative stem cell and regenerative medicine blog almost 10 years ago identified the top 20 most popular stem cell videos on YouTube through a simple enquiry via the platform’s search function (Knoepfler 2015). To explore what type of health information related to stem cell treatments is currently presented on YouTube, and by whom, we applied a structured approach, analyzing metadata that were retrieved using the publicly available extraction protocol provided by YouTube (YouTube Data API 2025). While we acknowledged that the YouTube video landscape is designed to be constantly in motion with new videos, new channels, and user metrics changing daily, exploring metadata at a specific time point provides an opportunity to better understand the online information landscape and those involved in its curation.

In April 2025, using the search string “stem cell OR stem cells,” we collected metadata from 4,481 YouTube videos across 1,734 YouTube channels. The identified videos attracted a total of about 160,000 comments, 3 million likes, and, most importantly for this forum article, over 134 million views. The earliest identified video was posted in September 2009, with the most recent posted immediately before the data collection (see supplemental methods for more details on our approach).

Many video titles implied a therapeutic perspective (Figure 1). For example, “therapy/therapies” or “treatment” was mentioned in almost half of the videos (n = 1,361 and n = 646 videos, respectively), with “cure” mentioned on only 100 occasions. Few titles provided any indication of what specific medical condition or disease the videos addressed, although “pain” was occasionally mentioned (n = 118 videos). Where details were provided, the most common conditions were “arthritis” (n = 123 videos), “autism” (n = 118 videos), and “diabetes” (n = 79 videos). In addition, other terms such as “research” and “science” were only occasionally mentioned (n = 334 videos and n = 72 videos, respectively). Few also stated stem cell source with “pluripotent” and “embryonic” mentioned in 103 videos (n = 50 and n = 53, respectively), with “adult,” “bone marrow,” and “mesenchymal” also mentioned (n = 75, n = 58, and n = 38 videos, respectively).

Figure 1.

Key terms in titles of 4,481 YouTube videos featuring stem cell content

(Larger words appear more frequently across titles, with color and word placement variation for visual distinction only).

Not surprisingly, many of the most viewed videos featured the personal experiences of individuals and are in a short video format (see also Table S1). For example, the video entitled “This SAVED my Hair! #stemcells #hairloss #hairgrowth” posted in 2023 by someone whose stated primary interest was in fitness received 9.3 million views, the highest in our dataset. Other highly viewed videos cover topics such as why do athletes store their stem cells, ways stem cells whiten skin, how stem cell therapy “saved” the life of the dad of a famous movie actor, and how taking stem cells for 20 days led to “insane” results. The most viewed videos that named medical conditions included short clips on advances in treatments for blindness and heart repair and were both posted in 2024 (see also Table S1).

Who is hosting content?

To identify who curated this information, we aggregated the view count for the stem cell-related videos for each of the 1,734 YouTube channels identified. While viewership is not a quality indicator (Osman et al., 2022) it does indicate which topics and creators attract the most attention. We observed that 30 channels (1.8%) accounted for half of all the views (see supplemental information), attracting between 1 million and 9.2 million views (Figure 2). The channel with the most views attracted one-third more than the second most watched channel and more than nine times more than that for the 30^th most watched video. This indicates that, even among the top 30 performing channels, the most watched channels are responsible for the majority of views. These “top” 30 channels had between 700 and 43 million subscribers (Figure 2; see also Table S2) indicating a wide range of channel types, from long-standing, highly institutionalized to newer or more niche creators. To explore who was behind the most viewed YouTube channels, we used the descriptor of the host provided on the platform, and links to websites or social media accounts, to place them into one of four categories: science communication, unproven stem cell therapy (SCT) business, influencer, and miscellaneous (Figure 2). The supplemental material provides additional information concerning how the categories were determined. However, we note that the distinction between “science communication” and “influencer” was sometimes difficult to determine given that individuals associated with some channels are clearly positioning themselves as leaders and personalities in their field and thus could also be considered influencers. We carefully reviewed the context of the posts plus other content on the channel, alongside stated expertise, when assigning categories.

Figure 2.

Analysis of viewer numbers and subscribers across top 30 YouTube channels hosting stem cell-related videos

Channels have been categorized and colored based on apparent purpose with number of subscribers to each channel also indicated (circle). See also Figure S1 and Table S2.

Perhaps not surprisingly, 43% of the top channels (n = 13) appeared to have a “science communication” focus providing information about science and medicine and hosted by or associated with universities, hospitals, or public education platforms. This category was responsible for 25.2 million views, accounting for 33.9% of viewers of the top channels (see also Figure S1). Only one channel—“EuroGCT and EuroStemCell”—was directly linked to the academic stem cell community with 1.5 million views and approximately 9,000 subscribers. Two channels (BioXcellerator Stem Cell Therapy and Stem Cell Institute) were directly linked to a business providing unproven stem cell procedures. With relatively few subscribers, these two channels still managed to attract 6.7 million views (9%) by posting more stem cell videos than the other categories. The remaining top channels were either hosted by “influencers” (n = 12)—people with strong online followings and not usually involved in promoting scientific discoveries or medical treatments—or channels that we labeled “miscellaneous” (n = 3) due to their lack of commonality. For example, in this category there is a channel claiming to play music beats in a frequency that stimulates stem cell production in the listener’s body and which attracted 3.7 million views (Good Vibes - Binaural Beats).

However, it was the strong representation of influencers, and their role for us as unexpected mediators of stem cell information, which was most striking. Influencers interested in fitness, beauty, and/or lifestyle are capturing 35.7 million views, almost half of all the views among the top 30 channels (se also Figure S1). These channels are mainly posting videos showcasing almost miraculous personal experiences with stem cell procedures. While the fitness influencers mainly underwent stem cell procedures to recover from injury and thereby sought to return to fitness-as-usual as quickly as possible, the beauty influencers deployed stem cell procedures directly to enhance their appearance, although this was not always a clear distinction. For example, the fitness influencer Jesse James West underwent a stem cell treatment that he stated had the effect of healing his lower back in 30 days and, as an added benefit, enhanced his eyesight. But perhaps the most striking example was the moza morph video about a presumed stem cell treatment to boost white pigments in the skin in only 7 days—promoting stem cells as beauty product. It is important to stress that neither of these two procedures are approved by the Food and Drug Administration or to our knowledge any other regulators. We also observed that one of the channels hosted by unproven SCT business featured edited clips from the influencer channels (see also Table S1) and that both BioXcellerator Stem Cell Therapy and Stem Cell Institute are featured in the videos on channels hosted by influencers.

Finally, it is worth noting that one influencer, above all others, appeared to have the most impact—Joe Rogan—the controversial podcasting and countercultural “icon” (Bozzi 2025). In the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Rogan invites celebrity personalities into the studio for long-format conversations. The JRE (Joe Rogan Experience) clips is the YouTube channel that hosts video recordings from these podcasts. On at least eight occasions, the content has featured discussions about therapeutic use of stem cells, attracting total of 3.7 million views. Perhaps most (in)famously Rogan interviewed the actor Mel Gibson and the SCT business owner Neil Riordon (NB, related to the YouTube channel, Stem Cell Institute) (see also Table S1). By posting these videos, Rogan has positioned himself as an explicit online mediator of information about stem cell procedures. Notably he did so without any acknowledgment of their unproven status.

Discussion

By by querying YouTube for videos related to stem cells, we have highlighted the potential reach of this platform to possibly millions of users. We have also identified that the mediators of information about possible stem cell treatments on YouTube are not scientific or medical experts but others such as influencers who have tenuous ties to stem cell research and its translation, and in some cases direct links to the unproven SCT business.

While further studies will be required to gauge the impact of the information obtained from YouTube on patient decision making, it is helpful to consider the diverse landscape of new media content providers and reframe patients as media consumers. This shift can help us understand what fitness instructors and a podcast host are doing in the field of stem cells. However, more importantly, it can help us explore the complexity and potential new risks of online recruitment strategies on perceptions of stem cell science. With new media platforms like YouTube, there is an increasingly broader range of people making and consuming all kinds of content. So, from a media consumption perspective, the issue is not only that current patients and their families are being targeted with (dis- and mis)information about unproven stem cell procedures but also that people who are not looking for stem cell procedures unexpectedly become potential future patients as a result of the exposure to this information though digital mediation and recommendation algorithms on YouTube and other digital media platforms.

To date, information about future stem cell medicine, and especially concern about marketing of unproven procedures, has mainly relied on text-based online content, with few organizations adequately resourced and able to incorporate video or animation platforms into their communication strategy. As a result, creating dedicated YouTube channels may not be a priority or a possibility for many in the field. However, given the reach of platforms like YouTube, and similar video-sharing social media like Instagram and TikTok, consideration of an online presence on these platforms to engage with the messaging from medical clinics and celebrity influencers in new ways should be revisited.

The question is therefore not simply if the academic stem cell community should be more active in the new media landscape but how it could be more active. A key first step could be partnering with education providers who already have an existing following as well as ensuring that video content integrates with existing public education initiatives across the globe (such as www.eurogct.org or www.aboutstemcells.org). Where there is existing educative video content, there could further be prioritized new ways to enhance its reach and visibility to strengthen the knowledge about existing YouTube Channels hosted by the academic stem cell community (See also Table S3 for a list of YouTube channels hosted by the academic stem cell community). There is also a need for more interdisciplinary research to better understand how information about stem cell medicine in a new media landscape directly, or indirectly, influences healthcare decision-making of current and future patients. The task for the academic stem cell community is thereby to utilize new media platforms more effectively, to share a more research- and practice-attuned representation of current and future stem cell science.

Acknowledgments

The authors receive funding from reNEW, the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Stem Cell Medicine, which is supported by a Novo Nordisk Foundation grant (NNF21CC0073729).

We would also like to thank our colleagues Klaus Lindgaard Hoeyer, Lea de Chiffre Skovgaard, and the rest of the PREPARE group in reNEW for their invaluable advice during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author contributions

The authors jointly conceived of the project and contributed to the manuscript’s drafting with A.G. leading data collection and analysis.

Declaration of interests

M.M. is a Board member of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Supplemental information

Table S3. Ranked list of most viewed YouTube channels associated with academic institutes, journals, medical centers, and stem cell societies

The table is related to the discussion section.