If a picture is worth a thousand words, a never-before-seen “detailed picture of the human cell” could be worth millions of characters. On August 3, 2022, a post appeared on Facebook with this alleged image, stating that it is not “a painting” and that we are dealing with a human cell discovered by “x-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance and cryoelectron microscopy”. It is, however, a false publication.

Despite the poetic text, and even something divine, the author does not share any relevant data that shows that, in reality, we are dealing with a detailed image of a human cell. This image is not recent. It has been circulating on social networks since at least 2021. On the other hand, a search for image identification tools such as Google Images is enough to realize that yes, it is a digitally manipulated image. Or, in this case, from a digital illustration. It was made by Russell Kightley and is titled “Animal Cell on White”.

Russel Kightley, in his blog, has already denied that we are facing “the most detailed image of a human cell.” “My old digital image of an animal cell went viral and skyrocketed visits to my website. The posts come with fake text. This image was created 20 years ago for a BioCam educational poster,” he says.

Kightley also recalls that publications similar to the one presented in the to post been denied and that their work has been shared in various credible outlets.” “It has already appeared in several places, it is available for print Y commercialization and use under license. He wanted him to look like a jeweler. The colors are arbitrary. It is of a generalized animal, where I can include the human being. It was designed as a basic teaching tool”, wrote the author of the image.

It remains to be said that, in fact, the author of this illustration is right: these publications have been denied by international fact-checkers such as the American Snopes. They all claimed that this is fake news.

Conclution

It is not true that the “most detailed image of a human cell” has been shared on Facebook. This is an old digital illustration done by an author who has denied the various claims made. This work was intended to become a basic learning tool and can be purchased online.

Thus, according to the Observer classification system, this content is:

WRONG

In the Facebook rating system this content is:

FALSE: Main content claims are factually inaccurate. This option generally corresponds to “fake” or “mostly fake” ratings on fact check sites.

NOTE: This content was curated by The Observer as part of a fact-checking partnership with Facebook.