Fact-Check Any Claim. Instantly.

Real sources. Independent analysis. Human review.

Claim analyzed

“Approximately half of the cells in a human body are not human cells.”

The Conclusion

The claim is
Mostly True
7/10

Executive Summary

The claim is mostly true. Current research shows 39-40 trillion bacterial cells versus 30 trillion human cells in the body, meaning 56-57% of cells are non-human. While this exceeds "approximately half," the difference is small enough to support the claim's general accuracy.

Warnings

  • The claim's phrasing 'approximately half' understates that non-human cells actually constitute 56-57% of total cells, creating a slight majority rather than true parity
  • The term 'non-human cells' is ambiguous—it's unclear whether this refers only to bacteria or includes all microbes like fungi, viruses, and archaea
  • The 2024 NIGMS source emphasizes 'about as many' bacterial as human cells, framing the finding as near-equality rather than bacterial majority, which may contradict the claim's implication
Full Analysis

The Claim

How we interpreted the user input

Intent

Verify the scientific claim about the proportion of human versus non-human cells in the human body

Testable Claim

The user's input, neutralized and hardened into a testable hypothesis

“Approximately half of the cells in a human body are not human cells.”

The Research

What we found online

Summary of Findings

16 sources used 7 supporting 5 refuting 4 neutral

All sources are listed in the Sources section at the end of this report.

The Debate

The for and against arguments

P
Proponent Argues TRUE

Source 2 (NCBI Bookshelf) provides authoritative evidence that humans are "only 43 percent human" with 30 trillion human cells versus 39 trillion microbial cells, directly confirming that approximately half of our cells are non-human. This finding is corroborated by Source 6 (Voice of America) quoting UC San Diego's Center for Microbiome Innovation director, Source 10 (BBC Science Focus Magazine) reporting 56% bacterial cells, and Source 15 (Mikrobiomik) stating "more than half of the cells living in your body are not human," establishing a clear scientific consensus that non-human cells constitute approximately half or more of our total cellular composition.

O
Opponent Rebuttal

Your reliance on Source 2 (NCBI Bookshelf) from 2018 ignores the more recent and authoritative Source 1 (NIGMS) from 2024 that explicitly states scientists "used to think" the microbiome had more cells but "new estimates suggest that we have about as many bacterial cells as human cells," directly refuting your outdated 43% figure. You cherry-picked lower-authority sources like Source 15 (Mikrobiomik) with a 0.5 authority score while dismissing the highest-authority Source 1 (0.95 score) and Source 4 (Harvard Medical School) that both confirm the ratio is approximately 1:1, not the "approximately half" your claim requires.

O
Opponent Argues FALSE

The most authoritative recent research directly contradicts this claim, with Source 1 (National Institute of General Medical Sciences) stating the ratio of bacterial to human cells is "about 1:1" rather than the claimed half, and Source 4 (BioNumbers Harvard Medical School) confirming that "the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells" with bacteria representing only 0.3% of body weight. Multiple high-authority sources including Source 5 (Eppendorf Beyond Science) and Source 8 (Eppendorf) explicitly describe this as "at least a tie" between human cells and microorganisms, debunking the outdated 10:1 ratio that may have given rise to this false claim about half of our cells being non-human.

P
Proponent Rebuttal

Your argument commits a fundamental mathematical error by conflating "1:1 ratio" with equal percentages, when Source 2 (NCBI Bookshelf) and Source 9 (Weizmann Australia) clearly show that 39-40 trillion bacterial cells versus 30 trillion human cells creates a 1.3:1 ratio where non-human cells constitute 56-57% of the total. You cherry-picked the phrase "at least a tie" from Source 8 (Eppendorf) while ignoring that the same source confirms "39 trillion bacteria" versus "30 trillion" human cells, which mathematically proves that more than half the cells are indeed non-human.

You'll need an account first

Create a free account to get exclusive early access and be the first to chat live with the Proponent and Opponent.

Live Chat is in closed beta

We're rolling this out to a small group first. Join the waitlist and we'll let you know as soon as your access is ready.

The Adjudication

How each panelist evaluated the evidence and arguments

Panelist 1 — The Source Auditor
Focus: Source Reliability & Independence
Mostly True
7/10

The most reliable sources (Source 2 NCBI Bookshelf with 0.9 authority, Source 6 VOA quoting UC San Diego expert, Source 9 Weizmann Australia, and Source 10 BBC Science Focus) consistently report 39-40 trillion bacterial cells versus 30 trillion human cells, mathematically confirming that 56-57% of cells are non-human, which supports "approximately half." While Source 1 NIGMS (2024, 0.95 authority) describes a "1:1 ratio," this actually confirms the same underlying data since 39:30 trillion creates a 1.3:1 ratio that rounds to the colloquial "about 1:1" while still meaning more than half are non-human cells.

Weakest Sources

Source 15 (Mikrobiomik) is unreliable because it has the lowest authority score (0.5) and provides no scientific backing for its claimsSource 16 (LLM Background Knowledge) is unreliable because it's not a verifiable published source and has low authority (0.5)
Confidence: 8/10
Panelist 2 — The Logic Examiner
Focus: Inferential Soundness & Fallacies
Mostly True
7/10

The logical chain from evidence to claim hinges on interpreting "approximately half" and whether a 1.3:1 ratio (39 trillion bacterial vs 30 trillion human cells, yielding 56-57% non-human) satisfies that description; Sources 2, 6, 9, 10, and 12 provide direct numerical evidence showing non-human cells constitute 56-57% of total cells, which logically supports "approximately half," while the opponent's 1:1 framing (Sources 1, 4, 5, 8) describes the same underlying data but emphasizes parity rather than the slight majority. The claim is mostly true because the evidence logically demonstrates that non-human cells are indeed close to half (specifically, slightly more than half at 56-57%), though the opponent's rebuttal correctly identifies that newer authoritative sources emphasize the "about 1:1" framing, creating minor ambiguity about whether "approximately half" is the most precise characterization of a 56% figure.

Logical Fallacies

Opponent's equivocation fallacy: conflates '1:1 ratio' (describing rough parity) with 'exactly 50%' to argue the claim is false, when the same sources confirm 56-57% non-human cells, which reasonably qualifies as 'approximately half'Opponent's appeal to authority misapplication: argues Source 1's 2024 date and 0.95 authority score override Source 2's data without showing the underlying numbers have changed—both cite the same Sender et al. 2016 study with 39 trillion vs 30 trillion cellsProponent's minor cherry-picking: emphasizes Source 15 (0.5 authority) saying 'more than half' while stronger evidence exists, though this doesn't undermine the core numerical argument from higher-authority sources
Confidence: 9/10
Panelist 3 — The Context Analyst
Focus: Completeness & Framing
Mostly True
7/10

The claim omits critical mathematical context: while multiple sources (2, 6, 9, 10, 12) cite 39-40 trillion bacterial vs 30 trillion human cells yielding 56-57% non-human cells, the opponent's framing of "1:1 ratio" as equal percentages is mathematically misleading—a 1.3:1 ratio means 56% bacterial, which does satisfy "approximately half." However, the claim's phrasing "not human cells" is ambiguous about whether it means only bacteria or all non-human cells (fungi, viruses, archaea per Source 15), and Source 1 (NIGMS, 2024, highest authority 0.95) uses language suggesting parity rather than bacterial majority, creating legitimate interpretive tension. Once full context is considered—that the ratio is 1.3:1 (56% non-human) per the Sender et al. 2016 study cited across sources, and "approximately half" reasonably encompasses 56%—the claim is mostly true, though the framing downplays how close to parity the actual ratio is and the 2024 source's emphasis on revised estimates suggesting near-equality.

Missing Context

The claim does not specify whether 'non-human cells' refers only to bacteria or includes all microbes (fungi, viruses, archaea), which affects precisionThe actual ratio is approximately 1.3:1 (56% bacterial, 44% human per Sources 2, 9, 10, 12), which while 'approximately half' is closer to parity than the phrasing suggestsSource 1 (NIGMS 2024, highest authority) emphasizes the revision from old 10:1 estimates to 'about as many' bacterial as human cells, framing the finding as near-equality rather than bacterial majorityThe claim does not acknowledge the significant revision from outdated 10:1 ratios that may have originally inspired the 'half non-human' framingVariation exists across individuals (53% variation per Source 12) and the 'standard 70kg male' model may not represent all populations
Confidence: 9/10

Adjudication Summary

All three evaluation axes scored 7/10, creating unanimous agreement. Source quality was strong with multiple high-authority sources (NCBI, Weizmann, BBC) providing consistent numerical data. Logic analysis confirmed that 56-57% non-human cells reasonably qualifies as "approximately half," despite opponents framing the same data as "1:1 parity." Context analysis noted the claim's ambiguity about whether "non-human" means only bacteria or all microbes, and that newer sources emphasize near-equality rather than bacterial majority.

Consensus

The claim is
Mostly True
7/10
Confidence: 9/10 Unanimous

Sources

Sources used in the analysis

#2 NCBI Bookshelf 2018-01-01
SUPPORT
#6 Voice of America 2018-12-20
SUPPORT
REFUTE
#9 Weizmann Australia 2016-02-15
SUPPORT
#12 Gut Microbiota for Health 2016-02-24
SUPPORT
NEUTRAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
#16 LLM Background Knowledge
REFUTE