(Image: STAT News)

Vaccines have prevented millions of serious illnesses and deaths, yet one of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding them is the belief that vaccines cause autism. This claim has contributed to vaccine hesitancy and confusion among parents and families. However, decades of research involving large populations and different research methods have found no causal link between vaccines and autism.

The misconception largely originated from a 1998 study that claimed there was a connection between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. The study received significant media attention and created fear among parents. However, the research was later found to be fraudulent and was retracted by The Lancet, the journal that originally published it. The physician responsible for the study also lost his medical license. Despite being discredited, the claim continued to circulate and became deeply established in public conversations about vaccines.

Since then, researchers have conducted extensive studies to determine whether vaccines actually increase the likelihood of developing autism. These studies have consistently found no evidence of a causal relationship. The World Health Organization's most recent review examined evidence from 31 primary research studies published between 2010 and 2025 and again concluded that vaccines do not cause autism. This included research examining vaccines containing thiomeral, a preservative used in some vaccines, as well as vaccines containing aluminum-based adjuvants.

Another reason this misconception can seem believable is the timing of childhood vaccinations and the identification of autism. Many children receive several vaccines during the same general period in which developmental differences may become more noticeable. When two events happen around the same time, it can be tempting to assume that one caused the other. However, correlation does not establish causation. Researchers must examine whether a relationship consistently appears across large populations and carefully designed studies. 

It is also important to understand that autism is a neurodevelopmental condition with complex causes. Research suggests that genetic variations play an important role, while other biological and environmental factors may also contribute to the likelihood of developing autism. The exact combination of factors involved can differ between individuals. Vaccines are not considered a cause of autism.

Another misconception involves thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative that has been used in some vaccines. Concerns about thimerosal contributed to fears about a possible connection between vaccines and autism. In addition, thimerosal was removed from routine childhood vaccines in the United States beginning in 2001, while autism diagnosis continued to increase, which does not support the idea that thimerosal causes autism. The MMR vaccine also does not contain thimerosal.

The consequences of vaccine misinformation can extend beyond individual decisions. When people avoid vaccination because of inaccurate information, communities can become more vulnerable to disease that vaccines are designed to prevent. The World Health Organization notes that concerns generated by the original MMR controversy contributed to some parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, followed by outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases.

Ultimately, the claim that vaccines cause autism is a medical misconception unsupported by the scientific evidence. Questions about vaccines are , particularly when they involve the health of children, but these questions should be answered using reliable scientific evidence rather than claims shared online or through social media. Understanding how misinformation develops and learning to evaluate the quality of health information can help individuals make informed healthcare decisions. Vaccines and autism are both important topics in public health, but extensive research has demonstrated that vaccines do not cause harm. 

Works Cited:

“Autism.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/autism-spectrum-disorders-%28asd%29?. Accessed 23 Aug. 2026.

Davidson, Michael. “Vaccination as a Cause of Autism-Myths and Controversies.” Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Dec. 2017, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5789217/. Accessed 23 Aug. 2026.

Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health, 19 Mar. 2025, publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism. Accessed 23 Aug. 2026.

“Vaccines and Immunization: Vaccine Safety.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/vaccines-and-immunization-vaccine-safety?. Accessed 23 Aug. 2026.

(Image: Chaos To Clarity)

When it comes to women, a common belief is that they’re too emotional and lack the ambition to be leaders. However, studies find that this way of thinking is completely false; and instead of falling apart under stress, women become aware of the risks in any situation and focus on wins that are guaranteed.

This belief that women and leadership don’t go hand in hand comes from cognitive biases and a patriarchal mindset. Many perceive leadership as a masculine trait and define femininity through nurture, warmth, and care. This is what causes people to undermine women as leaders. Mindsets like these can cause them to feel less confident in their leadership.. So, it’s not that they can’t lead, but oftentimes women feel the need to hesitate or tone down their leadership due to the external biases from others.

Another common misconception along with women and leadership is their inability to handle stress. It’s believed that under it, they fall apart. Not only is this way of thinking a clear display of a double standard, it’s also inaccurate. Therese Huston, a cognitive psychologist, found that both men and women struggle when it comes to making difficult decisions.

Additionally, research has found that in comparison to men, women take less risks when under pressure. It was observed that women go for smaller rewards they know can be materialized rather than taking a gamble. They focus on being cautious and self-critical when making a decision. However, when men are under that same stress they’re focused solely on the rewards, even if they aren’t likely to happen. They take bigger gambles than they would normally go for.

Does this mean that one gender is better than the other when it comes to leadership? No, it simply displays the different ways each gender would handle a situation.

To some, taking a collaborative approach when making a decision is considered indecisive and weak. But, it’s a trait common to women in leadership roles. They tend to have an elevated sense of social sensitivity, and use that to their advantage when leading. This can include including others in discussions, listening for differing opinions, and generating solutions rather than finding weaknesses. This results in women taking others into account and adjusting their understanding to make a final decision. 

So, why is it important that we change how we perceive women in leadership? Changing beliefs that perpetuate harmful stereotypes like this are crucial to minimizing and stopping gender gaps. It’s important to keep the same standard for both men and women to ensure equality not only in the workplace, but around the world in every aspect of life. 

In short, it was found that women don’t fall apart under pressure, instead, they take a different approach than men. They take less risks and are collaborative. That doesn’t mean that one way is better than the other, but rather it proves that there’s different ways to handle authority.

Works Cited:

Caprino, Kathy. “How Decision-Making Is Different Between Men and Women and Why It Matters in Business.” Forbes, 19 May 2016, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2016/05/12/how-decision-making-is-different-between-men-and-women-and-why-it-matters-in-business/. Accessed 6 Aug, 2026.

DA. “Busting Misconceptions Around Women and Decision-Making.” Women Igniting Change®, 21 Sept. 2023, https://womenignitingchange.com/busting-misconceptions-around-women-and-decision-making/. Accessed 6 Aug, 2026.

“Do Men or Women Make Better Decision-Makers?” Eveash.Com, 30 Aug. 2016, https://eveash.com/people-human-resources/do-men-or-women-make-better-decision-makers/. Accessed 6 Aug, 2026.

King, Michelle Penelope. “The Authority Gap: Why Women Are Still Taken Less Seriously Than Men.” Forbes, 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelleking/2021/10/26/the-authority-gap-why-women-are-still-taken-less-seriously-than-men/. Accessed 6 Aug, 2026.

Victoria, Judith. “Explained: Why Female Leaders Suck.” Medium, 2 Jan. 2026, https://judith-victoria.medium.com/explained-why-female-leaders-suck-a883cd43afa0. Accessed 6 Aug, 2026.

(Image: This Way Up)

For generations, many of us have heard the same warning before leaving the house: “dry your hair, or you'll catch a cold.” Whether it came from grandparents or parents, this advice has become one of the most common health myths. While it may seem convincing, notably if you have ever become sick after going outside from wet hair. However, scientific evidence tells a different story, wet hair does not cause viruses. Rather, colds are caused by viruses, and understanding why this misconception persists helps separate fact from fiction.

The primary reason this myth continues to exist is because people often confuse correlation with causation. Cold and flu season occur during the fall and winter months, when temperatures are lower and people are more likely to leave the house with damp hair after showering. If someone were to develop a cold a few days later, it is easy to assume the wet hair was responsible. In reality, the illness was most likely caused by exposure to a virus before symptoms appeared. 

Due to the events happening close together, people mistakenly believe one caused the other, resulting in illusory correlation: the tendency to perceive a relationship between two unrelated events. People naturally remember occasions that support their existing beliefs while forgetting the many times they went outside with wet air and remained perfectly healthy.  Over time, these memorable experiences reinforce the misconception, making it seem like wet hair causes illness despite no scientific evidence supporting that conclusion.

The biology of viral infections provides another explanation for why this myth has endured. Colds are caused by viruses, most commonly rhinoviruses, which spread through respiratory droplets and contaminated surfaces. To develop a cold, a person must first be exposed to one of these viruses. Simply having wet hair or feeling cold cannot create a virus or cause an infection on its own.

However, there is a small amount of scientific truth that contributes to the misunderstanding. Research suggests that colder temperatures can slightly reduce immune responses within the nasal passages, making it somewhat easier for viruses that are already present to establish an infection. Some viruses, including rhinoviruses, also survive and replicate more efficiently in the cooler temperatures found inside the nose than they do deeper in the body. These biological effects have led some people to incorrectly conclude that cold exposure itself causes illness.

It is important to recognize the distinction. Feeling cold, having damp hair, or briefly lowering your body temperature cannot make you sick unless you have already been exposed to a virus. While being chilled may have a minor influence on how your body responds to an infection, it is not the source of the illness. Without viral exposure, there is simply no cold to catch.

The timing of cold and flu season also reinforces this misconception. During colder months, people spend more time indoors where ventilation is often reduced and individuals are in closer contact with one another. These conditions allow respiratory viruses to spread much more easily than they do outdoors. As a result, people become sick more frequently during winter, even though the true cause is increased viral transmission rather than wet hair or cold weather alone.

Ultimately, the belief that wet hair causes colds is a myth rooted in coincidence, psychology, and a misunderstanding of how viral infections work. While going outside with damp hair may leave you feeling uncomfortable or chilly, it will not cause a cold unless you have already encountered the virus responsible. By understanding the difference between correlation and causation, as well as the biology behind respiratory infections, we can replace this long-standing misconception with evidence-based knowledge. The next time someone warns you to dry your hair before heading outside, you can confidently explain that viruses, not wet hair, are what actually cause colds.

Works Cited:

American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 26 Jan. 2012, www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower. Accessed 5 Aug. 2026.

National Institutes of Health. “Information about Mental Illness and the Brain.” NIH Curriculum Supplement Series [Internet]., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1970, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20369/. Accessed 5 Aug. 2026.

Rob, Ramisa. “Ramisa Rob: Mental Illness Is Not Lack of Willpower.” The Michigan Daily, 18 Feb. 2019,  www.michigandaily.com/opinion/columns/ramisa-rob-mental-illness-not-lack-willpower/. Accessed 5 Aug. 2026.

(Image: Glam)

For generations, many of us have heard the same warning before leaving the house: “dry your hair, or you'll catch a cold.” Whether it came from grandparents or parents, this advice has become one of the most common health myths. While it may seem convincing, notably if you have ever become sick after going outside from wet hair. However, scientific evidence tells a different story, wet hair does not cause viruses. Rather, colds are caused by viruses, and understanding why this misconception persists helps separate fact from fiction.

The primary reason this myth continues to exist is because people often confuse correlation with causation. Cold and flu season occur during the fall and winter months, when temperatures are lower and people are more likely to leave the house with damp hair after showering. If someone were to develop a cold a few days later, it is easy to assume the wet hair was responsible. In reality, the illness was most likely caused by exposure to a virus before symptoms appeared. 

Due to the events happening close together, people mistakenly believe one caused the other, resulting in illusory correlation: the tendency to perceive a relationship between two unrelated events. People naturally remember occasions that support their existing beliefs while forgetting the many times they went outside with wet air and remained perfectly healthy.  Over time, these memorable experiences reinforce the misconception, making it seem like wet hair causes illness despite no scientific evidence supporting that conclusion.

The biology of viral infections provides another explanation for why this myth has endured. Colds are caused by viruses, most commonly rhinoviruses, which spread through respiratory droplets and contaminated surfaces. To develop a cold, a person must first be exposed to one of these viruses. Simply having wet hair or feeling cold cannot create a virus or cause an infection on its own.

However, there is a small amount of scientific truth that contributes to the misunderstanding. Research suggests that colder temperatures can slightly reduce immune responses within the nasal passages, making it somewhat easier for viruses that are already present to establish an infection. Some viruses, including rhinoviruses, also survive and replicate more efficiently in the cooler temperatures found inside the nose than they do deeper in the body. These biological effects have led some people to incorrectly conclude that cold exposure itself causes illness.

It is important to recognize the distinction. Feeling cold, having damp hair, or briefly lowering your body temperature cannot make you sick unless you have already been exposed to a virus. While being chilled may have a minor influence on how your body responds to an infection, it is not the source of the illness. Without viral exposure, there is simply no cold to catch.

The timing of cold and flu season also reinforces this misconception. During colder months, people spend more time indoors where ventilation is often reduced and individuals are in closer contact with one another. These conditions allow respiratory viruses to spread much more easily than they do outdoors. As a result, people become sick more frequently during winter, even though the true cause is increased viral transmission rather than wet hair or cold weather alone.

Ultimately, the belief that wet hair causes colds is a myth rooted in coincidence, psychology, and a misunderstanding of how viral infections work. While going outside with damp hair may leave you feeling uncomfortable or chilly, it will not cause a cold unless you have already encountered the virus responsible. By understanding the difference between correlation and causation, as well as the biology behind respiratory infections, we can replace this long-standing misconception with evidence-based knowledge. The next time someone warns you to dry your hair before heading outside, you can confidently explain that viruses, not wet hair, are what actually cause colds.

Works Cited:

“Can Wet Hair Make You Sick?” Cleveland Clinic, 15 Sept. 2015, health.clevelandclinic.org/can-wet-hair-make-you-sick. Accessed 3 Jul. 2026.

Hammond, Claudia. “Will Wet Hair Give You a Cold?” BBC, 5 Mar. 2012, www.bbc.com/future/article/20120305-youll-catch-a-cold-with-wet-hair. Accessed 3 Jul. 2026.

Santos-Longhurst, Adriene. “Sleeping with Hair Wet: Is It Bad for Your Health?”, June 2019, www.healthline.com/health/sleeping-with-hair-wet. Accessed 3 Jul. 2026.

(Image: Central Drugs)

If you've ever been told to drink eight glasses of water a day, you're not alone. It is one of the most common health tips out there. Teachers mention it, fitness influencers repeat it, and water bottles are often marked with lines reminding people to reach a daily goal. But is drinking exactly eight glasses of water every day actually necessary?

The short answer: not for everyone.

The idea that everyone needs eight glasses of water a day has been around for decades. The problem is that there is little scientific evidence supporting this exact number. While staying hydrated is important, experts say there is no universal amount of water that works for every person.

Your body is constantly using water. It helps regulate temperature, carries nutrients throughout the body, supports digestion, cushions joints, and removes waste. Because of these important jobs, replacing the fluids you lose each day is essential. However, the amount of water you need depends on several factors, including your age, body size, activity level, diet, climate, and overall health.

For example, a student spending the day indoors in an air-conditioned classroom will likely need less water than someone playing soccer outside on a hot summer afternoon. Someone who exercises regularly, lives in a warm climate, or is recovering from an illness may need more fluids than average.

Another reason the "eight glasses" rule is misleading is that water does not only come from a glass. Many foods contain large amounts of water. Fruits and vegetables are especially helpful sources. Watermelon, strawberries, cucumbers, oranges, lettuce, and celery are all made mostly of water. Even foods like yogurt, soup, and oatmeal contribute to your daily fluid intake.

Drinks other than plain water count too. Milk, juice, tea, and even coffee contribute to hydration. While water is often the healthiest choice because it contains no added sugar or caffeine, it is not the only way your body gets fluids.

So how can you tell if you're drinking enough?

For most healthy people, thirst is a reliable guide. Your body has a built-in system that lets you know when you need more fluids. Feeling thirsty is your body's way of saying it is time to drink. Experts also recommend paying attention to signs of hydration. Pale yellow urine usually suggests that you are getting enough fluids, while dark yellow urine can be a sign that you need to drink more.

At the same time, drinking excessive amounts of water is not always better. Although uncommon, consuming too much water in a short period can dilute important minerals in the bloodstream, particularly sodium. This condition, known as hyponatremia, can become dangerous. That is why experts encourage balance rather than focusing on a specific number of glasses.

None of this means water is unimportant. In fact, hydration plays a major role in keeping your body functioning properly. Dehydration can lead to headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating. Staying hydrated can help you feel more energized and focused throughout the day.

The real misconception here is that every person needs the exact same amount of water. 

Instead of stressing about reaching eight glasses, focus on listening to your body. Drink when you're thirsty, increase your fluid intake when you're active or spending time in the heat, and include water-rich foods in your diet. For most people, those habits are far more useful than following a one-size-fits-all rule.

The next time someone tells you that eight glasses of water is the magic number, remember that hydration is not a competition. Your body's needs are unique, and the best hydration plan is the one that works for you.

Works Cited:

"Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day: Fact or Fiction?" Healthline, 18 Jan. 2023, www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-glasses-of-water-per-day. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"How Much Water Should You Drink?" Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School, 24 Aug. 2022, www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-much-water-should-you-drink. Accessed 21 June 2026.

"The 8 Glasses per Day Rule." Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School, www.health.harvard.edu/digestive-health/the-8-glasses-per-day-rule. Accessed 21 June 2026.

(Image: Health Digest)

“You’re going to ruin your eyes reading in the dark!”

Almost everyone has heard this warning at some point, whether from a parent, grandparent, or teacher. Reading under the covers with a flashlight has practically become a childhood stereotype. However,  is there actually any truth behind this claim?

The short answer is no. Reading in dim light does not permanently damage your eyes. Eye doctors and medical researchers agree that while poor lighting can make your eyes feel uncomfortable, it does not cause long term harm to your vision.

So why does reading in dim light feel so tiring? 

When lighting is low, your eyes have to work harder to focus on words and details. Your pupils widen to let in more light, and your eye muscles strain more than usual to keep things clear. This can lead to temporary symptoms like tired eyes, headaches, blurry vision, dryness, or trouble focusing after reading for a long time. Doctors call this “eye strain.” 

Eye strain can definitely feel annoying, but it is not the same thing as actual eye damage. Once you rest your eyes or move into better lighting, the discomfort usually fades away. There is no scientific evidence showing that reading in dim light permanently harms the structure or function of the eye.

In fact, humans spent centuries reading and sewing by candlelight or oil lamps before electricity even existed. If dim lighting truly destroyed eyesight, huge numbers of people throughout history would have gone blind from simply reading at night. 

Still, that does not mean good lighting is unimportant.

Brighter lighting makes reading easier and more comfortable. It reduces eye strain and helps your eyes stay relaxed, especially during long periods of reading or screen time. Experts recommend reading in spaces with enough light to clearly see the page without squinting.

Today, many teens experience eye discomfort not from books, but from screens. Phones, laptops, and tablets can contribute to digital eye strain because people tend to blink less while staring at screens for long periods of time. Symptoms can include dry eyes, headaches, blurred vision, and tiredness.

This is why eye doctors often recommend the “20-20-20 rule.” Every 20 minutes, look at something about 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds. This gives your eyes a quick break from focusing up close.

Another reason this myth may have lasted so long is because discomfort feels serious. If your eyes burn or your head hurts after reading in low light, it is easy to assume damage is happening. However, temporary strain is different from permanent injury. It is similar to how your legs may feel sore after running without being permanently harmed.

There are, however, real things that can damage your eyes. Looking directly at the sun, for example, can seriously injure the retina and lead to lasting vision loss. Eye experts strongly warn against this.

So, is reading in dim light bad for you?

Not exactly. It may make your eyes feel tired or dry for a little while, but it will not ruin your vision. The next time someone warns you about reading in the dark, you can confidently say that science disagrees.

Sometimes, the biggest myths stick around simply because they sound believable.

Works Cited:

“Eye Health: Myths and Facts.” Mayo Clinic Health System, 19 Aug. 2021, https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/eye-health-myths-and-facts? Accessed 15 May 2026.

“Eyestrain.” Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/eyestrain/symptoms-causes/syc-20372397. Accessed 15 May 2026.

“Protect Your Eyes from Harmful Light.” Mayo Clinic Health System, 14 Sept. 2020, https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/protect-your-eyes-from-harmful-light. Accessed 15 May 2026.

“QuickCheck: Does Reading in Dim Light Actually Damage Your Eyesight?” The Star, 16 Apr. 2026, https://www.thestar.com.my/news/true-or-not/2026/04/16/quickcheck-does-reading-in-dim-light-actually-damage-your-eyesight. Accessed 15 May 2026.

“Reading in Dim Light.” WebMD, https://www.webmd.com/eye-health/features/reading-in-dim-light. Accessed 15 May 2026.

(Image: The Hospital of Central Connecticut)

The idea that “natural” automatically means “safe” is everywhere. Herbal teas, vitamin gummies, plant-based capsules, and powders are often marketed as gentle alternatives to prescription medications. The appeal is understandable. Natural products feel closer to food, less clinical, and more in tune with the body. However, safety is not defined by whether something comes from a plant or a pharmacy.

Natural supplements can affect the body in powerful ways. Many contain active compounds that change how organs function, alter brain chemistry, or influence hormone levels. In fact, some prescription drugs are originally derived from plants. The difference is that prescription medications go through strict testing for safety, dosage, and effectiveness, while most supplements do not face the same level of regulation.

In the United States, supplements are regulated as food products, not as drugs. This means companies do not have to prove that their products work before selling them. Labels may list ingredients, but the actual amounts or purity can vary. Some supplements have been found to contain contaminants, undisclosed ingredients, or doses much higher than listed. This creates uncertainty, especially when the body responds differently depending on dosage.

Another common misconception is that supplements have fewer side effects. In reality, natural does not guarantee mild. For example, certain herbal supplements used for mood or sleep can cause drowsiness, dizziness, or changes in heart rate. Others may irritate the stomach or interfere with liver function. Even vitamins, when taken in high amounts, can become harmful. Vitamin A toxicity, for instance, can lead to serious health problems despite being a nutrient the body needs.

Interactions are another concern. Supplements can react with prescription medications in ways that reduce effectiveness or increase risk. A well-known example involves supplements like St. John’s Wort, which can interfere with medications used for depression, birth control, and even some heart conditions. These interactions are not always obvious, and without proper guidance, combining products can become risky.

Prescription drugs, while sometimes associated with side effects, are carefully studied before approval. Clinical trials test how the drug works, what dose is appropriate, and what risks may appear. Doctors also consider a person’s medical history before prescribing medication, adjusting treatment as needed. This process creates a level of predictability that supplements often lack.

That said, supplements are not inherently bad. Many play a helpful role when used correctly. Iron supplements can treat anemia, vitamin D can support bone health, and certain probiotics may help with digestion. The key difference lies in informed use. When taken under medical guidance, supplements can complement health care rather than replace it.

The “natural equals safe” belief often comes from a desire for control and simplicity. Health decisions feel easier when framed in clear categories like natural versus chemical. In reality, the human body does not recognize this divide. It responds to chemical compounds, whether they come from a plant, a lab, or a mix of both.

Understanding this distinction helps shift the focus from where a product comes from to how it works. Safety depends on factors like dosage, quality, interactions, and individual health conditions. A prescription drug can be safe when used as directed, just as a natural supplement can be harmful if misused.

The takeaway is not to avoid supplements or medications, but to approach both with the same level of awareness. Labels, research, and professional guidance matter more than marketing language. In health, “natural” is not a guarantee. It is simply a description, not a safety label.

Works Cited:

“Dietary Supplements.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/food/dietary-supplements. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Herbal Supplements.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/herb_All.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Micronutrients.” NHS, National Health Service, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Herbal Supplements: What You Need to Know.” Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/herbal-supplements/art-20046488. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“Using Dietary Supplements Wisely.” National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/using-dietary-supplements-wisely. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“What Nutritional Supplements Do You Need to Know?” Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

(Image: Mayo Clinic Health System)

Pregnancy tends to collect myths the same way a rumor spreads through a hallway. Some of these ideas sound convincing because they have been repeated for years, but many do not hold up when examined closely. Clearing up these misconceptions helps separate cultural beliefs from actual medical understanding.

One common myth is that pregnancy always comes with obvious symptoms right away. In reality, symptoms can be subtle or delayed. Some individuals experience fatigue, mild nausea, or no noticeable changes at all in the early stages. Pregnancy does not follow a single pattern, which makes early detection less predictable than it is often portrayed.

Another widespread belief is that the shape or position of the abdomen can reveal the baby’s sex. This idea has no scientific basis. The way a body carries a pregnancy depends on muscle tone, body structure, and the baby’s position, not on whether the fetus is male or female. Despite how often this claim circulates, it remains a myth with no reliable evidence behind it.

There is also a misconception that pregnancy prevents all forms of physical activity. In truth, moderate exercise is often recommended in many pregnancies, as long as there are no medical complications. Activities such as walking or gentle stretching can support circulation and overall well-being. The idea that pregnancy requires complete rest is outdated and not supported by current medical guidance.

A fourth myth suggests that cravings indicate nutritional deficiencies. While cravings are common, they do not necessarily reflect what the body is lacking. Hormonal changes influence taste and appetite, which explains why certain foods suddenly become more appealing. Cravings are more closely tied to shifting hormones than to any specific nutrient shortage.

Another belief is that pregnant individuals should “eat for two.” This phrase is misleading. Nutritional needs do increase, but not to the extent of doubling food intake. Overeating can lead to unnecessary weight gain, while balanced meals support both the pregnant individual and the developing fetus. The focus is on quality of nutrition rather than quantity.

A sixth myth claims that morning sickness only happens in the morning. In reality, nausea can occur at any time of day. For some, it lasts for a few weeks, while others experience it for a longer period. The term “morning sickness” simplifies a much more complex and varied experience.

There is also a belief that stress during pregnancy always harms the baby. While extreme or prolonged stress can have effects, everyday stress does not automatically lead to harm. The body has mechanisms that help buffer short-term stress. The relationship between stress and pregnancy outcomes is more nuanced than this myth suggests.

Another misconception is that certain physical activities, such as lifting arms overhead or reaching, can harm the fetus. The fetus is well protected within the uterus, surrounded by amniotic fluid and the uterine wall. Normal movements and daily activities do not pose the risks that this myth implies.

A ninth myth claims that spicy food can trigger labor. Spicy meals may cause discomfort or indigestion, but they do not initiate labor. Labor begins through complex hormonal and physical signals, not through specific foods. This belief persists largely due to coincidence rather than cause and effect.

Finally, there is the idea that pregnancy always lasts exactly nine months. In practice, a full-term pregnancy is closer to 40 weeks, and delivery can occur slightly before or after that point. The timeline is not rigid, and variation is completely normal.

These myths continue to circulate because they are simple and easy to remember. Real pregnancy, however, is far less predictable and far more individual. Understanding what is fact and what is fiction helps create a clearer and more accurate picture of the experience, especially in discussions where misinformation can easily take root.

Works Cited:

“10 Common Pregnancy Myths.” University Hospitals, https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2022/10/10-common-pregnancy-myths. Accessed 29 Mar. 2026.

“9 Common Pregnancy Myths Debunked.” Scripps Health, https://www.scripps.org/news_items/3039-9-common-pregnancy-myths-debunked. Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

“Which Pregnancy Myths Are Actually True?” University of Utah Health, https://healthcare.utah.edu/the-scope/health-library/all/2024/05/which-pregnancy-myths-are-actually-true. Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

“Pregnancy Myths Busted: A Guide for Moms to Be.” Memorial Healthcare System, https://www.mhs.net/blog/2025/03/pregnancy-myths-busted-a-guide-for-moms-to-be. Accessed 28 Mar. 2026.

(Image: Live Science)

You have probably heard the claim before: humans only use 10 percent of their brains. The idea shows up everywhere, from motivational Tiktok pages to science-fiction movies. It sounds exciting. If we could somehow unlock the other 90 percent, maybe we could suddenly become geniuses, master new skills instantly, or develop extraordinary mental abilities.

The reality is much less dramatic, but also much more interesting. According to neuroscientists, the “10 percent of the brain” claim is simply a myth. There is no scientific evidence supporting it, and modern brain research shows that humans use essentially all parts of the brain, just not all at the exact same moment.

The origin of the myth is somewhat unclear, but historians of science think it developed from misunderstandings about early psychology. In the late nineteenth century, the psychologist William James wrote that humans tend to use only a small portion of their mental potential. He was not talking about brain tissue itself, but about the limits people place on their abilities. Over time, that vague statement was misinterpreted and eventually turned into the specific claim that only ten percent of the brain is used.

Popular culture helped spread the idea further. In the early twentieth century, self-help books and motivational speakers repeated the claim as if it were scientific fact. Because it sounded hopeful and inspiring, it caught on quickly. Even today, the myth continues to appear in movies and television shows. Films like Lucy and Limitless imagine characters gaining incredible intelligence by accessing the “unused” portion of their brains. While entertaining, those stories have no basis in real neuroscience.

Modern technology gives scientists a much clearer understanding of how the brain actually works. Tools such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and PET scans allow researchers to watch brain activity in real time. These scans consistently show that different areas of the brain activate depending on what a person is doing. Reading, speaking, solving problems, remembering information, or even recognizing a friend’s face all involve different networks of brain regions working together.

Even when you are resting or sleeping, the brain is still active. It continues to control breathing, regulate body temperature, process memories, and maintain countless automatic functions that keep the body alive. There is no large section of the brain sitting idle waiting to be turned on.

Energy use also makes the myth unrealistic. The brain represents only about two percent of the body’s weight, yet it consumes roughly twenty percent of the body’s energy supply. From an evolutionary perspective, this would make little sense if ninety percent of the organ were unused. The brain requires a large amount of fuel because its billions of neurons are constantly sending electrical signals and maintaining connections with each other.

Sometimes the myth survives because people misunderstand how brain activity appears on scans. During certain tasks, only specific regions show intense activity, while other areas appear quieter. That does not mean those areas are useless. It simply means they are not the main regions needed for that particular activity. The brain works through specialized systems, with different areas responsible for movement, language, memory, emotion, vision, and many other functions.

Learning and improvement can also create confusion. When someone becomes better at a skill such as playing an instrument or solving math problems, it may feel like they are “unlocking” new parts of their brain. What is actually happening is that the brain strengthens existing connections between neurons. Practice builds more efficient pathways, allowing the brain to process information faster and more accurately.

The real lesson from neuroscience is not that humans are wasting most of their brains. Instead, it is that the brain is an incredibly active and complex system already working at full capacity. Every thought, memory, emotion, and movement depends on networks of neurons communicating across different regions.

So the next time someone claims we only use ten percent of our brains, remember that the science says otherwise. The human brain is already operating as a highly coordinated system, and it is far more impressive than the myth suggests.

Works Cited: 

“Bisphenol A (BPA) and Endocrine Disruption.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Endocrine Disruptors.” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/endocrine-disruptors. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Microplastics in the Environment.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Phthalates.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Phthalates_FactSheet.html. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

“Microplastics and Human Health.” United Nations Environment Programme, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/microplastics-and-human-health. Accessed 7 Mar. 2026.

(Image: Food to Live)

If you have ever broken out after a slice of pizza or a late night run for fries, someone has probably said, “That’s what you get for eating junk.” The idea that greasy food causes acne is one of the most common skin myths. It is repeated by relatives, friends, and even social media influencers who swear that cutting out one specific snack cleared their skin overnight. However, the truth is more complicated.

Acne is not simply the result of eating oily foods. It is a medical condition that develops inside the skin, not on top of it. To understand why diet is only part of the picture, it helps to know what acne actually is.

Your skin contains tiny openings called pores. Each pore connects to a hair follicle and an oil gland. These glands produce sebum, an oily substance that keeps your skin from drying out. During puberty, hormone levels increase, especially androgens. These hormones signal oil glands to produce more sebum. At the same time, dead skin cells can build up and clog pores. When oil and dead skin get trapped, bacteria multiply, and inflammation follows. That is how pimples form. Notice what is missing from that process though. Junk foods.

Eating greasy food does not directly send oil to your pores. The oil from food does not travel to your face and block your skin, because that’s not how digestion works. Your body breaks food down into nutrients. Those nutrients are absorbed into your bloodstream and used in different ways. Ultimately, they do not turn into facial oil.

So where did the myth come from? Part of it likely started with coincidence. Acne tends to flare up during adolescence, which also happens to be when many teens eat more fast food and processed snacks. It is easy to connect two things that happen at the same time, even if one does not cause the other.

That said, one’s diet is not completely irrelevant. Research suggests that certain foods may influence acne for some people. High glycemic foods, which are foods that quickly raise blood sugar levels, appear to be linked to increased breakouts in some studies. For example, it’s foods like white bread, sugary cereals, soda, candy, etc. When blood sugar spikes, insulin levels rise. Higher insulin can increase the production of hormones that stimulate oil glands, potentially worsening acne.

Dairy is another area researchers have examined. Some studies show a possible association between milk consumption and acne severity, particularly skim milk. The theory is that hormones present in milk may affect the body’s own hormone levels. However, the evidence is not strong enough to say that dairy causes acne for everyone. Many people consume dairy without any change in their skin.

The key word in all of these studies is “may.” Acne is influenced by a variety of factors, including genetics, hormones, stress, skincare habits, and overall health. For many teens, hormones are the biggest driver. You can eat perfectly balanced meals and still experience breakouts. However, that does not mean you are doing something wrong.

Stress also plays a significant role. During exams or major life changes, cortisol levels increase. This can trigger more oil production and inflammation. Sleep deprivation can make it worse. If you notice your skin flaring during finals week, your study schedule can also be looked into as being responsible compared to your everyday snack choices.

There is also a difference between eating oily food and getting oil on your skin. If you work in a fast food kitchen or regularly touch your face with greasy hands, that external oil can contribute to clogged pores. In these particular situations, it becomes a matter of skin hygiene, and not digestion.

Some final takeaways: First, avoid extreme thinking. Cutting out every “junk” food in hopes of perfect skin is unlikely to solve the problem and may create an unhealthy relationship with food. Second, pay attention to your own patterns. If you notice that large amounts of sugary drinks seem to worsen your acne, reducing them might help. That is different from assuming that one burger caused a breakout. Finally, treat acne like the medical condition it is. Over the counter products with ingredients such as benzoyl peroxide or salicylic acid can help. If acne is persistent, painful, or affecting your confidence, a dermatologist can offer prescription treatments. It is important to note that there is no shame in seeking medical advice for your skin.

The next time someone tells you that those fries you ate at 3 AM caused your breakout, you will know that the story runs deeper than mere grease. Hopefully, you can educate them of the bigger picture at hand. 

Works Cited: 

“Acne.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://medlineplus.gov/acne.html. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.

“Acne: Causes.” American Academy of Dermatology Association, https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/acne/causes. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.

“Acne: Symptoms and Causes.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/acne/symptoms-causes/syc-20368047. Accessed 18 Feb. 2026.

(Image: Indiana Sugars)

Walk into any school cafeteria after lunch or a birthday party stacked with cupcakes and you will hear it. Someone always says sugar is about to send everyone into a frenzy. The idea that sugar makes teens and kids instantly hyperactive is everywhere, from parents’ warnings to jokes in movies. But when you look at what science actually says, the story gets more interesting.

Let’s start with what researchers have tested. For decades, scientists have run studies where kids are given sugary foods or drinks and then observed for changes in behavior, focus, and activity levels. In many of these experiments, neither the kids nor the adults watching them know who got sugar and who did not. This is important because expectations can shape what people think they see. The surprising result is that most well controlled studies find no significant difference in hyperactivity between the sugar group and the no sugar group.

So if sugar does not directly cause hyper behavior, why does it feel so real? Part of the answer is context. Think about when sugar usually shows up. It is at parties, holidays, sports games, and special events. These are already exciting environments. There is music, friends, movement, and a lot of energy in the room. When teens or kids act more energetic in these moments, it is easy to blame the candy or soda, even if the excitement was already there.

Another piece is how our brains react to expectations. Some studies have shown that when adults believe a child has consumed sugar, they are more likely to rate that child as hyperactive, even if the child actually had a sugar free drink. This does not mean people are lying. It just shows how powerful our assumptions can be in shaping what we notice.

That said, sugar is not completely off the hook. While it may not directly cause hyperactivity, it can still affect how you feel. Simple sugars are digested quickly, which can lead to a fast rise in blood sugar followed by a drop. For some people, that crash can bring feelings of tiredness, irritability, or trouble concentrating. This can look like restlessness or mood changes, especially in a classroom setting where sitting still and focusing is expected.

What about energy drinks and soda? These often get lumped in with sugar, but caffeine is a different story. Caffeine is a stimulant that can increase alertness, heart rate, and feelings of jitteriness. When teens feel wired after a large soda or energy drink, caffeine is often doing more of the work than the sugar itself.

So where does this leave the sugar and hyperactivity myth? The short answer is that sugar alone does not seem to cause hyper behavior in most people. The setting, expectations, and other ingredients like caffeine play a much bigger role in how energetic someone appears.

Paying attention to how your body feels after certain foods can still be useful. Some teens notice they feel more focused when they eat balanced snacks instead of something that is purely sweet. Pairing something sugary with protein or fiber, like fruit with yogurt or peanut butter, can help slow down how fast sugar enters your bloodstream and keep your energy more steady during long school days or study sessions.

In the end, the idea of a sugar fueled frenzy makes for a catchy story, but science tells a calmer one. Your energy is shaped by sleep, stress, surroundings, and your overall routine, not just that one cookie after lunch. Understanding that gives you more control than blaming the sugar ever could.

Works Cited: 

“Allergies and Hyperactivity.” HealthyChildren.org, American Academy of Pediatrics, https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/adhd/Pages/Allergies-and-Hyperactivity.aspx. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“Does Sugar Make Kids Hyperactive? Myth or Fact.” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/04/21/sugar-kids-hyperactivity-adhd/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“Hyperactivity and Sugar.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002426.htm. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“Hyperactivity: Is Candy Causal?” PubMed, National Center for Biotechnology Information,https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8747098/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“No, Sugar Won’t Make Your Kid Hyperactive, Even If They Have ADHD.” ScienceAlert,https://www.sciencealert.com/no-all-that-sugar-wont-make-your-kid-hyperactive-even-if-they-have-adhd. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“Sugar Causes Hyperactivity in Children?” Snopes, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sugar-hyperactivity-children/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

“The Truth About Sugar and Hyperactivity in Children.” Central Science, https://centralscience.org/the-truth-about-sugar-and-hyperactivity-in-children/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2026.

(Image: The Healthy @Reader's Digest)

The idea that shaving makes hair grow back thicker is one of the most common beauty and health myths, passed down through families and reinforced by personal experience. Many people swear that after shaving their legs, face, or arms, the hair feels darker, coarser, or more noticeable. While this belief feels convincing, medical science has shown that shaving does not change how thick, dark, or fast hair grows. The misconception comes from how hair behaves after being cut, not from any real biological change.

Hair growth begins in the hair follicle, which sits beneath the skin. The thickness, color, and growth rate of hair are determined by genetics, hormones, and age. Shaving only affects the part of the hair that has already grown out of the skin. It does not reach the follicle, and it does not alter how the follicle functions. Since the follicle remains unchanged, the hair that grows back is the same hair it would have produced anyway.

So why does shaved hair often feel thicker? The answer lies in the shape of the hair after shaving. Naturally grown hair tapers at the end, meaning the tip is thinner and softer. When hair is shaved, it is cut straight across, leaving a blunt edge. As the hair grows back, that blunt tip can feel stiffer and look darker, especially when it first emerges. This creates the illusion of thicker hair, even though the strand itself has not changed in width or structure.

Another factor is contrast. Freshly shaved skin is smooth, so new hair growth stands out more than hair that has grown gradually over time. This makes regrowth more noticeable and can lead people to believe the hair has changed. On areas like the face or legs, this effect is especially strong, which is why the myth persists.

Scientific studies have repeatedly disproved the idea that shaving affects hair thickness or growth rate. Dermatologists agree that shaving does not stimulate follicles, increase hair density, or cause hormonal changes. If shaving truly made hair grow back thicker, people experiencing hair loss would rely on it as a treatment, which clearly is not the case.

Hormones, however, do play a major role in changes to hair growth. During puberty, pregnancy, or conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome, hair may become thicker or darker due to hormonal shifts. These changes often happen around the same time people begin shaving, which can falsely link shaving to the change in hair texture.

Understanding this myth matters because it influences personal grooming choices and body image, especially among teens. Some avoid shaving out of fear of permanent changes, while others feel frustrated by normal regrowth they assume they caused. Knowing the science helps remove unnecessary anxiety and replaces it with informed decision-making.

In reality, shaving is simply a cosmetic choice. It does not alter your hair at the root, and it does not cause long-term changes in hair growth. The belief that shaving makes hair grow back thicker is a misconception rooted in appearance and texture, not biology. When it comes to hair growth, what happens beneath the skin matters far more than what happens at the surface.

Works Cited: 

AXA Health. “Will Hair Removal Make My Hair Grow Back Thicker?” AXA Health, www.axahealth.co.uk/health-insurance/content/health-mythbusters/will-hair-removal-make-my-hair-grow-back-thicker. Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Cleveland Clinic. “Does Shaving Make Hair Thicker?” Cleveland Clinic Health Essentials, health.clevelandclinic.org/does-shaving-make-hair-thicker.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Mayo Clinic Staff. “Hair Removal: Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Back Thicker?” Mayo Clinic, www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/hair-removal/faq-20058427.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Scientific American. “Fact or Fiction: If You Shave or Wax Your Hair, Will It Come Back Thicker?” Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-if-you-shave-or-wax-your-hair-will-come-back-thicker/.  Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Science Times. “Debunking the Myth: Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Thicker or Faster?” Science Times, www.sciencetimes.com/articles/28547/20201208/debunking-myth-shaving-make-hair-grow-thicker-faster.htm. Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

Snopes. “Does Shaving Make Hair Grow Back Thicker?” Snopes, www.snopes.com/fact-check/thick-talk/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2025.

(Image: Spine & Pain Clinics of North America)

If you’ve ever cracked your knuckles, chances are someone has warned you that you’re going to get arthritis. It’s one of those warnings that seems to follow you from middle school all the way to adulthood. But is there any truth to it?

The short answer is no. Studies haven’t found a link between knuckle cracking and arthritis. The sound you hear when you crack your knuckles comes from gas bubbles in the synovial fluid, which lubricates your joints, popping. It might be annoying to others in the room, but it isn’t damaging your joints in the long term.

One of the most famous investigations into this idea was done by Dr. Donald L. Unger, a physician from California. Dr. Unger decided to test the myth on himself. Starting as a young man, he made a habit of cracking the knuckles on his left hand at least twice a day while never cracking the knuckles on his right hand. He did this for more than 50 years, logging tens of thousands of cracks in his left hand and none in his right. After all that time, X‑rays showed no signs of arthritis in either hand, and there was no meaningful difference between them. Dr. Unger published his findings in the medical journal Arthritis and Rheumatism in 1998 and later received an Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine, which recognizes research that makes people laugh and then think.

Beyond Dr. Unger’s experiment, larger studies support the same conclusion. For example, a study in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine looked at over 200 adults aged 50 to 89. The researchers compared people who regularly cracked their knuckles to those who did not. They found that arthritis was just as common in non-crackers as in crackers. This shows that the act of cracking your fingers does not appear to increase the risk of osteoarthritis. Arthritis is mostly influenced by age, genetics, injuries, and repetitive stress on the joints, not by the harmless habit of popping your fingers.

So why does the myth persist? Part of it is social. The cracking sound is loud and unusual, and it annoys people, which makes them more likely to warn you against it. Another reason is a misunderstanding of arthritis. Many people think any odd joint noise must be harmful, when in reality arthritis is caused by cartilage breakdown, not gas bubbles bursting in joint fluid.

That said, habitual knuckle cracking isn’t entirely risk-free. Some people may experience mild swelling, discomfort, or temporarily reduced grip strength if they crack excessively. Aggressive or forceful cracking could irritate ligaments or soft tissue, but these effects are uncommon and not the same as developing arthritis.

For teens, the takeaway is clear: cracking your knuckles is mostly harmless and will not give you arthritis. If it annoys friends or family, consider doing it less often in shared spaces. If you notice pain or swelling, it’s worth talking to a doctor, but otherwise you can relax.

In the end, the myth that knuckle cracking causes arthritis is just that, a myth. Science, including decades-long experiments and larger studies, shows that your joints are fine even if you crack them daily. Next time someone warns you, you can share the facts and save yourself from unnecessary worry.

Works Cited

“Does Knuckle Cracking and Arthritis: Myth vs. Reality.” Apollo247, www.apollo247.com/health-topics/arthritis/knuckle-cracking-and-arthritis-myth-vs-reality 

“Debunking Arthritis Myths.” Arthritis.org, https://www.arthritis.org/health-wellness/about-arthritis/understanding-arthritis/debunking-arthritis-myths 

“Does Cracking Knuckles Cause Arthritis?” Harvard Health, 6 July 2020, https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/does-cracking-knuckles-cause-arthritis 

deWeber, Kevin, Mariusz Olszewski, and Rebecca Ortolano. Knuckle Cracking and Hand Osteoarthritis. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, vol. 24, no. 2, 2011, pp. 169–174, https://www.jabfm.org/content/24/2/169/tab-article-info 

“Cracking Your Knuckles: Does It Cause Arthritis?” Medical News Today, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259603.php 

Unger, Donald L. “Does Knuckle Cracking Lead to Arthritis of the Fingers?” PubMed, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588755/ 

“Is Knuckle Cracking Bad? Can It Lead to Arthritis?” Rheumatology Advisor, https://www.rheumatologyadvisor.com/news/is-knuckle-cracking-bad-can-it-lead-to-arthritis/ 

Mirsky, Steve. “Crack Research: Good News About Knuckle Cracking.” Scientific American, 1 Dec. 2009, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crack-research/ 

“Does Cracking Your Knuckles Cause Arthritis?” Snopes, 29 Jan. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cracking-knuckles-arthritis/