Andrew Huberman· PhD
obviously ablative ones are much more aggressive much more effective a lot more downtime and a lot more riskier because you're literally peeling the face off or any part of the body
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
obviously ablative ones are much more aggressive much more effective a lot more downtime and a lot more riskier because you're literally peeling the face off or any part of the body
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.
Yes. And that's exactly it. What you said is key. I think the big mistake is to come in and say, "Oh, all my friends are having Moxy. I want Moxy."
And then if we go to ablative we've got deeper chemical peels. We've got the modified TCA peels. We've got modified phenol peels. And then we have our ablative and so we don't need to worry about brand names at this point. We're really talking to the practitioner and saying, "Do we want to move into an ablative peel? I'm going to get a better result, but I'm going to have a greater downtime and presumably I need to do it less frequently."