Andrew Huberman· PhD
1)Mechanical perturbation of the stem cell niche (e.g., micro-needling etc.)
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.
1)Mechanical perturbation of the stem cell niche (e.g., micro-needling etc.)
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.
We're talking about causing microdamage and micro levels of inflammation to stimulate growth.
Micro-needling has been shown to do two things. It has been shown to reactivate semi- quiescent populations of stem cells that are in that telogen phase, putting them back in antigen phase and thereby stimulate more hair growth.