The 4 hair-loss interventions in the evidence database
where the published trial data is actively against the marketing
claim. These have either Cochrane-level systematic reviews showing
no effect, multiple meta-analyses with consistent null findings, or
a documented cross-source disagreement where the conservative reading
is "do not use."
Marketing for these products is often confident; the trial data is
not. The list below is a useful sanity check before paying for any
hair-loss supplement.
Status guide: "Counter-Evidence" means mainstream
medicine is actively against the claim. "Disputed" means major sources
disagree by ≥2 tiers — the opposing view must be shown alongside any
recommendation. Cards below show the engine's verdict and link to the
full editorial article where one exists.
Onion Juice (Allium cepa)
for Alopecia Areata
🟠 C — Weak Evidence · Disputed
Cross-source disagreement ≥2 tiers; opposing view must be shown.
No dedicated article yet — verdict above is the editorial summary.
Procyanidin B-2 (Apple Polyphenol)
for Androgenetic Alopecia
🟠 C — Weak Evidence · Disputed
Cross-source disagreement ≥2 tiers; opposing view must be shown.
No dedicated article yet — verdict above is the editorial summary.
Biotin (Vitamin B7)
for Hair Loss
🔴 D — Counter-Evidence · Counter-Evidence
Mainstream medicine is against — UI must show "NOT recommended."
The evidence-based shortlist for hair loss is shorter than the
marketing aisle suggests. See
Proven Hair-Loss Treatments
for the S–B tier interventions, or the
best treatments overview
for the decision-first article version.
Engine snapshot: 2026-06-01 · 699 total
claims in the database.