# Proof: Hair and fingernails continue to grow for days after a person dies.

- **Generated**: 2026-03-28
- **Verdict**: DISPROVED (with unverified citations)
- **Audit trail**: [proof_audit.md](proof_audit.md) | [proof.py](proof.py)

## Key Findings

- Three independent authoritative sources (BMJ peer-reviewed article, UAMS university medical center, FactMyth science reference) all explicitly state that hair and nails do **not** grow after death.
- The apparent "growth" is an optical illusion caused by post-mortem skin dehydration and retraction, which exposes more of the hair shaft and nail bed.
- Hair and nail growth requires complex hormonal regulation, sustained glucose supply, and blood circulation — none of which persist after death.
- No credible scientific source supports the claim; adversarial searches found zero evidence of measurable post-mortem hair or nail growth.

## Claim Interpretation

**Natural language**: "Hair and fingernails continue to grow for days after a person dies."

**Formal interpretation**: The claim asserts that active biological growth of hair and fingernails continues for days following death. This was interpreted as a disproof: we sought 3 or more independent authoritative sources that explicitly reject this claim. Sources must confirm that (a) growth requires living cellular processes (glucose, oxygen, hormonal regulation) that cease at death, and (b) the appearance of growth is an optical illusion caused by skin dehydration and retraction.

*Source: proof.py JSON summary*

## Evidence Summary

| ID | Fact | Verified |
|----|------|----------|
| B1 | BMJ 'Medical Myths' peer-reviewed article (PMC/NCBI) | Partial (fragment match, 48.7% coverage) |
| B2 | UAMS Health (University of Arkansas Medical Sciences) | Partial (aggressive normalization) |
| B3 | FactMyth.com science reference | Partial (aggressive normalization) |
| A1 | Verified source count meeting disproof threshold | Computed: 3 independently verified sources confirmed the claim is false |

*Source: proof.py JSON summary*

## Proof Logic

This proof uses a qualitative consensus disproof approach. Three independent sources were consulted, each from a different institution:

1. **BMJ Medical Myths** (B1): A peer-reviewed article published in the British Medical Journal by Vreeman & Carroll (2007), hosted on PMC/NCBI, explicitly debunks the myth. It states that "the actual growth of hair and nails, however, requires a complex hormonal regulation not sustained after death" and attributes the appearance of growth to "dehydration of the body after death and drying or desiccation" leading to "retraction of the skin around the hair or nails."

2. **UAMS Health** (B2): The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences states that "hair and fingernails may appear longer after death, but not because they are still growing." The explanation is that "dehydration causes the skin and other soft tissues to shrink" while "hair and nails remain the same length," creating an "optical illusion of growth."

3. **FactMyth.com** (B3): Confirms that "hair and nail growth requires active, living cells" and that "when a person dies, their heart stops pumping blood, meaning the hair follicles no longer receive the necessary nutrients and oxygen for cell division."

All three sources independently converge on the same biological explanation: hair and nail growth requires active cellular processes that cease at death; the illusion of growth is caused by post-mortem skin dehydration and retraction.

The verified source count (3) meets the disproof threshold (>= 3), and the `proof_direction` is set to "disprove," yielding a DISPROVED verdict.

*Source: author analysis*

## Counter-Evidence Search

1. **Is there any credible scientific evidence that hair or nails actually grow after death?** Searched across PMC, Live Science, Washington Post, BBC Science Focus, and multiple science sites. No credible scientific source supports the claim. Every authoritative source confirms it is a myth.

2. **Could brief post-mortem cellular activity produce any measurable hair or nail growth?** While some cells survive briefly after cardiac arrest due to residual oxygen, hair and nail growth specifically requires sustained glucose supply, hormonal regulation, and blood circulation. No forensic or medical source documents any measurable post-mortem growth.

3. **Is the 'skin retraction' explanation itself contested in forensic literature?** The dehydration/skin retraction mechanism is universally accepted in forensic pathology and described consistently across medical, academic, and forensic sources. No credible source contests this mechanism.

*Source: proof.py JSON summary*

## Conclusion

**DISPROVED (with unverified citations)**: The claim that hair and fingernails continue to grow for days after death is false. Three independent sources — a peer-reviewed BMJ article (B1), a university medical center (B2), and a science reference site (B3) — all explicitly reject the claim and converge on the same scientific explanation: post-mortem dehydration causes skin retraction, creating an optical illusion of growth, while actual growth requires hormonal regulation and cellular processes that cease at death.

All three citations were verified as partial matches on their respective live pages. The partial verification status reflects limitations in quote matching (academic HTML noise for the PMC source, and aggressive normalization needed for the other two), not doubt about the sources' content. The core claim rejection is independently confirmed by all three sources.

Note: 2 citation(s) come from unclassified or low-credibility tier sources (UAMS Health, FactMyth). However, UAMS is a university medical center (authoritative), and the BMJ/PMC source (tier 5) independently confirms the same conclusion. See Source Credibility Assessment in the audit trail.

---

Generated by [proof-engine](https://github.com/yaniv-golan/proof-engine) v0.10.0 on 2026-03-28.
