If you type ‘does silicone cause acne’ into a search bar, you’ll likely get two very different answers: one insisting silicone clog pores and should be avoided entirely, and another asserting most skin-safe silicones are far too big to penetrate your pores at all. Both answers will be from a website that sounds reliable and knowledgeable, but they can’t both be right.
This is just one small example, but it reflects the general status of skincare misinformation. The advice on virtually any ingredient, device, or service is often divided and causes more confusion. The confident announcement of pro-skincare groups will face off against the similarly authoritative statements of anti-skincare groups, and the material on the page will provide almost no guidance as to which side actually knows the truth.
The Issue Is Not a Lack of Information
If you look up under-eye filler, you’ll encounter thousands of search results, including:
- Blogs from clinics
- Videos from influencers
- Brochures from manufacturers
- Advertisements
A number of these pieces are written by board-certified dermatologists, others are written by marketing departments that understand the value of words like ‘clinically proven’ when it comes to drumming up business.
Most people don’t have a quick method of distinguishing information from a professional and a marketer. An assured tone of voice and slick web page certainly doesn’t mean the promise about collagen creation, downtime, or the security of a certain product is credible and reliable.
Where the Information Gaps Appear?
Ingredient Claims
Different hyaluronic acid fillers are made through varying methods, and have very different molecular weights. However, they are often referred to by marketing copy as if they are a single interchangeable ingredient with the exact same risk/benefit profile.
Before and After Photos
Light, perspective, or filters can have a far bigger effect on how a face looks than almost any procedure. A photo under very harsh, direct overhead light paired with another in diffused, natural light can make something average appear to be very dramatic. The reverse is also possible; there disparities aren’t always intentional, but the discrepancy isn’t usually called out.
Practitioner Credentials
Not everyone offering injectables has the required qualifications that their website might imply. Titles such as ‘aesthetic specialist’ or ‘cosmetic consultant’ are perfectly valid job descriptions in their own right, but these are not regulated to the same degree as the titles of ‘dermatologist’ or ‘plastic surgeon’.
Regulatory Status
A product might be approved for a specific use in one region but may be used in an off-label fashion elsewhere, with little transparency offered to clients. A client who might conduct a bit of research could easily assume approval implies an equal standard worldwide, this is however not the case.
What Verification Looks Like?
Verifying claims is not the same as becoming a board-certified dermatologist. It is about asking who put out this information and how the answer to the question it poses is beneficial to their bottom line. A blog post by a filler brand telling you that their product lasts longer than the competition’s does not count as impractical if every single word in the sentence is literally correct.
- Is there any evidence to support the claim and does the evidence support the claim? Much of what is purported as skincare science can be traced to one, small trial, funded by the brand that wants to sell the product. This then gets quoted by the media until it sounds authoritative and like consensus, but a study of 20 people is not consensus.
- Does the source describe mechanisms of action or does it only use confident adjectives? ‘This reduces fine lines’ doesn’t mean anything on its own. ‘This inhibits the production of collagen by 20%’ does mean something, as it is a claim you are able to verify.
- Are you able to independently verify the practitioners? Medical and professional licensing boards, medical association affiliations and hospital affiliations exist so that patients do not have to only rely on online information at face value.
Where Credible Sources Come In?
This is where independent educational websites are useful, since they have no product they can sell. It’s also why it’s worth incorporating local clinical resources as part of your research, in addition to the international ones.
For example, when somebody is investigating treatments in Southeast Asia, you can combine your research with websites like Dermabkk (a site that specializes in dermatology-related and aesthetic content geared toward that market), with articles in a global dermatology journal, plus information from your own country’s regulatory authority.
The process of comparing local and international sources and perspectives can reveal something the one source might have overlooked – a local regulation, practice, or claim that doesn’t withstand closer inspection.
The Risk of Not Following Credible Sources
Unreliable information in skincare doesn’t usually cause immediate and irreparable harm. Instead, it subtly drains bank accounts on products that don’t do what’s claimed, instills panic, and encourages someone to go under the knife without realizing what’s happening.
