That is fascinating! Very tempting, as you say, to buy and try. My skin is great at the moment but at 61 I wonder if it could be better (firmer, definitely). Thank you as always for the science. X
The science-washing section is the thing this industry most needs more people willing to say plainly.
The cell-to-surface framework is refreshing because it refuses to let one level of evidence stand in for another. The point about 90% of petri-dish results failing in humans is worth underlining for anyone who reflexively trusts "clinically tested" on a label.
One extension: the same problem shows up on the safety side of the label, not just the efficacy side. "Free from X" and "clean beauty" claims carry identical credentialling issues. Removing one compound while keeping "fragrance" (which can mask dozens of unlisted chemicals under most regulatory frameworks) is the safety-claim version of running a petri-dish test and calling it proven.
P.S. I build a product called Mangood that scans men's grooming products for endocrine-disrupting ingredients. The transparency gap on the safety side is the same one you're pointing at here on the efficacy side. mangood.app?ref=substack-awareness
Although my initial instinct was to delete this comment, I think it's important to leave it here to show a couple of things. AI might be able to identify a newsletter that seems relevant to the target audience of a product/app, and even write a comment that at first glance looks like a person wrote it. But what it can't do — apparently — is look through my other newsletters and see quite how opposed I am to the bullshit that is "clean" beauty (https://www.beautygeekery.com/p/skincare-geekery) and apps not grounded in science that cherrypick data and spread fear (https://www.beautygeekery.com/p/demonised-ingredients-geekery), and that I'm actually FOR not disclosing fragrance ingredients (https://www.beautygeekery.com/i/200278724/the-fragrance-conspiracy-theory). We are not your audience, Aris.
Thank you! They had an event the other week that quite a few journalists attended and Victoria was there so that might explain it if they suddenly seem to be everywhere!
The night cream is lovely! Reminds me of Oskia bedtime beauty boost which I really loved and used repeatedly for a number of years. Must look at the formulations and see what’s similar.
That is fascinating! Very tempting, as you say, to buy and try. My skin is great at the moment but at 61 I wonder if it could be better (firmer, definitely). Thank you as always for the science. X
Thank you as always for caring enough about the science to read X
I’m so lazy but I do manage to do spf all the time now, a couple of bcc’s on the face will do that for you! I am tempted by the credentials on these.
Sorry to hear about the BCCs but glad that you’re in the SPF habit now. If you do try them, please let me know your thoughts.
Another great article
Thanks Daniel x
The science-washing section is the thing this industry most needs more people willing to say plainly.
The cell-to-surface framework is refreshing because it refuses to let one level of evidence stand in for another. The point about 90% of petri-dish results failing in humans is worth underlining for anyone who reflexively trusts "clinically tested" on a label.
One extension: the same problem shows up on the safety side of the label, not just the efficacy side. "Free from X" and "clean beauty" claims carry identical credentialling issues. Removing one compound while keeping "fragrance" (which can mask dozens of unlisted chemicals under most regulatory frameworks) is the safety-claim version of running a petri-dish test and calling it proven.
P.S. I build a product called Mangood that scans men's grooming products for endocrine-disrupting ingredients. The transparency gap on the safety side is the same one you're pointing at here on the efficacy side. mangood.app?ref=substack-awareness
Although my initial instinct was to delete this comment, I think it's important to leave it here to show a couple of things. AI might be able to identify a newsletter that seems relevant to the target audience of a product/app, and even write a comment that at first glance looks like a person wrote it. But what it can't do — apparently — is look through my other newsletters and see quite how opposed I am to the bullshit that is "clean" beauty (https://www.beautygeekery.com/p/skincare-geekery) and apps not grounded in science that cherrypick data and spread fear (https://www.beautygeekery.com/p/demonised-ingredients-geekery), and that I'm actually FOR not disclosing fragrance ingredients (https://www.beautygeekery.com/i/200278724/the-fragrance-conspiracy-theory). We are not your audience, Aris.
Nice write up! Are they doing a push right now as it has popped up in my socials and I think I have seen Victoria Woodhall mention.
Thank you! They had an event the other week that quite a few journalists attended and Victoria was there so that might explain it if they suddenly seem to be everywhere!
I’ve ordered. Used a code WELCOME10. I said I heard about them via you so hope you get some kudos. 🙏.
Thank you, that’s very much appreciated. Do let me know how you get on with them.
The night cream is lovely! Reminds me of Oskia bedtime beauty boost which I really loved and used repeatedly for a number of years. Must look at the formulations and see what’s similar.
Oh this is positive. Always good when you like something as you’re more likely to stick with it.