Skip to content
Vanity or Vice

The register

Unproven Claims

Somebody has to write down what was actually tested. Every entry here takes one beauty claim, restates it as a proposition somebody could go and check, and records what turned up — including, often, that nobody has looked. No brand is named in a verdict. Nothing here is sponsored, and nothing here links to a shop.

The useful column is not the verdict. It is the one next to it, which says what kind of evidence is missing — because “there is no evidence” is nearly always false, and the accurate answer is usually that the study exists and belongs to something else.

12 claims on file · last revised 3 September 2026 · How this works · JSON · CSV

Evidence position
What is missing
Subject
  1. Microneedling erases acne scars

    Partially established

    It moves scars a grade, reliably, in small trials. It does not erase them, and nobody has shown it holds past a few months.

    Last searched 3 September 2026

  2. Randomised, in people, over four and a half years, measured on skin rather than in a survey. It holds.

    Last searched 3 September 2026

  3. Beef tallow as a skincare base

    No adequate source found

    Claims for acne, eczema and psoriasis are common on social video and largely uncited; a 2025 analysis found most promoting posts showed financial bias.

    True absence Last searched 3 September 2026

  4. Topical NAD+ and NMN serums

    Untested as claimed

    No controlled human trial of topical NAD+ or NMN with skin endpoints has been published. The formulation literature exists because the molecule penetrates poorly.

    Plausibility gap Last searched 3 September 2026

  5. Blue light from screens ages your skin

    No adequate source found

    Visible light from the sun does cause pigmentation. That evidence belongs to sunlight, not your monitor, and was carried across without a trial.

    Claim transfer Last searched 3 September 2026

  6. We found no published independent measurement of what a consumer facial LED mask actually delivers. The dose is the claim, and it is unverified.

    Characterisation failure Last searched 3 September 2026

  7. Nine studies, all rated low or moderate quality, covering 219 patients between them. Real signal, and nowhere near enough of it to conclude.

    Characterisation failure Last searched 3 September 2026

  8. No exosome product is FDA-approved, and the published studies do not describe what was in the vial well enough for anyone to repeat them.

    Characterisation failure Last searched 3 September 2026

  9. One 2015 trial compared rosemary oil with minoxidil 2%, not the 5% most people buy, and had no placebo arm. Nothing has replicated it.

    Claim inflation Last searched 3 September 2026

  10. The ingredients in skin cycling have evidence behind them. The four-night sequence, which is the actual product, has never been tested as a sequence.

    Protocol untested Last searched 3 September 2026

  11. No regulator in the US, UK or EU defines, confers or enforces "medical-grade" for cosmetics. There are cosmetics and there are drugs.

    True absence Last searched 3 September 2026

  12. Oral collagen's measured benefit for skin disappears once pharmaceutical-company-funded and low-quality trials are separated from the rest.

    Supplier-generated only Last searched 3 September 2026