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.

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

Evidence position

Any Established Partially established Thinly supported Untested as claimed Not established No adequate source found

What is missing

Any True absence Supplier-generated only Characterisation failure Claim transfer Category error Plausibility gap Protocol untested Claim inflation Indication mismatch

Subject

Any Skincare Injectables & devices Supplements Haircare Treatments & spa Makeup Labels & language

At-home LED masks deliver a clinical dose
No adequate source found

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
Polynucleotide injections regenerate the skin
Thinly supported

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
Exosomes rebuild skin after treatment
Thinly supported

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

Where this stops

This register records the state of published evidence. It does not tell you a product does nothing, and it never says a company is lying — both would be claims about the world that would need proving, where “we searched here, on this date, against this bar, and found this” is a claim about my own reading and can be checked by anyone who repeats it.

The bar is written down in advance, so “nothing met it” means something: A human study, published and peer-reviewed, with a comparator — placebo, vehicle, or an active with its own evidence — reporting the endpoint the claim is actually about. In-vitro work, animal models, uncontrolled before-and-after series, consumer-perception surveys and unpublished supplier data are read and reported, but they do not clear the bar on their own.

The positions and the absence types, defined →

At-home LED masks deliver a clinical dose

Polynucleotide injections regenerate the skin

Exosomes rebuild skin after treatment