For the last year and a bit, I've been writing a book, all about the science of beauty. It's called… The Science of Beauty. I'm great with names!

It covers the basics (and not-so-basics) of skincare, haircare, makeup, nails, as well as general cosmetic science.

A lot of the topics were inspired by questions from you! Including:

🧪How do you read an ingredients list?
🧪How do you interpret the claims on product labels?
🧪How do skincare products get ingredients into skin?
🧪What do different haircare products do?
🧪And so much more!

Julian (@scamander14), a representative of a skincare brand with $10 million in funding has accused me of bullying him so I thought I'd address this quickly and elaborate more in the morning (it's 3 am here)

Background: I have a history with the brand, Matter of Fact.

I met their founder, said I didn't want to work with them until they fixed their pseudoscientific marketing, found out a lot more questionable stuff about them, then they used my face in a campaign:

labmuffin.com/impressively-b…

Are chemical sunscreens "unsafe" according to the EU?🧵

So if you've been following this weird gripe @kevinnbass has had with me:

1. He posted on IG about how chemical sunscreens aren't safe according to the FDA, and mineral sunscreens were 100% safe. 2. I suggested he look at the EU's Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety opinions to get a better idea about the safety of chemical sunscreens

3. He refused to look at them, because the FDA was the "most influential and respected" regulator

Sigh.

Here's how it actually started - 4 days ago @kevinnbass posted about how there wasn't enough data to justify using chemical sunscreens based solely off the two FDA studies.

My first comments brought up the EU data, but Kevin is pretending it's some new tactic.

https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1549426958060109824

Here's the quote from the editorial, warning that avoiding chemical sunscreens could have significant negative health implications. Reference 15 is the AAD guideline which recommends using either chemical or physical sunscreen.

I thought this went without saying, but you should look at more than two studies before declaring whether there's enough data to justify using chemical sunscreens to your social media following...

https://twitter.com/kevinnbass/status/1549262325470748672

Especially when those two studies were only on absorption, and were conducted by the regulator with the most outdated approach to sunscreens (the newest chemical filters commonly used in the US were approved in the 90s).

🗣️ SULFATES 🗣️ AREN'T 🗣️ EVIL 🗣️ A Thread!

Historically, sodium lauryl sulfate could be quite harsh, but in modern cleansers it's been made much gentler.

The most common way: combining different surfactants into the one product. This is pretty much every cleanser these days! This encourages SLS molecules to get into clusters (micelles) that are too big to penetrate the skin - it's when individual SLSes go off on their own and dig into skin that you get irritation.

Tech version: mixed micelles lower the critical micelle concentrations (CMC).

I have just uncovered the horror that is doctors on TikTok recommending succinic acid as a "proven acne ingredient".

In case you've forgotten, there is one single peer-reviewed in vivo study on succinic acid.

It was done on mouse ears.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… Almost all of these were sponsored advertisements. Some of these were board-certified dermatologists.

Do you need to know the difference between studies on mice and humans to be board-certified? Apparently not.

Or maybe you do, but the money's too good.

Just posted a series on my IG stories about why I don't use Weleda - basically Kat Von D but more.

Anti-vax, racism, plus extra pseudoscience.

Going to just repost the stories and links here because I'm a bit lazy weleda.com.au/our-story/our-…