Correction: see ( * ) in the update

The Title I wanted to use:

Beware: the Great Benzene Con of 2021 Afflicting Dermatology. The Medical Field’s REPEATED Complicitness in Subjecting the Public to Chemophobia Hysteria

Recall a few years back.

You might have heard that your chemical sunscreen, dry shampoo, or your benzoyl peroxide topical acne treatment was putting you at serious risk for cancer causing benzene. There were mass recalls. People threw out their expensive sunscreens.

Many dermatologists at the time even stopped prescribing that acne treatment to their patients. A comment in the video said that their sister’s health insurance didn’t cover the change to the new acne medication, so she was left to suffer despite the old medication working very well for her. (Anyone who’s ever suffered with acne knows that once you find that sweet spot of a product that works for you, you stick to the treatment and don’t change it up.)

Dr Michelle Wong, who has a PhD in chemistry (and a qualification in cosmetic chemistry), did a whole video exposé of the drama happening behind the scenes of how Valisure conned dermatologists into spreading this fear mongering for their (alleged) intent for monetary gain.

https://youtu.be/qIupQnxrD4U?si=7fug4XHrmTN8lLOi

(It’s a very interesting and emotionally gripping investigative video, while still being educational, so I recommend everyone watch it. My short summary will not do the story justice. You won’t truly understand the depth of Valisure’s depravity without seeing the whole story and timeline. There’s no way with all the evidence laid out to believe that they were simply incompetent at their jobs. This was all very deliberate.)

They announced their study found benzene in common cosmetology products using faulty science (edit: and used a mouthpiece*) at a conference for dermatologists (for maximum damage). Cue the mass hysteria and the media circus.

Dr. Wong debunks every claim and explains how they got away with conning dermatologists using shoddy comparisons in their presentation slides that dermatologists won’t catch due to not being chemists (like comparing concentrations of air ppm to liquid ppm—basically apples and oranges), and using absolutely bogus methodology that doesn’t pass validation. Meaning: is their study applicable to real life? Answer: No.

The conditions that your products would have to accidentally go through in order to become toxic don’t exist in real life. Nobody is baking their cosmetic containers at an unrealistically high temperature to destabilize the formulation.

Dr. Wong even did a calculation proving that even if you did hypothetically get into a car with your packaging baked to a temperature that’s unrealistic, and you breathed in that expired benzene product to your skin daily for the next 70+ years, you still wouldn’t be exposed to the fraction of the magnitude of benzene as simply breathing in city air, which is way more harmful because you’re exposing your lungs. Your skin is a poor sponge at absorbing chemicals. She calculates your cancer risk and compares it to cancer risks from products people choose to WILLINGLY ingest for recreation.

Chemists came out in droves to peer review Valisure’s “study” and the FDA wrote to Valisure explaining why their methods were wrong and how to fix it so that it doesn’t happen again (there was a whole drama about that too because IT DID HAPPEN AGAIN—watch the video).

But was this publicized by the media who played a big part in scaring the public? Did everyone receive the memo? The damage was done. Many people still believe that chemical sunscreens are bad.

Dr Wong warns that these things keep happening because the media (and the public) keep painting dermatologists (and medical doctors) as skin care product experts despite this not being remotely their field of study. In fact, (I think it was a different video), she shows how dermatology textbooks even teach the wrong info regarding their chapter on skin care formulations.

Dr Wong emphasizes that dermatologists are experts in diagnosing skin ailments. That’s what they spent years training to do.

They are not educated to speak about product formulation, its safety, or how it works (e.g. dermatologists perpetuating the misconception that mineral sunscreens work by reflecting UV radiation.)

If you want to know about products, which formulation would work for you, and how it would interact with your skin and hair, ask chemists. That’s what they spent YEARS studying.

History is repeating again. It’s happening on social media.

Her more recent video (Debunking Huberman's dodgy skincare episode ) exposes two men in the medical field spreading absolutely harmful rhetoric about sunscreens and selling a snake oil pill (Sun Powder supplement) as an alternative to sunscreen (watch that too. This video was also very interesting and eye opening.)

She even left comments on their first video pointing to her research paper that showed how they were very wrong, and they belittled it in their second video and doubled down on their lies.

The problem, she emphasizes, is that these men with their LARGE channels use their positions of authority as medical doctors to speak about topics they have absolutely no knowledge about, nor did they even make any decent attempt to research the topic). (One person in the comments says that they are in the same field as one of these doctors and they cringe at how he is even misinformed in his own field.)

Although Dr Wong and other chemists spend considerable efforts in dispelling these lies, they won’t make an indent in the damage caused because their channels aren’t as popular since the public doesn’t view chemists as authority figures on skin care products.

And it’s much harder to correct a lie than it is to talk out of your ass. Those two asses will be responsible for future skin cancer patients.

People erroneously view medical doctors as experts in the wrong field.

Dr Wong clarifies that she doesn’t believe in banning experts from commenting on other fields, but there’s such a thing as commenting responsibly when you’re an authority figure on the internet.

Those two asses threw all their integrity out the window in order to sneakily shill their snake oil. (Dr Wong proves how they lied about their snake oil too, as they lied about their product having an ingredient it doesn’t contain.)

……….

My own thoughts:

Why was Valisure (edit: their mouthpiece) even allowed to present a non-peer reviewed toxicology study at THE LARGEST AMERICAN conference for dermatologists who have no training in critiquing and questioning their methodology?

That’s incredibly irresponsible of the event overseers. While it’s important to be vigilant in warning the public about potential toxins, it’s important that it be verified before panicking the public.

Anybody prepared to present such nonsense should be prepared to defend it in front of relavent experts. There were no practical chemists present at this conference to publicly embarrass the Valisure shill when they ask him to justify why he thinks it’s appropriate to use incomparable concentrations and why their methodology doesn’t follow toxicology standards from the FDA and around the world.

Why doesn’t the US have more stringent laws holding their scientists / doctors accountable? Why was the FDA only giving Valisure slaps on the wrist for repeated offenses? I can understand the media newspaper running the story because they’re only quoting Valisure, but it’s wild to me that your doctors/companies are allowed to use their authority to cause public harm (e.g. Dr Oz).

Update:

• Correction: It wasn't Valisure themselves presenting at the conference but a dermatologist who CLAIMS he has no affiliation with them.

So then there's two options:

1. He's being paid off by Valisure to speak in front of thousands of dermatologists to prime the perfect commercial conditions for Valisure to exploit their patented benzoyl peroxide stabilizing technology.
2. He's a legitimately well-intentioned clueless guy who decided to take matters into his own hands and present Valisure's graphs and report at the conference.

Okay, so let's assume it's the more innocent option 2.

Why are you speaking outside of your field of specialty? Why are you presenting these graphs as though you have an understanding of toxicology? Why would you present someone else's work when you don't understand what you're reading? For all you know, they could be using BAD SCIENCE. Valisure's findings weren't corroborated anywhere else at the time. Why did you think it was appropriate to repeat their results before making sure that experts in the field agreed it was valid?

And again, why didn't the event organizers vet the presentation? This is a conference for THOUSANDS of dermatologists whose time is expensive and they travel far. By this time, Valisure already had a shady track record of releasing studies claiming they found high levels of toxins in regulated drugs using bogus methodology.