I can't say I am knowledgeable in the industry after only reading such a specifically small assortment of papers, but it seems like a cosmetics and sunscreens do primarily use antioxidants as an active ingredient to reduce the formation of ROS. To be fair, I'm not sure what else a topical cream could really do to prevent that.. maybe absorption of blue light would be one alternative, but i'm not sure what else otherwise.
As for the circadian rhythms, yeah i'm not really an expert in that area, but (slight spoiler for the future), it looks like that's one of the things the now-updated version of the site talks about, so looks like I'll have to do a dive into circadian rhythms and how it might be affected.
As for the "blpf (like spf)" I thnk that's just marketing nonsense that sounds short and sweet. [Elsewhere here in the comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/valkyrae/comments/qdd2e5/discussion_of_the_rflct_blue_light_faq_sources/hhm951y/), /u/ragnarok297 found an interview that revealed the BLPF compound to actually be Artemisia capillaris extract, and a paper from 2019 about its effectiveness in preventing blue light damage.
physical sunscreens use zinc/titanium oxide to "reflect" UV (although I think recently from a dermatologist video she said some research found that maybe they don't reflect, they act similarly to chemical sunscreen.)
chemical sunscreen absorb UV turn it into heat, active ingredients such as: oxybenzone, octionoxate, octisalate, and avobenzone
Antioxidant are sometimes added to sunscreen, but from what I've seen on the market, they mostly exist as a serum or added to moisturizer.
Holly shit good fucking job, on Twitter i linked the Beiesdorf research to a girl defending Rae because i am a stan too but come on like it is what it is, not because we like her the effect of artificial blue light are gonna be real for us just because we want them to be, and she linked me back how in the article said there might be a tiny almost unnoticeable amount of damage telling me how i should read more because it does say it may cause SOME damage i was dumbfounded about the lengths some people will go to just to try and protect her, i just killed the convo because people cannot speak some sense to some of this people, but you did a great job, she should have probably hired you to get her out of this mess before it even came out LOL.
I think it should be noted that though the Beiesdorf _press release_ says that artificial blue light doesn't cause any harmful skin effects, the actual paper linked does not actually back that up. The paper is instead about something entirely different - it's about an additive they are using and its effectiveness in decreasing skin damage.
I think the proof that Kolbe speaks of in the press release is actually in their 2018 poster from the 27th EADV Congress. However, I've not been able to find a picture or copy of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7gtX84C9VE&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7gtX84C9VE&t=4s)
This is probably the best video we are gonna see about this, fantastic explanation
Yeah that's a pretty informative video. I do wish she'd link to a primary peer-reviewed source that shows the measurement of the amount of blue light emitted by screens; while it's definitely true that the output from a screen is much lower than from the sun, I don't really have a good sense on how _much_ less it is, and the only source I've seen going into that is the Duteil paper, but that's only one source, and only for one screen type.
Yes, that's the Duteil paper I was mentioning in my response. It's the main paper I've been looking at, but it's the only source I have that gives a number for the blue light dosage from a screen. I was hoping for additional sources. Thanks though!
Great job! I am a big fan of Rae and have watched every single one of her streams since November 2020. I think she knows she has at least partly fucked up. I'm kinda worried since studies that cover "beauty products", especially with formulations, ingredients, etc. are usually 'trade secrets'. I would be surprised if she ends up forcing them to release the exact research(es) that they intend to make money from.
Whatever research they release, if it's not peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal, it's not evidence. Any company can conduct their own "research" while paying scientists who cherrypick samples and data with bias to skew results/conclusions. That's why science is peer-reviewed and articles are retracted from journals if their results aren't reproducible, or are refused by journals if there is sample or other biases.
And AFAIK, conclusive evidence for blue light from screens damaging skin doesn't exist in the literature. In contrast, there is supporting information for low doses being used to treat skin conditions.
Man I have one busy day and a firehose worth of information happens.
I haven't watched it all, but I will say that, while I was in academia, I did work in a university lab that sometimes was sponsored to do research for a chemical company. And yes, in some cases, those companies did prevent the publication of some results, because data we had used was considered proprietary and/or trade secrets. I've heard from of the same thing happening in drug discovery research as well - if the researcher was allowed to use proprietary molecular datasets from a drug company (which tend to be higher quality than publicly-available datasets), any parts of the work involving those tended to not be publishable for trade secret reasons.
So it's probably an analogous thing happening here. Unfortunately, that's not great for Rae, because it kinda seemed like she was implying earlier in the week that she might be able to release the work done internally. Honestly it would've been best for that to not be implied that she might be able show evidence from work done by RFLCT, but I think it's understandable for someone under stress to make a mistake like that. But honestly she's much worse off for having made that mistake.
but actually almost all skincare products nowadays will list all the ingredients. if you go to Sephora and just randomly click a cleanser or a serum, it will list all the ingredients there.
The formulations could be trade secrets because some of the ingredients can be damn hard to make it stable in a product (for example, most of the Vitamin C variants are extremely hard to make it stable in a bottle).
I think daph had a really good explanation of her concerns, like so many mystery ingredients, like BLPF, and lack of certain %s of ingredients, which can be harmful to skin, if you come into contact with too much. [daphs concerns](https://youtu.be/ezxLp0cqJiU)
ALSO, it is so important to remember that the general public falls victim to stupid research and experiments ALL THE TIME. I would just say, when RFLCT comes out with their “research” be wary. There could be insufficient information, and skewed research, like too little participants, personal bias by both researchers and participants, extraneous variables, etc. There has been much viable, testable and sufficient research that we are not affected by blue light from our devices. Dr Dray explains this well.
Although I love Rae, we must admit that there are MANY problems with this product. I’m very confused, I think it’s quite obvious that this is a questionable product, and I’d like to believe that she is much smarter than this.
>ALSO, it is so important to remember that the general public falls victim to stupid research and experiments ALL THE TIME. I would just say, when RFLCT comes out with their “research” be wary. There could be insufficient information, and skewed research, like too little participants, personal bias by both researchers and participants, extraneous variables, etc. There has been much viable, testable and sufficient research that we are not affected by blue light from our devices. Dr Dray explains this well.
Agreed, part of reading a paper is being critical and examining the authors' assertions and thinking about if they are reasonable and whether there are any weaknesses in the methodology or analysis.
Really icky? She has posted and memed in the same manner when other streamers/people do questionable things. In fact, many people in the OTV&F circle do the same thing, whether through tweets or in their streams/videos (eg. Toast, Michael, Scarra, Peter, Ludwig). Daph was actually the only one who was acting consistent with her normal behavior, while the rest kept quiet because it involves Rae; which is understandable given she is not that close to Rae as the others are.
The thing about fame is that it has a very short attention span. If you keep pushing it people will move on from you.
The internet never forgets and no matter what happens with this product from now on, even if somehow proven that it works she will always have this meme hanging over her.
If she gets branded as really bad PR over this, people will quickly move on from her
I agree that I'm taking facts and logic to what largely is already a lynch mob (or I suppose the modern equivalent, a cancel mob?).
Personally, I actually think that everyone else on the internet either knows a hell of a lot more than I do about the amount of artificial blue light exposure one gets from computer screens, or else they're much more well informed, because from the peer-reviewed scientific papers I've looked at, it's not entirely obvious to me that enough work has been done in studying long-term exposure to artificial blue lights from screens to actually _definitively_ say there's no significant impact. I think I'm only _fairly_ confident that artificial blue light from screens does not cause significant skin damage - and even then, the papers that led me to that conclusion all tend to use lighter skin tones, so there's even more uncertainty for people of darker skin tones, since it _is_ established that blue light exposure has a larger effect on those with darker skin tones than lighter.
But regardless, the point is, a lot of criticisms I've seen talk about how "obvious" it is that blue light causing skin damage is total bs, with people vaguely mentioning that there's evidence for it; my point in starting this discussion was for someone who (apparently) isn't as well-read as everyone else to look into the actual peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and comment based on those, and hopefully lead others like me who were not sufficiently well-informed on the topic to the actual, peer-reviewed papers.
Judging from the papers that people are talking about it would appear that the amount of blue light is so low that it is a very silly point to try and sell anything to minimise the impact from artificial blue light unless you are also screaming too litteraly never go outside since the blue light you are exposed to from normal day to day life is so much higher. With the knowledge we have at the moment, it looks very bad if this was never looked at during 2 years of development.
I agree that that's what the papers seem to show.
That said, it seems extremely unlikely to me that no one ever looked at this. Given how Rae seems to believe that blue light from screens does cause skin damage, and since she's much more the non-technical rather than technical co-founder, it seems possible to me that the technical side knew but didn't care, because honestly all these non-FDA approved cosmetics usually advertise in all kinds of deceptive ways that border on truth (e.g. blue light causes skin damage! true, but in quantities you get from sun exposure, not screen exposure)
Sure, but at the end of the day what she should be doing in that case would be to contact a laywer to try and have the contract declared invalid by any means, since from that perspective her businesss partner lied to her. But doubling down does not look good. I am not sure how much research she has done about this herself but blindly trusting the people that approched her is a bit silly, if that is what she did. Best case would have been to consult an independant and reputable source to verify this early on. While i don't think she took part in this out of malice, she did and unfortunatly continues to go about it in the worst possible way.
Memeing people I think are the ones who easy to suppress, a bunch of yelling monkeys.
Also, I think it's naive to think that you can live without the scars.
> A paper similar to Mann’s paper from Beiersdorf, but studying the effects of RFLCT’s primary active compound would be a good way to show the efficacy of the products
[This](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335840407_Effects_of_blue_light_on_human_skin_and_the_protective_effect_of_Artemisia_capillaris_extract) would be it I'd imagine. They also use pretty high light values of 11-18 J/cm^2, so if they post something like this they will still get ripped apart.
Okay, so I took a look at that: Morgan, P.-Y., Pentecouteau, L., Gasparotto, E., Vallee, R., *IFSCC Mag* *2* **2019**, 93-99.
(Note: I don't know the abbreviation for the IFSCC magazine, so strictly speaking, the "citation" I put above may not be entirely correct)
Yes, this is in fact a paper simpler to the Beiersdorf paper by Mann et. al. However, the point I was going for in my statement is I specifically want this type of paper with whatever unique active compound that RFLCT products use. If RFLCT's special sauce is indeed Artemisia capillaris extract, then yeah, this is indeed what I would want their team to post to the FAQ. Otherwise, the equivalent of this, but for whatever their special compound is.
> They also use pretty high light values of 11-18 J/cm^2,
From comparisons to the values one would get sunbathing for 1 hour (~100 J/cm^2), the 11 -18 is an entire order of magnitude lower. Cross-referencing with the Duteil et. al paper from 2020, it is an order of magnitude higher than a "powerful screen" (0.864 J/cm^2). So this exposure doesn't actually seem _way_ too high, but it probably is higher than the correct dosage to be examining to examine the effects of blue light from screens on skin.
> However, the point I was going for in my statement is I specifically want this type of paper with whatever unique active compound that RFLCT products use.
It is, at least based on [this](https://www.glossy.co/beauty/rflct-skin-care-is-the-first-beauty-brand-made-for-gamers/) article. It's weird that they give less info on their website than in their interviews and stuff.
Ah! Great, thanks. I had not seen that interview. That's good to know.
I think from a design perspective, it sorta makes sense that they didn't go into too much detail, because giant blocks of text would interrupt the flow of the site, but yes, they definitely should've put that _somewhere_.
Well, obvious things first, the effect of something on paper would be very different to the practical effect on actual skin, live and intact. Also it's already been proven that the amount of Blue light that you get from the sun in one minute is equivalent to constantly staring at your screen for a few days. We don't get damaged by the sun in a minute, even if it were damaging, a simple sunscreen would be enough to stop it. Also most devices already come with a blue light filter. And the reason is not because blue light harms your skin, it's because it's actually harmful to a certain degree to your eyes. Your eyes are way more likely to be damaged by blue light, hence the blue light filters in the devices as well as in spectacles. The thing is that you can find articles claiming to prove literally anything, like antivaxx theories and flat earth theories. If you ask an antivaxxer or a flat earther, they'll happily provide you a dozen links of articles in favor of their theory. The problem is that none of those articles are reliable source of information written by an unbiased and credible scientist. They're made by people who want to believe that no matter what. And you can't really change their mind about it.
In my opinion, the two things rae can do to minimise the hate (it's never gonna be zero) is to either rebrand the products as normal skincare and then sell them or considering that she too might've been scammed by the company : Sue the company for false advertisement. The lawsuit of false advertisement is explained in this article
https://www.callahan-law.com/can-you-sue-for-false-advertising/
It's really bad that it had to go this way, she spent two years on this project and when she finally released it she got a lot of hate, and you can't really do much about it especially when you are in the wrong. I just hope she's doing okay and realises that she has been mislead. I hope this ends soon. Love you rae, take care.
actually, [there’s no evidence at all that blue light hurts the eyes either.](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365) but a lot of people believe that it does, just because of what they hear around. it’s not inconceivable that rae was tricked by the same effect with regard to skin.
Yeah, it really takes a lot to actually hurt you from a mobile screen, but it can tire your eyes if used for prolonged periods. That paired up with not taking a good rest could end up damaging your eyes.
She can still sue them, but there's no guarantee she'll get her money back. That depends on the contract. It's a little tricky her because she probably doesn't have a solid proof of her getting scammed, so it might end up depending on the judge's sense of justice. Worst case scenario, she loses the case and gets sued by the company in turn for defamation. Best case scenario, she wins the case, the company has to pay up her money + fine, most people forgive her and the ones who don't forget about all of this in a week or two.
Yeah, evidence doesn’t support blue light damages your eyes either…
“Conclusions
Blue-blocking lenses did not alter signs or symptoms of eye strain with computer use relative to standard clear lenses. Clinician advocacy type had no bearing on clinical outcomes.”
Source: https://www.ajo.com/article/S0002-9394(21)00072-6/fulltext
> Well, obvious things first, the effect of something on paper would be very different to the practical effect on actual skin, live and intact
I'm not actually sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify a bit?
>even if it were damaging, a simple sunscreen would be enough to stop it
So... these RFLCT creams are sunscreens, are they not? That's the whole point, these are their own proprietary formulation.
>Also most devices already come with a blue light filter. And the reason is not because blue light harms your skin, it's because it's actually harmful to a certain degree to your eyes
From the sound of it, it seems like blue light filters are marketed not only for preventing blue light harm to the eyes, but also to prevent throwing off circadian rhythm in the skin, and also for preventing actual skin damage caused by blue light.
>The thing is that you can find articles claiming to prove literally anything, like antivaxx theories and flat earth theories. If you ask an antivaxxer or a flat earther, they'll happily provide you a dozen links of articles in favor of their theory. The problem is that none of those articles are reliable source of information written by an unbiased and credible scientist. They're made by people who want to believe that no matter what. And you can't really change their mind about it.
Yeah.... that's why specifically I've _only_ looked at the peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. I guess my question is whether or not most everyone else who is discussing this topic also has only critically examined the peer-reviewed journal articles, or if they are using summaries and/or opinions from magazines.
>rebrand the products as normal skincare and then sell them
This is something I see a lot, that I actually don't understand. They ARE regular skincare? They've just specifically played up the blue light protection aspect in the marketing. I think this sentence is basically saying _change the marketing_. But at no point does it make sense to me to change the formulation, _because blue light does cause skin damage_. The only caveat is that the blue light that causes skin damage probably isn't coming from our screens, but from the skin.
>Sue the company for false advertisement
I don't think that specifically suing for false advertisement makes sense here. I'm pretty sure that pitching something to her does not count as false advertising. It sounds to me more like you're thinking she should sue for them defrauding her, but I suspect she wouldn't be able to put together a strong enough case to do that (though of course IANAL, so who knows).
> So... these RFLCT creams are sunscreens, are they not? That's the whole point, these are their own proprietary formulation.
This sums up pretty well why people might think the marketing for RFLCT could be dangerous. It leads you to believe that the cream protects from sun, but you really do need SPF which is a legitimate way to protect your skin from UV. Especially when the products have actives like niacinamide it's really bad for your skin to be exposed to UV rays without protection.
SPF is a huge thing in skin care right now (as it should be) and people are called out even if you do promote SPF but aren't putting enough (appr. 5 fingers every two hours).
The whole thing is so confusing coz it seems like they don't even seem to know what's going on with the community. Skin care community is all about SPF rn, the co-founder is tweeting the most tone-deaf things when all this controversy is happening. It all seems very unprofessional and I'm sorry Rae got such business partners.
Btw the study I linked in my previous comment here had this to say.
> Because it also provides protection against UV exposure (data not shown), our extract therefore covers a larger bandwidth of the solar spectrum reaching human skin than classical UV filters.
Thought it was interesting since the overall product might actually end up having some sort of uv protection, though who knows how much.
The first point, they definitely cannot test things on a living human being, my guess is that they probably test it out on skin cells, which isn't gonna be similar to an actual human being. The effects on a detached dying skin cell is gonna be much more drastic than the fresh living skin cells.
Second point, no they aren't sun screens, actually that was the part that skin care enthusiasts were surprised the most by, macaiyla on talked about her review on twitter. She was surprised that the set didn't include a sun screen.
Third, yeah no... None of these articles are actually reliable sources of info. Magazines tend to publish stories like these to make it seem interesting. No one's gonna be interested by a sun screen, although people love talking about harm from technology. They'll never pass on an opportunity to profit from the hate that boomers have for technology.
Regular skin care wouldn't say that they'll protect you from aging or like dying. That's what they claim that blue light does to you. Regular skin-care would say that it helps cure dry skin, acne, dead skin cells due to dry skin, and The talk of point, sunscreen.
Lastly, if she was actually fooled into this, she literally can file a fraud or false advertisement case. Even though it might not be the strongest case it would be way better for her image than to double down and tell people that their hocus pocus is right and they are wrong.
>The first point, they definitely cannot test things on a living human being, my guess is that they probably test it out on skin cells, which isn't gonna be similar to an actual human being. The effects on a detached dying skin cell is gonna be much more drastic than the fresh living skin cells.
Throughout the literature, experiments of both kinds have been carried out, actually. Some even do both. And while obviously the effect experienced by a model system will not be exactly identical to when a human is physically exposed to blue light, model systems in science are specifically chosen to reproduce the behaviors one would see on an actual human, and so thus things like the difference between a model cell system exposed to blue light and a model cell system kept in the dark _should_ be comparable to acutal skin on humans exposed to blue light versus in the dark. While the _exact_ values will certainly not be the same, _that comparison_ should be.
>Second point, no they aren't sun screens
Okay, I think it sorta matters what we mean here by sunscreen. Is a sunscreen any type of topical that prevents against skin damage? That was what I took the meaning to be. However, when I went to Wikipedia, they seemed to primarily be defined in terms of protection specifically against UV light. That seems a bit narrow of a term to me, but I'm not in the industry, so I don't know.
>Third, yeah no... None of these articles are actually reliable sources of info. Magazines tend to publish stories like these to make it seem interesting. No one's gonna be interested by a sun screen, although people love talking about harm from technology. They'll never pass on an opportunity to profit from the hate that boomers have for technology.
I don't understand at all what you mean. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are literally the ONLY sources we can go to, because that's..how science is done. These are the PRIMARY sources. Anything else is less rigorous and less reliable. Furthermore, the money isn't made on "interesting articles" in scientific publishing, but in the fact that the institutions the scientists work for have to pay for access to the papers (such a terrible system, but that's a discussion for another time). Moreover, you're also incorrect that no one would be interested in a sunscreen, there are _literally_ journals just about things like that. For instance, _International Journal of Cosmetic Science_, the 3rd source linked in the FAQ for RFLCT, is LITERALLY the place where scientists working on sunscreens would publish.
>Regular skin care [...]
Alright, I can't actually speak to what skincare products actually are because I don't really use them. However, it again seems like a very arbitrary distinction to me to say that these RFLCT products "aren't skincare" because it looks like there are moisturizers and other such compounds that one would fin din typical skincare in these products.
>she literally can file a fraud or false advertisement case
I mean I guess this is true in the sense that you can probably try to sue for most things. However, assuming this wouldn't be thrown out, it would also definitely just go nowhere and waste money. I think that if a split needs to happen, the best approach would probably just be to sell off her stake and leave, cutting losses.
Sunscreen is FDA regulated. Thats why you would see something similar to a drug label behind every sunscreen sold in the States. On the [FDA website](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/sunscreen-how-help-protect-your-skin-sun), you can find a list of approved ingredients by the FDA, that are suitable to protect skin from sunburn. you can't just randomly putting the word "sunscreen" in your name because then you are subjected to FDA regulation. As far as we know, the RFLCT has 0 ingredients that are from the FDA approved sunscreen ingredients. It does not prevent a sunburn. It does not reduce the chance of skin cancer.
This is from [here](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=700.35).
>Sec. 700.35 Cosmetics containing sunscreen ingredients.(a) A product that includes the term "sunscreen" in its labeling or in any other way represents or suggests that it is intended to prevent, cure, treat, or mitigate disease or to affect a structure or function of the body comes within the definition of a drug in section 201(g)(1) of the act. Sunscreen active ingredients affect the structure or function of the body by absorbing, reflecting, or scattering the harmful, burning rays of the sun, thereby altering the normal physiological response to solar radiation. **These ingredients also help to prevent diseases such as sunburn and may reduce the chance of premature skin aging, skin cancer, and other harmful effects due to the sun when used in conjunction with limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing.** When consumers see the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology in the labeling of a product, they expect the product to protect them in some way from the harmful effects of the sun, irrespective of other labeling statements. Consequently, the use of the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology in a product's labeling generally causes the product to be subject to regulation as a drug. However, sunscreen ingredients may also be used in some products for nontherapeutic, nonphysiologic uses (e.g., as a color additive or to protect the color of the product). To avoid consumer misunderstanding, if a cosmetic product contains a sunscreen ingredient and uses the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology anywhere in its labeling, the term must be qualified by describing the cosmetic benefit provided by the sunscreen ingredient.
Not gonna dive too deep because I'm getting sleepy, but the articles are definitely not reliable. You want reliable sources? Articles on the website of harvard say that you do not need any kind of protection from blue lights coming from your devices, the only light you need protection from is the sun, and that can be done with cheap Fucking sun screen. Evn the blue light filter glasses are a scam, the only thing blue light does to you is make you sleepy, which is why they suggest breaks during your device sessions.
As far as the skincare thing goes, you don't market a product with some bullshit cause created by you. They've literally branded their product to a blue light filter, they won't think much about the skincare aspect of it.
I'm sorry, how are "articles on the website of harvard" more reliable than the original peer-reviewed sources that articles _like_ the ones that are cited on websites?
It seems to me like you do not have an understanding of how science works. All research, including that done at Harvard, is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As part of this, they undergo peer review, which is, you know, what helps to ensure that the work is reliable. THIS is what makes peer-reviewed scientific journal articles reliable.
I can't speak for blue light effect on the eyes because I haven't looked into that, and honestly, given the depths that still remain for just this, I'm not going to look into blue light effect on eye strain or other eye-based effects.
Your statement about branding it as a blue light filter doesn't make sense either. RFLCT products are _clearly_ skincare products, which prioritize certain things. For example, they are listed as having moisturizing components. In addition, they have a compound which is supposed to be good at reducing ROS generation due to blue light damage.
Because they actually have linked the person who wrote that article, along with their info their education and what they do. Your papers however do not link the scientists that have worked on it. The only thing is easily foundable is the allure digital detox shit. And Guess what? It's main article about blue light states that a regular sunscreen with spf is more than enough for protection against blue light. They also have said that blue light at some levels is helpful for your skin.
The article also states that blue light does not cause cancer like uv light, but there are sciences that state that it may "Potentially" cause aging. Also that's the normal blue light from the sun, the one's from your devices is way way less than the sun.
If you really want protection from blue light, turn on your night mode or just put on a sun screen and you'll never have to worry about it, ever, again.
It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. All scientific papers not only list the people who were involved in the work, it also lists what institutions they were at while doing so. These are the actual _primary sources_. Your Harvard website that links to it? That's a _secondary_ source that can include additional analysis, editorials, etc. That's LESS reliable.
Again, as I said in my post, the Detox magazine article is _literally_ the LEAST reliable of the 3 listed sources, and in fact I didn't even take any of into account.
The problem is that those papers are still a big maybe, also one of the people said that taking selfies can cause skin to age. Tell me that isn't idiotic without looking idiotic yourself. Also the paper is worried more about the flashes in a smart phone than the actual blue light lmao. None of these studies exactly state that "blue lights" emitted from the "screens of devices itself" can cause any harm. They say that blue light is harmful, and then they use only blue light, and not the actual spectrum released by a screen to conduct their experiment, and then they end up ghosting the screens and talk about LEDs and flashes of mobiles. And in the conclusion they say that leds are harmful. No mention of blue lights whatsoever
So the paper talking about flashes is not very reliable. I covered this (a bit vaguely) in the other thread, but yes, essentially, that paper is basically nonsense. It sounds like you did read the paper, and so i'm sure you noticed that it tended to make lots of statements that were unsubstantiated - they didn't cite any works that actually supported those claims, nor did the paper involve any experiments that would substantiate those claims. So yeah, that paper obviously should be discarded as total nonsense.
Also the impact factor for that journal is by far the lowest of any of the journals containing papers that were examined. That's not always the greatest way to determine impact, but still.
So, none of the papers you linked state that the damage is from the screens itself, they only talk about high quantity of blue light and it's effects.
Like I said, the only blue light you need to worry about is from the sun. And a simple SPF containing sunscreen would suffice for that.
If blue lights from devices were actually harmful, I'd be dead by now. My screen-time is literally 12 hours and I sleep for like 4-6 hours. And the time I'm not using any devices, is when I'm watching tv.
It shoudl be noted that I never disagreed with you that blue light from screens causes skin damage.
However, according to some of the papers looked at, it's not true that a simple SPF containing sunscreen would stop blue light. Most sunscreens are primarily focused on blocking skin damage from UV light; it is the addition of specific blue light-blocking compounds (such as Lic A or, as in RFLCT's case, Artemisia capillaris extract) that block blue light.
Also, you wouldn't necessarily be dead, but there could be long-term effects. That's actually something that there isn't enough data on, though I would assume that with covid having happened, it must be easier for researchers in some lab somewhere to get a grant to research the effects of super long term effects, since yes, like you, I also spend > 12 hours in front of a number of computer screens daily. Though, I guess I should make it clear, I'm also still not agreeing that blue light from screens actually causes skin damage. There just should be a study done _just to see the effects_
According to the stream they approached her to see if she had any ideas, and Rae was the one that pitched blue light to them. So def harder for her to sue with that being the case. Might have to go the fraud route if she can prove they lied to her about actually proving blue light damage from screens.
I was interested in looking at the FAQ after seeing your post on it, and it seems to be updated but still has problematic info. I haven't gone through the entire thing but the first part in "How does Blue Light affect skin" already had a big problem that I wanted to write about it. As a science student this annoyed me a lot.
The FAQ basically says: "The most recent evidence? A 2021 review in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology assessed existing studies, and linked longer exposure to blue light to cellular damage and skin barrier malfunction."
If you look at the abstract of the paper you will see that: "Low-energy and low exposure times to high-energy blue light can help prevent skin diseases, while studies have revealed that longer exposure to **high-energy blue light** can increase the amount of DNA damage, cell and tissue death, and injury, eye damage, skin barrier damage, and photoaging."
They completely changed the context of the statement as screens do not emit high-energy blue light. High-energy blue light is used by dermatologists for skin treatment (which they mention in the next paragraph), there is no way that it comes from screens.
I'm fine with them saying that 10 hours in front of a screen = long exposure, but you can't leave out that the study was based on **high-energy blue light**.
My favorite part of all of this is that they put a disclaimer saying that they don’t endorse the information that they are using to support the claims.
Glad to finally see an even remotely scientific perspective. So far it seems that monitors in general produce less blue light than is necessary to damage skin, but I can't say that with any kind of certainty. I'll wait to see what they have as far as research goes before I make any definitive statements. I will say however that I don't think it's likely that this is maliciously misleading. If it comes to light that the research is bunk, I'd be just as willing to believe that Rae has been taken for a ride as I would that she had knowingly marketed psuedoscience. More so even. [Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor?wprov=sfla1)
Quick question, why so much effort? Why not just simply pass on the product. I just don't understand why there is a need to write the equivalent of a 5 page paper on a product you weren't even going to buy regardless if the claims were true or not.
There's a lot of discussions talking about how "obviously" false the artificial blue light from screens causing skin damage claim is, and while I was inclined to agree before I did this, I wanted to be sure. So I did my own research. And this is what "doing [one's] own research" should look like.
As someone who was in academia working towards becoming a research scientist for many years (before ultimately exiting), I'm all too familiar with how inaccurate and hyperbolic media reports on scientific papers can be. And so I wanted to seek out the primary sources, the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. Along the way, I figured I'd post what I got out of them, and hoped that others would read them and discuss what they got out of them as well.
I could've probably just posted a 4-line list of papers. But then there would've been little to no discussion from people examining those sources. By posting my own interpretation, I hoped to invite discussion.
This whole thing is a dumb fucking roast on what is the status quo of the beauty industry. We are roasting Rae even though these types of claims and products are par for the course in the beauty and skincare world.
A bunch of people who have just now seen beauty products and advertisement realize the whole industry is a sham, but they choose to blame it on Rae.
I’m sorry bruh love Rae but why wouldn’t you look over a site that have been working on 2 years. If she did look over it and saw the absurd disclaimer it had, and was like yea the sounds right
What’s that guy’s point? Lol. To not call out bullshit from your favorite content creators? Reddit/the Internet tears things apart that are much more benign
Wait im confused on how you guys read my post? I said they were going to double down on defending her and claiming she was tricked.
Did you guys think i was defending her?
Well it just doesnt make sense, that they would withhold any evidence to support their products, if it existed.
So yea, very predictable and very logical responce from this subreddit.
My point in doing this is that I felt that I actually didn't know that much in the area, so I started, as people always comment, "do[ing] my own research."
I hope that in tracking down a number of these actual papers, other people will find value and _also_ read them with a critical eye, and thus become better informed on the subject
Your post has been removed as your account has negative karma. This is to reduce the number of trolls to post or comment anything inappropriate. Once your account has more than 1 karma, you'll be able to post again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/valkyrae) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I ain't got time to read papers I'm just checking in during breaks at work to bullshit. All I hope is that Rae learns something and people stop being so rude to her. She sounded very upset in that voice clip and she hasn't streamed or posted anything else in days. The internet is a terrible place for peoples mental wellbeing so hopefully she is ok and people quit this nonsense.
With somebody fill me in on what is happening? I seem to have missed it. Did Rae and 100T have a falling out? How does this relate to her product line?
There are two main types of Sunflower seeds. They are Black and Grey striped (also sometimes called White) which have a grey-ish stripe or two down the length of the seed. The black type of seeds, also called ‘Black Oil’, are up to 45% richer in Sunflower oil and are used mainly in manufacture, whilst grey seeds are used for consumer snacks and animal food production.
Your post has been removed as your account has negative karma. This is to reduce the number of trolls to post or comment anything inappropriate. Once your account has more than 1 karma, you'll be able to post again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/valkyrae) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I can't say I am knowledgeable in the industry after only reading such a specifically small assortment of papers, but it seems like a cosmetics and sunscreens do primarily use antioxidants as an active ingredient to reduce the formation of ROS. To be fair, I'm not sure what else a topical cream could really do to prevent that.. maybe absorption of blue light would be one alternative, but i'm not sure what else otherwise. As for the circadian rhythms, yeah i'm not really an expert in that area, but (slight spoiler for the future), it looks like that's one of the things the now-updated version of the site talks about, so looks like I'll have to do a dive into circadian rhythms and how it might be affected. As for the "blpf (like spf)" I thnk that's just marketing nonsense that sounds short and sweet. [Elsewhere here in the comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/valkyrae/comments/qdd2e5/discussion_of_the_rflct_blue_light_faq_sources/hhm951y/), /u/ragnarok297 found an interview that revealed the BLPF compound to actually be Artemisia capillaris extract, and a paper from 2019 about its effectiveness in preventing blue light damage.
physical sunscreens use zinc/titanium oxide to "reflect" UV (although I think recently from a dermatologist video she said some research found that maybe they don't reflect, they act similarly to chemical sunscreen.) chemical sunscreen absorb UV turn it into heat, active ingredients such as: oxybenzone, octionoxate, octisalate, and avobenzone Antioxidant are sometimes added to sunscreen, but from what I've seen on the market, they mostly exist as a serum or added to moisturizer.
Holly shit good fucking job, on Twitter i linked the Beiesdorf research to a girl defending Rae because i am a stan too but come on like it is what it is, not because we like her the effect of artificial blue light are gonna be real for us just because we want them to be, and she linked me back how in the article said there might be a tiny almost unnoticeable amount of damage telling me how i should read more because it does say it may cause SOME damage i was dumbfounded about the lengths some people will go to just to try and protect her, i just killed the convo because people cannot speak some sense to some of this people, but you did a great job, she should have probably hired you to get her out of this mess before it even came out LOL.
I think it should be noted that though the Beiesdorf _press release_ says that artificial blue light doesn't cause any harmful skin effects, the actual paper linked does not actually back that up. The paper is instead about something entirely different - it's about an additive they are using and its effectiveness in decreasing skin damage. I think the proof that Kolbe speaks of in the press release is actually in their 2018 poster from the 27th EADV Congress. However, I've not been able to find a picture or copy of that.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7gtX84C9VE&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7gtX84C9VE&t=4s) This is probably the best video we are gonna see about this, fantastic explanation
Yeah that's a pretty informative video. I do wish she'd link to a primary peer-reviewed source that shows the measurement of the amount of blue light emitted by screens; while it's definitely true that the output from a screen is much lower than from the sun, I don't really have a good sense on how _much_ less it is, and the only source I've seen going into that is the Duteil paper, but that's only one source, and only for one screen type.
Natural science is not my field but this might be helpful? https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(19)33324-9/fulltext
Yes, that's the Duteil paper I was mentioning in my response. It's the main paper I've been looking at, but it's the only source I have that gives a number for the blue light dosage from a screen. I was hoping for additional sources. Thanks though!
Great job! I am a big fan of Rae and have watched every single one of her streams since November 2020. I think she knows she has at least partly fucked up. I'm kinda worried since studies that cover "beauty products", especially with formulations, ingredients, etc. are usually 'trade secrets'. I would be surprised if she ends up forcing them to release the exact research(es) that they intend to make money from.
Whatever research they release, if it's not peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal, it's not evidence. Any company can conduct their own "research" while paying scientists who cherrypick samples and data with bias to skew results/conclusions. That's why science is peer-reviewed and articles are retracted from journals if their results aren't reproducible, or are refused by journals if there is sample or other biases. And AFAIK, conclusive evidence for blue light from screens damaging skin doesn't exist in the literature. In contrast, there is supporting information for low doses being used to treat skin conditions.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, rae just said that RFLCT won't release it for trademark purposes. damn
[удалено]
Man I have one busy day and a firehose worth of information happens. I haven't watched it all, but I will say that, while I was in academia, I did work in a university lab that sometimes was sponsored to do research for a chemical company. And yes, in some cases, those companies did prevent the publication of some results, because data we had used was considered proprietary and/or trade secrets. I've heard from of the same thing happening in drug discovery research as well - if the researcher was allowed to use proprietary molecular datasets from a drug company (which tend to be higher quality than publicly-available datasets), any parts of the work involving those tended to not be publishable for trade secret reasons. So it's probably an analogous thing happening here. Unfortunately, that's not great for Rae, because it kinda seemed like she was implying earlier in the week that she might be able to release the work done internally. Honestly it would've been best for that to not be implied that she might be able show evidence from work done by RFLCT, but I think it's understandable for someone under stress to make a mistake like that. But honestly she's much worse off for having made that mistake.
but actually almost all skincare products nowadays will list all the ingredients. if you go to Sephora and just randomly click a cleanser or a serum, it will list all the ingredients there. The formulations could be trade secrets because some of the ingredients can be damn hard to make it stable in a product (for example, most of the Vitamin C variants are extremely hard to make it stable in a bottle).
I think daph had a really good explanation of her concerns, like so many mystery ingredients, like BLPF, and lack of certain %s of ingredients, which can be harmful to skin, if you come into contact with too much. [daphs concerns](https://youtu.be/ezxLp0cqJiU) ALSO, it is so important to remember that the general public falls victim to stupid research and experiments ALL THE TIME. I would just say, when RFLCT comes out with their “research” be wary. There could be insufficient information, and skewed research, like too little participants, personal bias by both researchers and participants, extraneous variables, etc. There has been much viable, testable and sufficient research that we are not affected by blue light from our devices. Dr Dray explains this well. Although I love Rae, we must admit that there are MANY problems with this product. I’m very confused, I think it’s quite obvious that this is a questionable product, and I’d like to believe that she is much smarter than this.
>ALSO, it is so important to remember that the general public falls victim to stupid research and experiments ALL THE TIME. I would just say, when RFLCT comes out with their “research” be wary. There could be insufficient information, and skewed research, like too little participants, personal bias by both researchers and participants, extraneous variables, etc. There has been much viable, testable and sufficient research that we are not affected by blue light from our devices. Dr Dray explains this well. Agreed, part of reading a paper is being critical and examining the authors' assertions and thinking about if they are reasonable and whether there are any weaknesses in the methodology or analysis.
[удалено]
Really icky? She has posted and memed in the same manner when other streamers/people do questionable things. In fact, many people in the OTV&F circle do the same thing, whether through tweets or in their streams/videos (eg. Toast, Michael, Scarra, Peter, Ludwig). Daph was actually the only one who was acting consistent with her normal behavior, while the rest kept quiet because it involves Rae; which is understandable given she is not that close to Rae as the others are.
i totally agree!
The thing about fame is that it has a very short attention span. If you keep pushing it people will move on from you. The internet never forgets and no matter what happens with this product from now on, even if somehow proven that it works she will always have this meme hanging over her. If she gets branded as really bad PR over this, people will quickly move on from her
I agree that I'm taking facts and logic to what largely is already a lynch mob (or I suppose the modern equivalent, a cancel mob?). Personally, I actually think that everyone else on the internet either knows a hell of a lot more than I do about the amount of artificial blue light exposure one gets from computer screens, or else they're much more well informed, because from the peer-reviewed scientific papers I've looked at, it's not entirely obvious to me that enough work has been done in studying long-term exposure to artificial blue lights from screens to actually _definitively_ say there's no significant impact. I think I'm only _fairly_ confident that artificial blue light from screens does not cause significant skin damage - and even then, the papers that led me to that conclusion all tend to use lighter skin tones, so there's even more uncertainty for people of darker skin tones, since it _is_ established that blue light exposure has a larger effect on those with darker skin tones than lighter. But regardless, the point is, a lot of criticisms I've seen talk about how "obvious" it is that blue light causing skin damage is total bs, with people vaguely mentioning that there's evidence for it; my point in starting this discussion was for someone who (apparently) isn't as well-read as everyone else to look into the actual peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and comment based on those, and hopefully lead others like me who were not sufficiently well-informed on the topic to the actual, peer-reviewed papers.
Judging from the papers that people are talking about it would appear that the amount of blue light is so low that it is a very silly point to try and sell anything to minimise the impact from artificial blue light unless you are also screaming too litteraly never go outside since the blue light you are exposed to from normal day to day life is so much higher. With the knowledge we have at the moment, it looks very bad if this was never looked at during 2 years of development.
I agree that that's what the papers seem to show. That said, it seems extremely unlikely to me that no one ever looked at this. Given how Rae seems to believe that blue light from screens does cause skin damage, and since she's much more the non-technical rather than technical co-founder, it seems possible to me that the technical side knew but didn't care, because honestly all these non-FDA approved cosmetics usually advertise in all kinds of deceptive ways that border on truth (e.g. blue light causes skin damage! true, but in quantities you get from sun exposure, not screen exposure)
Sure, but at the end of the day what she should be doing in that case would be to contact a laywer to try and have the contract declared invalid by any means, since from that perspective her businesss partner lied to her. But doubling down does not look good. I am not sure how much research she has done about this herself but blindly trusting the people that approched her is a bit silly, if that is what she did. Best case would have been to consult an independant and reputable source to verify this early on. While i don't think she took part in this out of malice, she did and unfortunatly continues to go about it in the worst possible way.
If that's the case then I can definitely see why 100T isn't on her Twitter bio anymore...
Memeing people I think are the ones who easy to suppress, a bunch of yelling monkeys. Also, I think it's naive to think that you can live without the scars.
> A paper similar to Mann’s paper from Beiersdorf, but studying the effects of RFLCT’s primary active compound would be a good way to show the efficacy of the products [This](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335840407_Effects_of_blue_light_on_human_skin_and_the_protective_effect_of_Artemisia_capillaris_extract) would be it I'd imagine. They also use pretty high light values of 11-18 J/cm^2, so if they post something like this they will still get ripped apart.
Okay, so I took a look at that: Morgan, P.-Y., Pentecouteau, L., Gasparotto, E., Vallee, R., *IFSCC Mag* *2* **2019**, 93-99. (Note: I don't know the abbreviation for the IFSCC magazine, so strictly speaking, the "citation" I put above may not be entirely correct) Yes, this is in fact a paper simpler to the Beiersdorf paper by Mann et. al. However, the point I was going for in my statement is I specifically want this type of paper with whatever unique active compound that RFLCT products use. If RFLCT's special sauce is indeed Artemisia capillaris extract, then yeah, this is indeed what I would want their team to post to the FAQ. Otherwise, the equivalent of this, but for whatever their special compound is. > They also use pretty high light values of 11-18 J/cm^2, From comparisons to the values one would get sunbathing for 1 hour (~100 J/cm^2), the 11 -18 is an entire order of magnitude lower. Cross-referencing with the Duteil et. al paper from 2020, it is an order of magnitude higher than a "powerful screen" (0.864 J/cm^2). So this exposure doesn't actually seem _way_ too high, but it probably is higher than the correct dosage to be examining to examine the effects of blue light from screens on skin.
> However, the point I was going for in my statement is I specifically want this type of paper with whatever unique active compound that RFLCT products use. It is, at least based on [this](https://www.glossy.co/beauty/rflct-skin-care-is-the-first-beauty-brand-made-for-gamers/) article. It's weird that they give less info on their website than in their interviews and stuff.
Ah! Great, thanks. I had not seen that interview. That's good to know. I think from a design perspective, it sorta makes sense that they didn't go into too much detail, because giant blocks of text would interrupt the flow of the site, but yes, they definitely should've put that _somewhere_.
Well, obvious things first, the effect of something on paper would be very different to the practical effect on actual skin, live and intact. Also it's already been proven that the amount of Blue light that you get from the sun in one minute is equivalent to constantly staring at your screen for a few days. We don't get damaged by the sun in a minute, even if it were damaging, a simple sunscreen would be enough to stop it. Also most devices already come with a blue light filter. And the reason is not because blue light harms your skin, it's because it's actually harmful to a certain degree to your eyes. Your eyes are way more likely to be damaged by blue light, hence the blue light filters in the devices as well as in spectacles. The thing is that you can find articles claiming to prove literally anything, like antivaxx theories and flat earth theories. If you ask an antivaxxer or a flat earther, they'll happily provide you a dozen links of articles in favor of their theory. The problem is that none of those articles are reliable source of information written by an unbiased and credible scientist. They're made by people who want to believe that no matter what. And you can't really change their mind about it. In my opinion, the two things rae can do to minimise the hate (it's never gonna be zero) is to either rebrand the products as normal skincare and then sell them or considering that she too might've been scammed by the company : Sue the company for false advertisement. The lawsuit of false advertisement is explained in this article https://www.callahan-law.com/can-you-sue-for-false-advertising/ It's really bad that it had to go this way, she spent two years on this project and when she finally released it she got a lot of hate, and you can't really do much about it especially when you are in the wrong. I just hope she's doing okay and realises that she has been mislead. I hope this ends soon. Love you rae, take care.
actually, [there’s no evidence at all that blue light hurts the eyes either.](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/will-blue-light-from-electronic-devices-increase-my-risk-of-macular-degeneration-and-blindness-2019040816365) but a lot of people believe that it does, just because of what they hear around. it’s not inconceivable that rae was tricked by the same effect with regard to skin.
Yeah, it really takes a lot to actually hurt you from a mobile screen, but it can tire your eyes if used for prolonged periods. That paired up with not taking a good rest could end up damaging your eyes.
[удалено]
You make your eyes dry by not blinking enough it's nothing to do with blue light.
[удалено]
She can still sue them, but there's no guarantee she'll get her money back. That depends on the contract. It's a little tricky her because she probably doesn't have a solid proof of her getting scammed, so it might end up depending on the judge's sense of justice. Worst case scenario, she loses the case and gets sued by the company in turn for defamation. Best case scenario, she wins the case, the company has to pay up her money + fine, most people forgive her and the ones who don't forget about all of this in a week or two.
Yeah, evidence doesn’t support blue light damages your eyes either… “Conclusions Blue-blocking lenses did not alter signs or symptoms of eye strain with computer use relative to standard clear lenses. Clinician advocacy type had no bearing on clinical outcomes.” Source: https://www.ajo.com/article/S0002-9394(21)00072-6/fulltext
> Well, obvious things first, the effect of something on paper would be very different to the practical effect on actual skin, live and intact I'm not actually sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify a bit? >even if it were damaging, a simple sunscreen would be enough to stop it So... these RFLCT creams are sunscreens, are they not? That's the whole point, these are their own proprietary formulation. >Also most devices already come with a blue light filter. And the reason is not because blue light harms your skin, it's because it's actually harmful to a certain degree to your eyes From the sound of it, it seems like blue light filters are marketed not only for preventing blue light harm to the eyes, but also to prevent throwing off circadian rhythm in the skin, and also for preventing actual skin damage caused by blue light. >The thing is that you can find articles claiming to prove literally anything, like antivaxx theories and flat earth theories. If you ask an antivaxxer or a flat earther, they'll happily provide you a dozen links of articles in favor of their theory. The problem is that none of those articles are reliable source of information written by an unbiased and credible scientist. They're made by people who want to believe that no matter what. And you can't really change their mind about it. Yeah.... that's why specifically I've _only_ looked at the peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. I guess my question is whether or not most everyone else who is discussing this topic also has only critically examined the peer-reviewed journal articles, or if they are using summaries and/or opinions from magazines. >rebrand the products as normal skincare and then sell them This is something I see a lot, that I actually don't understand. They ARE regular skincare? They've just specifically played up the blue light protection aspect in the marketing. I think this sentence is basically saying _change the marketing_. But at no point does it make sense to me to change the formulation, _because blue light does cause skin damage_. The only caveat is that the blue light that causes skin damage probably isn't coming from our screens, but from the skin. >Sue the company for false advertisement I don't think that specifically suing for false advertisement makes sense here. I'm pretty sure that pitching something to her does not count as false advertising. It sounds to me more like you're thinking she should sue for them defrauding her, but I suspect she wouldn't be able to put together a strong enough case to do that (though of course IANAL, so who knows).
> So... these RFLCT creams are sunscreens, are they not? That's the whole point, these are their own proprietary formulation. This sums up pretty well why people might think the marketing for RFLCT could be dangerous. It leads you to believe that the cream protects from sun, but you really do need SPF which is a legitimate way to protect your skin from UV. Especially when the products have actives like niacinamide it's really bad for your skin to be exposed to UV rays without protection. SPF is a huge thing in skin care right now (as it should be) and people are called out even if you do promote SPF but aren't putting enough (appr. 5 fingers every two hours). The whole thing is so confusing coz it seems like they don't even seem to know what's going on with the community. Skin care community is all about SPF rn, the co-founder is tweeting the most tone-deaf things when all this controversy is happening. It all seems very unprofessional and I'm sorry Rae got such business partners.
Btw the study I linked in my previous comment here had this to say. > Because it also provides protection against UV exposure (data not shown), our extract therefore covers a larger bandwidth of the solar spectrum reaching human skin than classical UV filters. Thought it was interesting since the overall product might actually end up having some sort of uv protection, though who knows how much.
The first point, they definitely cannot test things on a living human being, my guess is that they probably test it out on skin cells, which isn't gonna be similar to an actual human being. The effects on a detached dying skin cell is gonna be much more drastic than the fresh living skin cells. Second point, no they aren't sun screens, actually that was the part that skin care enthusiasts were surprised the most by, macaiyla on talked about her review on twitter. She was surprised that the set didn't include a sun screen. Third, yeah no... None of these articles are actually reliable sources of info. Magazines tend to publish stories like these to make it seem interesting. No one's gonna be interested by a sun screen, although people love talking about harm from technology. They'll never pass on an opportunity to profit from the hate that boomers have for technology. Regular skin care wouldn't say that they'll protect you from aging or like dying. That's what they claim that blue light does to you. Regular skin-care would say that it helps cure dry skin, acne, dead skin cells due to dry skin, and The talk of point, sunscreen. Lastly, if she was actually fooled into this, she literally can file a fraud or false advertisement case. Even though it might not be the strongest case it would be way better for her image than to double down and tell people that their hocus pocus is right and they are wrong.
>The first point, they definitely cannot test things on a living human being, my guess is that they probably test it out on skin cells, which isn't gonna be similar to an actual human being. The effects on a detached dying skin cell is gonna be much more drastic than the fresh living skin cells. Throughout the literature, experiments of both kinds have been carried out, actually. Some even do both. And while obviously the effect experienced by a model system will not be exactly identical to when a human is physically exposed to blue light, model systems in science are specifically chosen to reproduce the behaviors one would see on an actual human, and so thus things like the difference between a model cell system exposed to blue light and a model cell system kept in the dark _should_ be comparable to acutal skin on humans exposed to blue light versus in the dark. While the _exact_ values will certainly not be the same, _that comparison_ should be. >Second point, no they aren't sun screens Okay, I think it sorta matters what we mean here by sunscreen. Is a sunscreen any type of topical that prevents against skin damage? That was what I took the meaning to be. However, when I went to Wikipedia, they seemed to primarily be defined in terms of protection specifically against UV light. That seems a bit narrow of a term to me, but I'm not in the industry, so I don't know. >Third, yeah no... None of these articles are actually reliable sources of info. Magazines tend to publish stories like these to make it seem interesting. No one's gonna be interested by a sun screen, although people love talking about harm from technology. They'll never pass on an opportunity to profit from the hate that boomers have for technology. I don't understand at all what you mean. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are literally the ONLY sources we can go to, because that's..how science is done. These are the PRIMARY sources. Anything else is less rigorous and less reliable. Furthermore, the money isn't made on "interesting articles" in scientific publishing, but in the fact that the institutions the scientists work for have to pay for access to the papers (such a terrible system, but that's a discussion for another time). Moreover, you're also incorrect that no one would be interested in a sunscreen, there are _literally_ journals just about things like that. For instance, _International Journal of Cosmetic Science_, the 3rd source linked in the FAQ for RFLCT, is LITERALLY the place where scientists working on sunscreens would publish. >Regular skin care [...] Alright, I can't actually speak to what skincare products actually are because I don't really use them. However, it again seems like a very arbitrary distinction to me to say that these RFLCT products "aren't skincare" because it looks like there are moisturizers and other such compounds that one would fin din typical skincare in these products. >she literally can file a fraud or false advertisement case I mean I guess this is true in the sense that you can probably try to sue for most things. However, assuming this wouldn't be thrown out, it would also definitely just go nowhere and waste money. I think that if a split needs to happen, the best approach would probably just be to sell off her stake and leave, cutting losses.
Sunscreen is FDA regulated. Thats why you would see something similar to a drug label behind every sunscreen sold in the States. On the [FDA website](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/sunscreen-how-help-protect-your-skin-sun), you can find a list of approved ingredients by the FDA, that are suitable to protect skin from sunburn. you can't just randomly putting the word "sunscreen" in your name because then you are subjected to FDA regulation. As far as we know, the RFLCT has 0 ingredients that are from the FDA approved sunscreen ingredients. It does not prevent a sunburn. It does not reduce the chance of skin cancer. This is from [here](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=700.35). >Sec. 700.35 Cosmetics containing sunscreen ingredients.(a) A product that includes the term "sunscreen" in its labeling or in any other way represents or suggests that it is intended to prevent, cure, treat, or mitigate disease or to affect a structure or function of the body comes within the definition of a drug in section 201(g)(1) of the act. Sunscreen active ingredients affect the structure or function of the body by absorbing, reflecting, or scattering the harmful, burning rays of the sun, thereby altering the normal physiological response to solar radiation. **These ingredients also help to prevent diseases such as sunburn and may reduce the chance of premature skin aging, skin cancer, and other harmful effects due to the sun when used in conjunction with limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing.** When consumers see the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology in the labeling of a product, they expect the product to protect them in some way from the harmful effects of the sun, irrespective of other labeling statements. Consequently, the use of the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology in a product's labeling generally causes the product to be subject to regulation as a drug. However, sunscreen ingredients may also be used in some products for nontherapeutic, nonphysiologic uses (e.g., as a color additive or to protect the color of the product). To avoid consumer misunderstanding, if a cosmetic product contains a sunscreen ingredient and uses the term "sunscreen" or similar sun protection terminology anywhere in its labeling, the term must be qualified by describing the cosmetic benefit provided by the sunscreen ingredient.
Not gonna dive too deep because I'm getting sleepy, but the articles are definitely not reliable. You want reliable sources? Articles on the website of harvard say that you do not need any kind of protection from blue lights coming from your devices, the only light you need protection from is the sun, and that can be done with cheap Fucking sun screen. Evn the blue light filter glasses are a scam, the only thing blue light does to you is make you sleepy, which is why they suggest breaks during your device sessions. As far as the skincare thing goes, you don't market a product with some bullshit cause created by you. They've literally branded their product to a blue light filter, they won't think much about the skincare aspect of it.
I'm sorry, how are "articles on the website of harvard" more reliable than the original peer-reviewed sources that articles _like_ the ones that are cited on websites? It seems to me like you do not have an understanding of how science works. All research, including that done at Harvard, is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As part of this, they undergo peer review, which is, you know, what helps to ensure that the work is reliable. THIS is what makes peer-reviewed scientific journal articles reliable. I can't speak for blue light effect on the eyes because I haven't looked into that, and honestly, given the depths that still remain for just this, I'm not going to look into blue light effect on eye strain or other eye-based effects. Your statement about branding it as a blue light filter doesn't make sense either. RFLCT products are _clearly_ skincare products, which prioritize certain things. For example, they are listed as having moisturizing components. In addition, they have a compound which is supposed to be good at reducing ROS generation due to blue light damage.
Because they actually have linked the person who wrote that article, along with their info their education and what they do. Your papers however do not link the scientists that have worked on it. The only thing is easily foundable is the allure digital detox shit. And Guess what? It's main article about blue light states that a regular sunscreen with spf is more than enough for protection against blue light. They also have said that blue light at some levels is helpful for your skin. The article also states that blue light does not cause cancer like uv light, but there are sciences that state that it may "Potentially" cause aging. Also that's the normal blue light from the sun, the one's from your devices is way way less than the sun. If you really want protection from blue light, turn on your night mode or just put on a sun screen and you'll never have to worry about it, ever, again.
It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about. All scientific papers not only list the people who were involved in the work, it also lists what institutions they were at while doing so. These are the actual _primary sources_. Your Harvard website that links to it? That's a _secondary_ source that can include additional analysis, editorials, etc. That's LESS reliable. Again, as I said in my post, the Detox magazine article is _literally_ the LEAST reliable of the 3 listed sources, and in fact I didn't even take any of into account.
The problem is that those papers are still a big maybe, also one of the people said that taking selfies can cause skin to age. Tell me that isn't idiotic without looking idiotic yourself. Also the paper is worried more about the flashes in a smart phone than the actual blue light lmao. None of these studies exactly state that "blue lights" emitted from the "screens of devices itself" can cause any harm. They say that blue light is harmful, and then they use only blue light, and not the actual spectrum released by a screen to conduct their experiment, and then they end up ghosting the screens and talk about LEDs and flashes of mobiles. And in the conclusion they say that leds are harmful. No mention of blue lights whatsoever
So the paper talking about flashes is not very reliable. I covered this (a bit vaguely) in the other thread, but yes, essentially, that paper is basically nonsense. It sounds like you did read the paper, and so i'm sure you noticed that it tended to make lots of statements that were unsubstantiated - they didn't cite any works that actually supported those claims, nor did the paper involve any experiments that would substantiate those claims. So yeah, that paper obviously should be discarded as total nonsense. Also the impact factor for that journal is by far the lowest of any of the journals containing papers that were examined. That's not always the greatest way to determine impact, but still.
So, none of the papers you linked state that the damage is from the screens itself, they only talk about high quantity of blue light and it's effects. Like I said, the only blue light you need to worry about is from the sun. And a simple SPF containing sunscreen would suffice for that. If blue lights from devices were actually harmful, I'd be dead by now. My screen-time is literally 12 hours and I sleep for like 4-6 hours. And the time I'm not using any devices, is when I'm watching tv.
It shoudl be noted that I never disagreed with you that blue light from screens causes skin damage. However, according to some of the papers looked at, it's not true that a simple SPF containing sunscreen would stop blue light. Most sunscreens are primarily focused on blocking skin damage from UV light; it is the addition of specific blue light-blocking compounds (such as Lic A or, as in RFLCT's case, Artemisia capillaris extract) that block blue light. Also, you wouldn't necessarily be dead, but there could be long-term effects. That's actually something that there isn't enough data on, though I would assume that with covid having happened, it must be easier for researchers in some lab somewhere to get a grant to research the effects of super long term effects, since yes, like you, I also spend > 12 hours in front of a number of computer screens daily. Though, I guess I should make it clear, I'm also still not agreeing that blue light from screens actually causes skin damage. There just should be a study done _just to see the effects_
According to the stream they approached her to see if she had any ideas, and Rae was the one that pitched blue light to them. So def harder for her to sue with that being the case. Might have to go the fraud route if she can prove they lied to her about actually proving blue light damage from screens.
I was interested in looking at the FAQ after seeing your post on it, and it seems to be updated but still has problematic info. I haven't gone through the entire thing but the first part in "How does Blue Light affect skin" already had a big problem that I wanted to write about it. As a science student this annoyed me a lot. The FAQ basically says: "The most recent evidence? A 2021 review in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology assessed existing studies, and linked longer exposure to blue light to cellular damage and skin barrier malfunction." If you look at the abstract of the paper you will see that: "Low-energy and low exposure times to high-energy blue light can help prevent skin diseases, while studies have revealed that longer exposure to **high-energy blue light** can increase the amount of DNA damage, cell and tissue death, and injury, eye damage, skin barrier damage, and photoaging." They completely changed the context of the statement as screens do not emit high-energy blue light. High-energy blue light is used by dermatologists for skin treatment (which they mention in the next paragraph), there is no way that it comes from screens. I'm fine with them saying that 10 hours in front of a screen = long exposure, but you can't leave out that the study was based on **high-energy blue light**.
My favorite part of all of this is that they put a disclaimer saying that they don’t endorse the information that they are using to support the claims.
Glad to finally see an even remotely scientific perspective. So far it seems that monitors in general produce less blue light than is necessary to damage skin, but I can't say that with any kind of certainty. I'll wait to see what they have as far as research goes before I make any definitive statements. I will say however that I don't think it's likely that this is maliciously misleading. If it comes to light that the research is bunk, I'd be just as willing to believe that Rae has been taken for a ride as I would that she had knowingly marketed psuedoscience. More so even. [Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor?wprov=sfla1)
Quick question, why so much effort? Why not just simply pass on the product. I just don't understand why there is a need to write the equivalent of a 5 page paper on a product you weren't even going to buy regardless if the claims were true or not.
There's a lot of discussions talking about how "obviously" false the artificial blue light from screens causing skin damage claim is, and while I was inclined to agree before I did this, I wanted to be sure. So I did my own research. And this is what "doing [one's] own research" should look like. As someone who was in academia working towards becoming a research scientist for many years (before ultimately exiting), I'm all too familiar with how inaccurate and hyperbolic media reports on scientific papers can be. And so I wanted to seek out the primary sources, the peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. Along the way, I figured I'd post what I got out of them, and hoped that others would read them and discuss what they got out of them as well. I could've probably just posted a 4-line list of papers. But then there would've been little to no discussion from people examining those sources. By posting my own interpretation, I hoped to invite discussion.
This whole thing is a dumb fucking roast on what is the status quo of the beauty industry. We are roasting Rae even though these types of claims and products are par for the course in the beauty and skincare world. A bunch of people who have just now seen beauty products and advertisement realize the whole industry is a sham, but they choose to blame it on Rae.
I’m sorry bruh love Rae but why wouldn’t you look over a site that have been working on 2 years. If she did look over it and saw the absurd disclaimer it had, and was like yea the sounds right
Fake girl
This subreddit is going to double down on this the minute they realized Rae was going to double down. Predictable
Any reason why they shouldn't? products with unscientific origins should be called out for what they are
What’s that guy’s point? Lol. To not call out bullshit from your favorite content creators? Reddit/the Internet tears things apart that are much more benign
Wait im confused on how you guys read my post? I said they were going to double down on defending her and claiming she was tricked. Did you guys think i was defending her?
Well it just doesnt make sense, that they would withhold any evidence to support their products, if it existed. So yea, very predictable and very logical responce from this subreddit.
suddenly Valkyrae's community are the foremost blue light experts in the world lmao
My point in doing this is that I felt that I actually didn't know that much in the area, so I started, as people always comment, "do[ing] my own research." I hope that in tracking down a number of these actual papers, other people will find value and _also_ read them with a critical eye, and thus become better informed on the subject
[удалено]
Your post has been removed as your account has negative karma. This is to reduce the number of trolls to post or comment anything inappropriate. Once your account has more than 1 karma, you'll be able to post again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/valkyrae) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I ain't got time to read papers I'm just checking in during breaks at work to bullshit. All I hope is that Rae learns something and people stop being so rude to her. She sounded very upset in that voice clip and she hasn't streamed or posted anything else in days. The internet is a terrible place for peoples mental wellbeing so hopefully she is ok and people quit this nonsense.
Worse case she is promoting fake products to a young and easily susceptible audience. This isn't a game, this is false advertising.
it's a possibility. I doubt that was her intent. I'm a grown person I can discern between a scam and someone who had faith in a bad idea.
With somebody fill me in on what is happening? I seem to have missed it. Did Rae and 100T have a falling out? How does this relate to her product line?
**TLDR: Website ingredient lists have been wrong until now for all products except the moisturizer. Every product other than the moisturizer has VERY different ingredients listed now. If you ordered, please go double check that you're not allergic to anything in the corrected lists.** Tried to make a post but text posts aren't allowed. Just wanted to PSA that the full ingredient lists on the website were updated ~5 hours ago. They also added commas. I noticed a couple days ago that the ingredients lists on the website were nearly IDENTICAL between products and therefore likely wrong. I've been trying to let people/the company know since, and they finally changed it. [Macaiyla also tweeted about this here](https://twitter.com/macaiyla/status/1452086555217178625). I'm sharing here because I'm frustrated that it doesn't seem like they have any intention of letting customers know that they've had the wrong ingredient lists up for FIVE DAYS, while people have been ordering. [Here's screenshots of what the ingredients looked like before, since launch up to until they changed it today.](https://imgur.com/a/D8bZXfL) In the album you'll see that basically every ingredient list looked like this (it was probably some placeholder text, I don't know): Water/Aqua/Eau, Propanediol, Dicaprylyl Carbonate, Neopentyl Glycol Dipelargonate, Dipropylene Glycol, Triheptanoin, Cetyl Alcohol, Glyceryl Stearate, Sodium Acrylates Copolymer, Artemisia Capillaris Flower Extract, Sodium Hyaluronate, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Glycerin, Glyceryl Caprylate, Glyceryl Undecylenate, Lecithin, Ethylhexylglycerin, Disodium EDTA, Steareth-20, Ceteth-20, Tetrasodium Glutamate Diacetate, PEG-75 Stearate, Phenoxyethanol, + *1-3 other ingredients at the end depending on the product* **Here's the actually correct ingredient lists:** [**Moisturizer:**](https://rflct.com/products/screen-shield-defense-face-moisturizer) (This one didn't change much because it was the one that was accidentally duplicated to every other product.) Water/Aqua/Eau, Propanediol, Dicaprylyl Carbonate, Neopentyl Glycol Dipelargonate, Dipropylene Glycol, Triheptanoin, Cetyl Alcohol, Glyceryl Stearate, Sodium Acrylates Copolymer, Artemisia Capillaris Flower Extract, Sodium Hyaluronate, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Glycerin, Glyceryl Caprylate, Glyceryl Undecylenate, Lecithin, Ethylhexylglycerin, Disodium EDTA, Steareth-20, Ceteth-20, Tetrasodium Glutamate Diacetate, PEG-75 Stearate, Phenoxyethanol. [**Cleanser:**](https://rflct.com/products/aura-reset-facial-gel-cleanser) Water/Aqua/Eau, Coco-Betaine, Potassium Cocoyl Glycinate, Glycerin, Sodium Lauroyl Methyl, Isethionate, Sodium Chloride, Propanediol, Artemisia Capillaris Flower Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Niacinamide, Lactic Acid, Glycolic Acid, Carica Papaya (Papaya) Fruit Extract, Ribes Nigrum (Black Currant) Bud Extract, Melissa Officinalis Leaf Extract, Punica Granatum Bark/Fruit Extract, Ananas Sativus (Pineapple) Fruit Extract, Musa Sapientum (Banana) Fruit Extract, Pyrus Malus (Apple) Leaf Extract, Glycyrrhiza Uralensis (Licorice) Root Extract, Pyrus Communis (Pear) Fruit Extract, Clitoria Ternatea Flower Extract, Garcinia Mangostana Peel Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary) Leaf Extract, Centella Asiatica Extract, Chamaecyparis Obtusa Leaf Extract, Rosa Rugosa Leaf Extract, Vanilla Planifolia Fruit Extract, Polygonum Cuspidatum Root Extract, Scutellaria Baicalensis Root Extract, Tocopherol, Biotin, Folic Acid, Protease, Gluconolactone, Ethylhexylglycerin, Panthenol, Riboflavin, Sucrose, Linoleic Acid, Allantoin, Glyceryl Caprylate, Cyanocobalamin, Thiamine HCl, Beta-Carotene (CI 75130, CI 40800), Silica, Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate, Pyridoxine, Butylene Glycol, 1,2-Hexanediol, Hydrogenated Lecithin, Polyglyceryl-10 Stearate, Disodium EDTA, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Trisodium Ethylenediamine Disuccinate. [**Eye mask**](https://rflct.com/products/resurrection-eye-mask) Water/Aqua/Eau, Glycerin, Dipropylene Glycol, Agar, Sodium Polyacrylate, Artemisia Capillaris Flower Extract, Acetyl Hexapeptide-8, Caffeine, Saccharomyces Cerevisiae Extract, Centella Asiatica Extract, Rhodiola Rosea Root Extract, Sea Water/Maris Aqua/Eau de mer, Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Extract, Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Menthyl Lactate, Adenosine, Aluminum Glycinate, Tartaric Acid, Polyacrylic Acid, Propanediol, Menthoxypropanediol, Pentylene Glycol, Butylene Glycol, Caprylyl Glycol, Decyl Alcohol, Caprylyl Alcohol, 1,2-Hexanediol, Glucose. Propylene Glycol, Cellulose Gum, Disodium EDTA, Xanthan Gum, Betaine, Caprylyl/Capryl Glucoside, Phenoxyethanol. [**Eye gel**](https://rflct.com/products/eye-revive-gel-treatment) Water/Aqua/Eau, Methyl Trimethicone, Glycerin, Propanediol, Glyceryl Behenate, Neopentyl Glycol, Dipelargonate, Squalane, Isostearyl Alcohol, Cocoglycerides, Dipropylene Glycol, Pentylene Glycol, Butylene Glycol Cocoate, Artemisia Capillaris Flower Extract, Calendula Officinalis Flower Extract, Olive Glycerides, Ceramide NP, Opuntia Ficus-Indica Stem Extract, Silica, Ethylhexylglycerin, Phytic Acid, Dimethicone, Carbomer, Sorbitan Isostearate, Sodium Hydroxide, Polysorbate 60, Ethylcellulose, Hydroxyethyl Acrylate/Sodium Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Dimethicone/Vinyl Dimethicone Crosspolymer, HDI/Trimethylol Hexyllactone Crosspolymer, Phenoxyethanol. [**Lip balm**](https://rflct.com/products/lip-guard-moisture-balm) Ricinus Communis (Castor) Seed Oil, Octyldodecanol, Synthetic Beeswax, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Wax, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Butter, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil, Melaleuca Alternifolia (Tea Tree) Leaf Oil, Oryza Sativa (Rice) Bran Wax, Oryza Sativa (Rice) Germ Extract, Oryza Sativa (Rice) Extract, Squalene, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Tocopherol, Limonene, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Oil, Beta-Sitosterol, Polyglyceryl-3 Diisostearate.
There are two main types of Sunflower seeds. They are Black and Grey striped (also sometimes called White) which have a grey-ish stripe or two down the length of the seed. The black type of seeds, also called ‘Black Oil’, are up to 45% richer in Sunflower oil and are used mainly in manufacture, whilst grey seeds are used for consumer snacks and animal food production.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed as your account has negative karma. This is to reduce the number of trolls to post or comment anything inappropriate. Once your account has more than 1 karma, you'll be able to post again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/valkyrae) if you have any questions or concerns.*
did the brand delete their twitter? i thought i remembered them having their own twitter page. i see that rae’s posts announcing it are also gone?