Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
“Scientifically tested” means a dude (or dudette) did something, wrote about it and published it.
Most of it’s bogus anyway.
Which is expected. About 80% of research is low-quality: masters’ theses rephrasing known stuff, articles made to fill a quota, etc.
What “scientifically proven” means someone, including these 80% did something time and time again. And it stands. Change all the variables and it still stands: Sunscreen good, smoking bad. For kids, teenagers, adults - even animals. In summer and in winter. In small short tests of 50 and large longitudinal ones of 50.000.
It’s hard to know where to draw the line and give something the mark of “tested”. But in any case, it needs to stand strongly.
B…but if tiktok says something is true then it must be scientifically proven, right? No one would lie on the internet, right?
It’s better than scientifically proven! They made cute videos out of it! Isn’t that obviously more trustworthy?
you know what else was scientifically proven to work?
sunscreen and yet corporations still managed to find a ways to fuck consumers on that
I’m not saying you shouldn’t listen to actual experts, but lets not pretend even that is for sure safe
and now how do you even check if something has side effects, AI slop will probably tell you to heat kitty in the microwave to remove fleas
What’s wrong with sunscreen?
There’s nothing wrong with sunscreen in general, but they are probably referring to what happened recently in Australia:
And the lab issuing the fake results is based in the US :(
Of course it is. :(
The metal oxide kind was fine but had some non effectiveness issues about damaging marine coral. The other kinds are less reliable.
When you don’t define scientifically proven then yes it is.
“Scientifically tested” means a dude (or dudette) did something, wrote about it and published it.
Most of it’s bogus anyway.
Which is expected. About 80% of research is low-quality: masters’ theses rephrasing known stuff, articles made to fill a quota, etc.
What “scientifically proven” means someone, including these 80% did something time and time again. And it stands. Change all the variables and it still stands: Sunscreen good, smoking bad. For kids, teenagers, adults - even animals. In summer and in winter. In small short tests of 50 and large longitudinal ones of 50.000.
It’s hard to know where to draw the line and give something the mark of “tested”. But in any case, it needs to stand strongly.