Misinformation -2: Almost 95% of viral Korean skincare and 'glass skin' TikTok videos contain misleading claims

Among 38 viral TikTok videos on Korean skincare and “glass skin,” nearly 95% contained potentially misleading claims, and safety guidance was largely absent. All were rated unreliable or less reliable. Among 94 patients with skin problems after using social media-promoted products, 63% used more than three active ingredients; irritant contact dermatitis was most common (42%).
Almost 95% of the videos contained at least one misleading claim, while 84% failed to account for different skin types, 45% promoted excessive combinations of active ingredients without appropriate safety guidance and 32% promised instant results.
Consistently basic safety information was absent in these claims.
All videos were classified as unreliable or less reliable, while none cited an external source or reference. Nearly 82% were created by nonphysician influencers, 11% by beauty brands and 8% by other beauty content creators; none were produced by dermatologists.
The findings show a clear gap between the popularity of this content and the quality of the information provided.
Following these routines without individualized guidance may contribute to irritation, over-exfoliation, acne flares or skin barrier disruption, particularly when multiple active ingredients are combined.

The potential real-world consequences of following viral skin care trends were highlighted in a separate observational study presented at the EADV Congress 2026. The study involved 94 patients who developed a new or aggravated skin condition following the use of cosmetic or dermatological products promoted on social media.

Chemical exfoliants containing alpha-hydroxy acids (AHAs) or beta-hydroxy acids (BHAs) were the most frequently implicated products, reported in 34% of cases, followed by over-the-counter retinoids (27%), vitamin C serums (14%) and niacinamide-containing products (11%).

Almost half (48%) of patients had adopted complete skin care routines directly inspired by social media content, while 63% were simultaneously using more than three active skin care ingredients.
Many patients were reproducing complex skin care routines involving several active ingredients simultaneously, often based on advice from nonmedical influencers.
Reactions ranged from irritant contact dermatitis (42%) and acne onset or significant worsening (28%) to rosacea flares or rosacea-like dermatitis (12%), post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (11%) and superficial chemical burns (7%).

Combining several active ingredients can place excessive stress on the skin barrier since some have overlapping irritant effects.
The researchers stressed that Korean skin care itself is not the problem. Rather, the concern is that skin care principles such as gentle cleansing, hydration and barrier care can be transformed on social media into viral, one-size-fits-all routines without appropriate safety information.

Consumers should be cautious of content promising instant or universal results.
Anyone with an existing skin condition who develops irritation or is unsure whether a routine is appropriate for them should seek advice from a dermatologist.

If social media claims are 95% wrong, what should you do?

Stop believing them!

First check who made that video. If the person is not a qualified medical doctor, hit the ignore button.

But shall I tell you something from my own experience? Even some people who claim to be doctors give pseudo-scientific remedies for various ailments!

Several times I myself confronted them. But I never got "any replies" from them!

Did you know that a study reveals 52 US doctors shared misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other online platforms, including the claim that "most who took COVID vaccines will be dead by 2025."

Public health researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found physicians in various medical specialties spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and masks, with some reaching large audiences.

"This study was the first to identify the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians on social media and the platforms they used, as well as characterize the physicians who spread the misinformation," the researchers write in their published paper.

Misinformation has been around long before COVID-19, though its alarming spread during the pandemic potentially exacerbated the consequences of a global public health crisis.

Read this research paper by clicking on the link

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808358

How do doctors get their information? From scientists. From research papers. Well most of the time.

But some doctors spread misinformation and disinformation for financial gain ( on some social network platforms), political or ideological alignment, professional contrarianism, or genuine misinterpretation of evolving scientific data. [1,2,3]

While the vast majority of physicians adhere to evidence-based medicine, a small minority promote false claims due to specific drivers and incentives.

Okay, now you know that even some doctors spread misinformation. When I  showed evidence to my colleagues, they expressed surprise. 

People believe doctors. Atleast the highly qualified ones. 

But human beings are human beings. They have their own human mind inadequacies. If researchers link misinformation with some doctors, who would you believe? The doctors or researchers? 

So, what should you do now? What would I do in such circumstances?

I will go and search all the high quality medical journals to find out who is telling the truth. 

There is no alternative when trust deficit arrests your understanding. 

What should a common man do? He cannot do what I do. 

Then s/he can ask me to do the work for him/her. I will do it with pleasure!

I already do this for my colleagues, friends, relatives and sometimes even strangers.

Footnotes:

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10629927/

2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10186618/

3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11169184/