02/09/2026
“But there’s a clinical report on their website!”
Yes. I know. I looked at it. And this is exactly why having a report is not the same thing as having evidence for the claim being made…
The report says there was an 89% reduction in wrinkles and fine lines. But the brand’s website claims a 46.7% reduction in wrinkles. So… which is it?
More importantly, this report does not test the claim that this cream “works like Botox”. There’s no:
👉🏼 measurement of muscle activity,
👉🏼 no EMG data
👉🏼 no assessment of neuromuscular activity.
The measurements are all of cosmetic appearance (skin brightness, firmness, elasticity, wrinkle depth/count, etc.) which is not the same proof that a topical product is relaxing facial muscles in a Botox-like way.
There is also mention of methods like chromametry, cutometry and Antera 3D, but the results are described with SUBJECTIVE phrases like “helps in reduction” and “helps in improvement.”
Meanwhile, the 36 women’s (teeny tiny sample size!) SELF-evaluations give us the big, round numbers: 89%, 100%, 100%, 100%
That doesn’t make the self-reported results meaningless. BUT it does mean we need to distinguish subjective perception from objective measurement when we’re evaluating a marketing claim.
And there’s another important question: what was this cream compared against? The report doesn’t show any control group. That’s important because this cream contains several hydrating ingredients (as highlighted in the video), and moisturising the skin can itself make fine lines and wrinkles look less noticeable. 🤷🏽♀️
So this report can tell us that the participants’ skin appeared to improve over 28 days. It cannot, by itself, tell us that *argireline* caused those improvements, that this particular formulation reproduces results from studies on argireline, or that the cream “works like Botox”.
SKIN LOOKS BETTER ≠ THIS WORKS LIKE BOTOX
