Hello! Welcome to Aesthetics, Unfiltered. While I am sure to stumble through my early exploration of this newsletter landscape, I hope the anecdotes, musings, and Q&As I eventually share will more than make up for my Substack shortcomings.
But first, a little about me and my intentions.
As a classic introvert, who was introverting way before it was cool, I don’t love talking about myself, so I’ll keep the bio brief. I’m a journalist covering the aesthetics space—plastic surgery and cosmetic dermatology: the people, the procedures, the politics.
I started in magazines—the words-on-paper kind that one could get lost in—in 1999, serving as a beauty editor for Redbook, and then later, Oprah and Allure. I’ve been freelancing for the past 15 years, writing for myriad print and digital outlets and holding various contributing editorships along the way (Fitness, Health, Allure, NewBeauty, RealSelf).
In my every story, I aim to deliver credible, candid, balanced reporting—which is trickier than it sounds.
Aesthetic medicine is a controversial field (part of its charm, really) with certain endemic foibles. A famous one that complicates my work is this: Pharmaceutical companies commonly form alliances with the doctors who use their injectables and devices, paying (or otherwise incentivizing) them to promote their products and accompanying claims. Thus, expert opinions are often at least semi-skewed if not profoundly biased.
Of course, human nature being what it is, the docs who are not recruited for these roles may feel a certain way about it and, consciously or not, develop prejudices of their own. This is pure speculation on my part, but still something I consider.
For the record, there are also doctors who actively resist industry entanglements and pride themselves on being say-anything free agents. I like these doctors.
In any case, it can be challenging to report the whole truth about medical procedures—all of which come with risks and drawbacks—when industry leaders, with conflicts of interest or personal agendas, are filtering facts.
In discussing this conundrum with one of the most ethical dermatologists I know, she wondered, “However did we get into the situation where it is considered desirable to become a salesperson after years of medical school and postgraduate training?”
Medicine and marketing make strange bedfellows, indeed.
But I digress.
Typically, before doctors even enter the editorial picture, writers must first convince editors that the story they hope to tell is suitable for publication. And some ideas are harder sells than others. Frequently, the stories that feel most urgent to me are rather prickly and risky to run.
See, the same pharmaceutical giants that are paying physicians to be “consultants” or “speakers” or “trainers” are also funneling advertising and/or sponsorship dollars into beauty magazines and digital platforms. Which means your go-to news source likely has skin in the game, and must choose their words carefully when reporting on a particular brand’s offerings. Sometimes it’s just easier for them to avoid delicate topics altogether.
Imagine, for example, that a specific type of dermal filler were earning a reputation for being a troublemaker, with multiple studies showing increased rates of complications. Throngs of injectors are vilifying it across social media—while countless more are defending the filler, suggesting that unsavory or imprudent injection practices may be to blame for the lumps and swelling it breeds. Or that the aforementioned studies are perhaps flawed, the data failing to account for this product’s unrivaled popularity (because the more syringes injected, the greater the potential for problems, naturally).
Here’s where brand loyalties often reveal themselves.
Nevertheless, this debate would be newsworthy—to the millions who get filler each year, especially. Wouldn’t you want to know if the gel being injected into your face was even maybe, possibly, the tiniest bit suspect? I would. Yet, media outlets will be understandably reluctant to touch this story for fear of irking the deep-pocketed purveyor of said product.
This scenario is nothing new, mind you, but brand influence does seem to be mightier than ever.
All of this is what brings me to Substack. I’m hoping (perhaps naively) to carve out a safe space in which to share all kinds of aesthetics news—good, bad, contentious—without worry of censorship or backlash (or litigation, please). To be an outlet for all the things we cannot say elsewhere.
Now, assuming I haven’t offended all of my beauty editor colleagues—the ones shrewdly navigating the hurdles of mainstream content creation—I’ll still be spending much of my time trading (carefully chosen) words for money. I have two kids to feed, clothe, and educate, so paying gigs will always take precedence.
Regardless, I’m excited to be here, spitballing for you. Please be patient with me as I attempt to give this thing legs. (Send me all your Substack tips, because I truly know nothing.) And if you have questions for me or topics you’d like me to address—Daxxify! Doctor dysmorphia! The latest breast implant alert!—please drop them in the comments below.
Juicy stuff coming soon. Until then, stay skeptical, friends. x
I’m very curious on your thoughts about semiglutide injection for weight loss. It’s catching moment atm and it just passed FDA approval. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-drug-treatment-chronic-weight-management-first-2014. And speaking of, FDA’s involvement and role in the medical aesthetic industry would be interesting to hear your thoughts on as well.
“Spitballing for you.” I’m here for this juice!!! And I wand you see it rain spitballs! ♥️Christen