Your credentials don’t automatically validate information.

Credentials – such as degrees, diplomas, certificates, and other qualifications—are important, but they do not automatically validate the information shared by those who hold them. This is especially relevant in the skincare, cosmetics, and aesthetics industries, where misinformation is often presented under the guise of expertise.

In many cases, the presence of credentials can create a false sense of trust. Individuals may appeal to their authority, expecting others to accept their claims solely based on their qualifications. This logical fallacy—known as an appeal to authority—occurs when someone asserts that a statement must be true simply because an expert or authority figure says it is, without offering evidence to support it.

This type of appeal can bypass your critical thinking and persuade you to accept information that may not be accurate or truthful. In some cases, this may be done intentionally, to influence your decisions and encourage you to buy products or services that aren’t in your best interest.

It’s important to recognise that not all professionals stay up to date with current science and best practices. Some rely on outdated knowledge, personal bias, or brand affiliations to inform their opinions. Others may cherry-pick data or ignore contradictory evidence, especially if doing so benefits them financially. This makes it critical for consumers to assess the quality of the information provided—not just the credentials of the person providing it.

Let’s take a closer look at a few real-world examples that highlight the misuse of authority in the industry.

Example One: Demonising Ingredients for Personal Gain

One individual—a nurse—frequently emphasises their qualifications, affiliations, and experience. On the surface, this gives the impression of credibility. However, this person has repeatedly shared misleading information.

In one instance, they claimed that silicones were causing skin issues for a client and advised avoiding all silicone-based products. Yet, the products they recommended (and sold) also contained silicones.

This contradiction not only undermines their credibility but also misinforms their audience. Silicones, such as dimethicone, are widely recognised as safe, non-comedogenic, and suitable for sensitive skin. They are commonly used to protect compromised skin barriers and enhance product texture.

Demonising ingredients without evidence not only damages consumer trust but can also lead people to avoid beneficial products. Silicones, for example, are often misunderstood because of their synthetic nature, but extensive research has shown they are non-irritating and well-tolerated. If a qualified professional fails to understand or acknowledge this, it raises serious questions about their commitment to evidence-based practice.

This case illustrates a clear misuse of authority: using credentials to support inaccurate claims for the purpose of selling products. Without scientific evidence to back the claims, this becomes a concerning example of bias and conflict of interest.

Example Two: Misunderstanding Basic Skin Anatomy

In another example, a nurse with experience in cosmetic injectables provided incorrect information about skin cell anatomy, specifically misidentifying the location of melanocytes. This individual often mentions their qualifications and dedication to ongoing training.

Knowing where different cells reside in the skin isn’t just academic knowledge—it’s essential for safe, effective practice. Injectables, laser treatments, and chemical peels all depend on an accurate understanding of the skin’s structure. Mistakes in anatomy can lead to ineffective treatment, complications, or even serious injury.

If a practitioner cannot accurately identify fundamental elements like melanocytes, it raises red flags about their overall expertise.

Example Three: Misusing Terminology in Laser Treatments

A local beauty salon, which markets its team as “experienced” and “educated,” regularly promotes laser hair removal services. In their promotional content, they advise clients against undergoing treatment if they are taking “photosynthesising medications.”

This is a significant error. The correct term is photosensitising, referring to medications that increase skin sensitivity to light, which can elevate the risk of adverse reactions during light-based treatments.

The term “photosynthesising” applies to plants, not human biology. This error has appeared multiple times across their platforms, indicating a persistent misunderstanding—not just a typo or one-off mistake. For a business that promotes education as a core value, this fundamental oversight is troubling.

Understanding the risks associated with photosensitising medications is critical for safe laser operation. Failing to screen for this properly can result in burns, hyperpigmentation, and other adverse effects. This basic knowledge should be second nature to any professional offering laser services. The consistent misuse of terminology suggests not just a lack of understanding, but a lack of internal review and education within the team.

Why This Matters

These examples are not rare anomalies. They come from different businesses local to Bendigo and represent a small fraction of the widespread issues in the industry. These are not complex topics open to interpretation; they are foundational facts.

When practitioners get basic facts wrong—whether it’s ingredient safety, anatomy, or terminology—they compromise client trust and safety. Worse, they often rely on their credentials as justification for their authority, without providing the necessary evidence to support their advice.

Qualifications are meaningful, but they come with responsibility. Those with credentials should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. They must ensure that the information they share is accurate, unbiased, and supported by evidence – especially if you’re qualified in the medical field.

We’ve spent years ensuring that the information we provide is honest, scientifically sound, and free from trend-driven hype and bias. We don’t take shortcuts. Our focus is on educating clients so they can make informed decisions—not manipulating them into purchases they don’t need.

We frequently encounter clients who have been told inaccurate or misleading information by others in the industry. We then have to correct the record and help those clients understand what is actually true—which often involves deprogramming years of poor advice. It’s frustrating, and it wastes time, money, and trust.

So, the next time you see a claim made within the skincare or aesthetics space – ask for the evidence supporting the claim. Did someone say that an ingredient is toxic? Ask for a credible source to support the claim. Looking for laser treatments? Find someone with years of experience – not just the most convenient or cheapest option.

Credentials matter—but they don’t automatically validate information.