What Works Skin — Independent · Evidence-First · Ad-FreeIssue 014 · 20 April 2026 · Next: 04 Maywhatworksskin.com

Correspondence · Published every fortnight

Last updated

Letters
to the Editors.

Pushback, corrections, sharper questions, occasional praise we couldn't bring ourselves to delete. Published verbatim with first initial and city. The editors reply in print, signed.

editorial@whatworksskin.com · Median reply time, 6 days

412
Letters published
94%
Replied to within 14 days
31
Pieces revised because of a letter
0
Letters edited for content

This issue's correspondence

ISSUE 014 · 04 LETTERS PUBLISHED
  1. LETTER № 001Pushback

    “On Issue 12, the collagen drinks piece”

    You graded hydrolysed collagen 'Partly true' on the basis of skin elasticity endpoints. But two of the meta-analysis trials measured wrinkle depth, not elasticity. The wrinkle data is weaker. I think your grade is too generous unless you separate those endpoints in the next revision.

  2. LETTER № 002Question

    “Polypodium dosing for fair, rosacea-prone skin”

    Your supplement piece recommends 240mg twice daily. My derm here suggested 480mg morning only. Is the split-dose preference based on PK, on convenience, or on the trials? I tolerate Heliocare fine but would rather take it once.

  3. LETTER № 003Correction

    “Methodology § 4.2 — the diagnostic weighting”

    I love the diagnostic but it routed me to the wrong concern guide. I described pigment + reactive skin, and got Melasma + UVMune. But I have post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne, not melasma. The two need different treatment ladders. Worth distinguishing in the routing logic?

  4. LETTER № 004Praise we kept

    “On the LED mask piece”

    I bought the Currentbody mask three months ago. Your 'Partly true' verdict matches what I'm seeing in the mirror — modest, real, slow. The thing I appreciated most was that you didn't tell me to return it.