Dr Harris Clinic

.
WHO’S IN?

We keep hearing that regenerative aesthetics is “the future”.
We’ve been hearing it for well over a decade, but “the future” is not evidence.
If we’re calling treatments “regenerative”, then we should be able to demonstrate regeneration, not simply biological activity, or collagen production.
The question isn’t whether these treatments do something. It’s whether they do what we say they do.
Patients deserve evidence, not promises.

THE HIERARCHY OF HYPE: 2026
Last year there were five tiers.
Now there are nine.
New products. New mechanisms. Bigger claims.
But the same question remains:
Where are the meaningful clinical outcomes?

What we see every day shapes what we come to think of as normal.
Staying quiet seems the safer option, but it does nothing for the standard.
Would you say something? And if so, how?

Same profession. Same qualifications. Different aesthetic.
Which one would you choose to treat your face, and why?
AI-generated image

Should overfilled injectors be teaching on stage?
Does the appearance of the educator matter?
Yes or no, and why

The attack on fillers is intensifying. Multiple claims from surgeons in 48 hours, supported by anecdote alone.
“Filler moves on its own” rests entirely on knowing where the product started. No scan at placement. No scan since. Without imaging at the time of injection, migration and misplacement cannot be distinguished.
Meanwhile the alternative being recommended is fat grafting, where published retention and complication rates vary so widely that the authors themselves conclude the true figures are unknown.
Bias is real on both sides. That is why the same evidentiary standard should apply to both treatments.

Following my three previous posts about misleading before & afters, here’s showing the other side.
Same position. Same lighting. Same expression.
No make-up, no gloss or filter.
Taken immediately after.
The idea is simple: show how the treatment creates the difference, not the photograph.

My two previous posts showed the same thing: an apparent result that wasn’t really there.
The harder question is what we do when we see it.
Patients make decisions from these photographs.
Practitioners choose courses from them. If those of us who can see the problem stay quiet, who sets the standard?
But much of it may not be deliberate. People photograph the way they were taught.
I keep coming back to this - the target should be the standard, not the person.
So do we have an obligation to challenge this when we see it?

HOW MUCH DID I INJECT?
Nothing.
Same patient. Same day. No treatment.
The apparent increase in chin projection was created by a change in position.
I posted these photographs two years ago to show how easily a treatment result can be manufactured with photography.
Back then, my concern was what these images were selling to patients.
Now there’s a bigger problem.
Deceptive photography doesn’t only sell treatments.
It sells techniques.
It sells courses.
It teaches practitioners what a “result” looks like.
The photograph has become the curriculum.