Reva/Receipts
Receipts.
Fear travels faster than nuance. So when a claim goes viral, we pull the exact wording, answer it from the graph, and issue a card that's screenshot-ready and impossible to twist into something scarier.
the feed
This week's receipts.
the claim
"Chemical sunscreens are toxic."
The most protective product on an Australian shelf, and the trial data is not close. Daily use cut invasive melanoma by 73%. Skipping it is the actual risk, not the filter.
sources - Nambour RCT, HR 0.27 · AS/NZS 2604:2021 · TGA-listed
the claim
"Parabens cause breast cancer."
The 2004 study found parabens in tumour tissue - it never showed they caused the tumour. Presence is not cause. At the doses actually used, both the CIR and the SCCS clear them.
sources - CIR re-review · SCCS/1348/10 · Darbre 2004 (no causation)
the claim
"Phenoxyethanol is a neurotoxin."
It is a preservative, capped at 1% in the EU, and that trace is exactly what lets a formula skip harsher preservatives. The scare comes from swallowing it. Nobody is swallowing sunscreen.
sources - EU Annex V, ≤ 1% · replaces harsher preservatives
the claim
"Retinol will damage your skin."
It is dose and habituation. Retinisation settles in a few weeks. The only real line is scheduling: pharmaceutical retinoids like tretinoin are Schedule 4, prescription-only.
sources - Kafi 2007 · SCCS/1639/21 · SUSMP Schedule 4 (tretinoin)
the claim · the overcorrection
"Every chemical filter is fine."
The backlash overshoots too. Some filters carry real limits - oxybenzone is restricted above 2.2% on the body, homosalate above 0.5% - and "all fine" waves that away. Dose still decides.
sources - SCCS/1622/20 · EU 2022/2195
the claim
"Hydroquinone is banned and carcinogenic."
Not banned here. In Australia it is a Schedule 2 pharmacy medicine up to 2%. It does absorb heavily, which is why it is dispensed with care, The TGA consultation closed in October 2025 and the decision is still pending. Status checked 25 July 2026.
sources - SUSMP Schedule 2, ≤ 2% · 35-45% absorption · TGA 2025 consultation
the au question
Is this even allowed in Australia?
The scare and the status are two different questions. Here is what the Australian register says about three of the products people asked about this week, and where our reading of it starts. Being on a register is a status, not a safety verdict.
the process
How a receipt is made.
It hears the scare
An agent watches the day's viral "X is toxic" moment as it lifts off, and captures the exact wording before it mutates.
┌ ─ trending ─ ─ ┐
◳ "X is toxic" ↑ 40k
└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘
It answers from the graph
It pulls the exact claim, drafts an evidence-linked reply, and packs it into a signed card - one that cannot be re-skinned into a scarier verdict.
A human signs it off
A fast wrong debunk is brand-ending, so nothing publishes without a person's sign-off. The signature travels with the card.
signed · reviewed by a human
reva:receipt:7c41…e9
before the scare does
Get the receipts before the scare does.
A calm, cited card lands in your feed the moment a claim goes viral - screenshot it, send it, end the argument.