**The study that the company uses to prove that "scalar waves" give human skin the ability to "neutralize" UV rays is bunk, for a multitude of reasons.** --- Instead of commenting on the existance of scalar waves and their purported ability to block UV rays, I investigated their own website to determine what their proof of this supposed finding was. Scrolling down to the bottom of the [research][1] page on their site provides us with this section. >Osmosis Harmonized Water UV Neutralizer, described as the "world’s first drinkable sunscreen", went viral, attracting record media coverage. To solidify the brand’s clinical and holistic approach to treating the source of skin conditions using non-harmful ingredients with guaranteed results, Osmosis Pür Medical Skincare executed the line’s first clinical trial on June 28, 2014. >This randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate a new technology, scalar waves, to provide sun protection. Osmosis Harmonized Water UV Neutralizer contains this form of radio-frequencies called scalar waves. When ingested, they vibrate above the skin. >24 patients ranging from 18 to 60 with various ethnic backgrounds and skin types were exposed to one hour of sun to one side of the body between noon and 1pm after ingesting 3ml Osmosis Harmonized Water UV Neutralizer. Paul Ver Hoeve, MD, FACS of Facial Beauty by MD conducted the study and documented the results which showed 16 out of the 24 patients did not experience any burning. This testing provides evidence that UV Neutralizer really works. >To download the clinical trial in its entirety and to access the online press room featuring product images, [click here][2] The people at Osmosis Skin Care provide a link to a box.com account that contains, among other things, a pdf file entitled [Evaluation of a Novel Form of Sun Protection][3], which claims to be a study on the effects of the product noted. A number of things stood out in the study, including 1. The study, when removing the pile of citations at the end, is only 2.5 pages long, significantly shorter than most scientific studies 2. Of the 11 citations, 8 of them are in reference to studies that say that chemical sunscreen may cause skin irritation, one in reference to a single study regarding the effects of SPF-50 sunscreen and malignant melanoma, and two saying that there has never been substantial evidence that these waves can be imprinted on water. There is not a single citation in any part of the study after the introduction 3. The author seems to want to make very sure that we know that he is skeptical of the science at the beginning, while also making sure to let us know he is a believer at the end. 4. The sample is statistically very insignificant, only including 24 people, not controlling for race or skin type, only choosing participants who did not have medical conditions that would make them more vulnerable to exposure to sunlight. 5. The author refuses to perform a double-blind study for ethical reasons, which seems like a convenient excuse to not provide comparison data. --- Now while this data is all circumstantial, there is one other major thing to note about this study, that I feel kills this study. In the header, the author is kind enough to point out that this test took place between 12:00 and 1:00 PM on June 28th, 2014 in San Diego, CA. [Looking at the weather reports for San Diego International Airport on Weather Underground][4] gives us some fairly damning evidence. The weather reports for San Diego on that day indicates that the day was very cloudy for the entire day. For only two reports the entire day were the conditions listed as "Scattered Clouds", and for all the reports during our study the conditions were listed as "Mostly Cloudy". Borrowing from [The NOAA Definition of mostly cloudy][5] > When the 6/8th to 7/8ths of the sky is covered by with opaque (not transparent) clouds. **IT WAS VERY CLOUDY ON THE DAY THEY DID THIS TEST!** I'm not surprised at their results at all and there is nothing notable about this study at all. They did a test with water on a cloudy day and were excited when only 1/3 of the people got burned. Honestly, I'm surprised the number is that high at all considering the weather. [1]: http://www.osmosisskincare.com/Research.aspx [2]: https://app.box.com/s/6q2hg2ke4zaewhkpuvqn [3]: https://app.box.com/s/6q2hg2ke4zaewhkpuvqn/1/2256181967/19430717031/1 [4]: https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSAN/2014/6/28/DailyHistory.html?req_city=San%20Diego&req_state=CA&req_statename=California&reqdb.zip=92101&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999 [5]: http://forecast.weather.gov/glossary.php?word=mostly%20cloudy