YouTube star Rachell ‘Valkyrae’ Hoffstetter is still feeling the heat over the release of her RFLCT skincare line last week, and her fellow streamers aren’t shying away from sharing their takes on the subject — including DisguisedToast.
On October 19, Valkyrae unleashed a line of skincare products aimed at protecting users from the effects of blue light. ‘Blue light’ refers to light that is produced by electronic devices like cell phones, computers, and TV screens.
However, claims that blue light directly harms one’s skin have been deemed murky at best. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have suggested that any amount of blue light has an inconsequential effect on the skin.
In wake of Valkyrae’s RFLCT launch, a slew of critics and fellow influencers have slammed the streamer over the product. Many have accused her of “scamming” her followers, while YouTuber and dermatologist Dr. Dray called RFLCT’s blue light protection factor “misleading.”
When discussing whether or not the fault lay with Valkyrae or the skincare team she was working with, Toast had this to say:
“In the time I’ve known Valkyrae … she has never shown me to be malicious or calculating. She has shown me to be naïve and impulsive, and too trusting. Overly loyal to people and organizations that don’t necessarily deserve her loyalty. But she is someone who just sees what’s in front of her very often. And unfortunately, that means she’s susceptible to being taken advantage of.”
“Now, that being said, it is also her responsibility, and her team’s responsibility, to make sure if she ever gets into ventures, that it is the right choice,” he added. “You have to look at someone’s history to see that when they do something not cool, is it a pattern, or is it a one-off, right?”
Valkyrae released an official statement prior to DisguisedToast’s comments, claiming that she’d witnessed what she had deemed “groundbreaking research” from the team she was working with, in regards to blue light’s purported effects on skin.
Rae then stated that she had learned “their studies can’t be publicized,” and as such, their evidence wasn’t included in the website; instead, all that was linked was a WebMD article.
“I am in a bound contract,” she said. “I do believe in the product but I do also wish to not be involved because the research can’t be public. That’s the hard part. And that’s the honest truth… I don’t know if I really want to continue. But I don’t know if I really have a choice.”