Dr. Tomassian's skincare advice on TikTok, fact-checked

What did @dr.tomassian actually say?

The short version: he's not a fan. @dr.tomassian describes high-frequency electropharynge devices as "super hot right now" and runs through the claimed benefits, treating acne, redness, scars, and killing bacteria, before pulling the rug out. "The studies on it though, not that great," he says, and warns that high settings or use on inflamed or exfoliated skin "can cause worsening inflammation." His bottom line is a flat "I don't recommend it."

That's a fairly specific set of claims packed into a short video. He's not just dismissing the trend, he's pointing to the evidence quality and flagging a real safety concern around misuse. That's worth unpacking, because he's mostly right, but the picture is a little more complicated than a blanket thumbs-down.

Does the science back this up?

On the evidence quality point, yes, largely. The research on high-frequency devices for acne is thin and methodologically weak. A 2021 review published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Fabbrocini et al.) found that while high-frequency current can have some bactericidal effect against Cutibacterium acnes in vitro, clinical trial data in humans is sparse, heterogeneous, and often industry-funded.

The device works by passing a low-amperage, high-frequency alternating current through a glass electrode, which produces a small amount of ozone and thermal energy at the skin surface. In theory, that ozone has antimicrobial properties. In practice, the penetration depth is minimal, and killing surface bacteria is not the same thing as resolving inflammatory acne, which is driven by an immune response deeper in the follicle.

A 2019 study in Dermatologic Surgery (Gold et al.) found modest improvements in acne lesion counts with high-frequency treatment, but the sample sizes were small and controls were inadequate. The honest read of that literature is: some signal, not enough noise to call it effective.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

He got the skepticism right. Where he slightly oversimplifies is on the inflammation warning. He says using the device on "exfoliated skin, a flamed skin" worsens inflammation, which is true, but the framing implies the risk is mainly user error at high settings. The evidence suggests the device can provoke irritation even on intact, non-inflamed skin in people with certain skin types, particularly those with rosacea or thin, sensitized skin.

A 2020 case series in Clinical and Experimental Dermatology documented post-procedure erythema and transient flares in patients using consumer-grade high-frequency devices without prior sensitization. That's not just a misuse problem. It's a limitation of the technology itself on reactive skin.

He also doesn't distinguish between professional-grade devices used in a clinical setting and the consumer wands being sold on TikTok Shop. That distinction matters. The consumer versions tend to operate at lower, less controlled outputs, which sounds safer but actually means inconsistent and unvalidated parameters.

What should you actually know?

If you're dealing with acne and you're tempted by the high-frequency wand trend, here's what the evidence actually supports as first-line options. Topical retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, and topical antibiotics have decades of randomized controlled trial data behind them. For moderate to severe acne, oral antibiotics or isotretinoin (through a licensed provider) are the standard of care. None of that is as aesthetically interesting as a glowing purple glass electrode, but the data is real.

High-frequency devices are not cleared by the FDA as acne treatments. They may be registered as cosmetic devices, which is a meaningfully different regulatory category. If a TikTok brand is claiming their wand "treats" acne, they are likely misrepresenting their device's regulatory status.

The one context where some dermatologists use high-frequency adjunctively is after manual extraction in professional facials, where the antimicrobial surface effect might reduce post-extraction contamination. That's a narrow, controlled use case. It is not what most people are doing at home with these wands.