We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
So anywhere you inject a filler and you get into a vessel on the outside of the skin, you can create an embolism. You can create an embolism and it's going to go follow the path of least resistance once you bolus it into the tissue. It's going to backflow, but then it's going to be pushed forward again. It's going to go to the opthalmic artery. It may go into your central nervous system, I'm sorry, into your brain, I should say, and the vasculature there and create a stroke.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Now, some of the more serious strokes were caused by people injecting fat with needles, but all these other complications really come from injecting fillers in this kind of central face area.
So when you're treating around the eyes for example or even into the temples, there are reported instances of stroke and death and vision loss and including treating around the nose because all of these vessels interconnect with the internal corateed system.