They’re Injecting Dead People’s Skin Into Your Face

The “Fragments of the Dead” Written on Faces

In September 2026, a product called Re2O trended on Weibo. American bodies, processed in a South Korean lab, were injected into the faces of Chinese women seeking beauty.

3,000 to 4,000 yuan per shot.

On social platforms, influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers openly promoted it. Domestic capital was deeply involved in the supply chain.

Huang Guangtao, chief physician and doctoral supervisor in the Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery at Shenzhen Second People’s Hospital, told National Business Daily: “Taking human acellular dermal material that was originally meant to save lives and using it for medical aesthetics is, in my view, excessive use of technology.”

He said, “There is no need to take such a risk.”

But the risk has already been taken.

I

Here is what the product is.

Re2O, scientific name “injectable human acellular dermal matrix.” It takes the dermis of deceased donors, removes the epidermis, fat, and cells, leaving only the extracellular matrix scaffold made of collagen, elastin, and other components. Freeze-dried, ground into microparticles, loaded into a syringe.

The manufacturer’s logic sounds coherent: ECM is the steel structure of the skin; putting it back is like rebuilding the foundation.

The clinical evidence supporting this logic comes from a randomized, double-blind, split-face controlled trial published by a Yonsei University team in February 2026.

20 subjects. 20 weeks of follow-up.

One side of the face was injected with a phADM-containing preparation, the other with hyaluronic acid. The results showed that the phADM side improved more significantly in skin density, elasticity, wrinkle depth, pore area, and other indicators.

But the research team itself noted the limitations: the sample size was only 20 people, and 20 weeks of follow-up is far from enough to assess long-term maintenance effects and delayed adverse reactions. More importantly, the test preparation used in the trial was a mixture of phADM and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid; the study could hardly isolate the effects produced by phADM alone.

One of the paper’s authors, Ju Hee Lee, was once a product development consultant for the developer, L&C Bio. The product used in the study was provided by L&C Bio.

Xue Ke, discipline leader in plastic surgery at Gongli Hospital in Pudong New Area, Shanghai, said that after injection, at least 5 to 10 years of long-term observation and follow-up are needed to test actual effects and long-term safety.

The risk is no longer theoretical.

In July 2026, the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology published a case report. A 44-year-old woman had no symptoms for two days after injections of Re2O into her forehead and cheeks, but on the third day suddenly developed pain, erythema, and pustules. Doctors suspected damage to the supratrochlear artery. Treatment with hyaluronidase did not work. Re2O contains no hyaluronic acid at all and cannot be enzymatically degraded.

Although the patient’s symptoms eased, nine weeks later she was left with an atrophic scar.

The report stated: “Injectable pHADM is not without risk of vascular complications, and extra caution is needed when using this emerging biomaterial.”

Huang Guangtao pointed out a more fundamental problem: decellularization technology cannot remove cellular components 100 percent. Residual DNA and other substances may trigger immune allergic reactions, clinically manifested as facial redness and swelling and subcutaneous induration.

Chen Youbai, a member of the Plastic Surgery and Reconstruction Branch of the Chinese Association of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, added: if cellular components remain in the extracellular matrix, they may carry genetic fragments from the donor. If the donor had a genetic disease, it could pose a health risk to the person receiving the injection.

A filler that, once injected, cannot be enzymatically dissolved like hyaluronic acid. If complications occur, there is no antidote.

II

Re2O spread quickly in South Korea because of how the product was classified.

South Korea divides products injected into the dermis into three categories: drugs, medical devices, and human tissue. Because Re2O’s raw material comes from the skin of the deceased, the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety directly classified it under the “human tissue” category based on the nature of the raw material, managing it under the Act on the Safety and Management of Human Tissue.

This means it does not need to go through years of clinical trials and product-by-product approval like drugs or medical devices before being supplied directly to medical institutions.

Similar products such as PharmaResearch’s Rejuran and VAIM’s Juvelook went through years of clinical trials and large-scale investment before obtaining MFDS approval as Class 4 medical devices.

In April 2026, at the “K-Bio Health Forum” at the South Korean National Assembly, Kwon Dong-ju, head of the bio-health center at the law firm Hwawoo, pointed out: “Other medical devices require years of clinical trials and huge investment to obtain approval, while some human tissue-derived products are subject to relatively lax standards.”

On the same day, the MFDS and the Ministry of Health and Welfare publicly acknowledged at the forum that regulatory gaps existed.

South Korea knows that using donated human tissue for cosmetic purposes is “inappropriate,” yet it chose to patch things up within the existing legal framework rather than enact a new law.

In August 2026, the MFDS published a draft revision of the Human Tissue Safety Rules, requiring manufacturers to report adverse events twice a year. As of September 2026, Re2O was still being sold normally.

L&C Bio insisted that human tissue is not in a regulatory blind spot, but is subject to a different management system from drugs and medical devices. The company’s vice chairman, Lee Ju-hee, said at a press conference in April 2026 that ADM had been used for decades in dentistry, head and neck cancer, and breast reconstruction.

But the mature use of ADM in dentistry and breast reconstruction is based on strict surgical scenarios and long-term follow-up. When it is downgraded to a fast-consumption medical aesthetics injectable, the threshold for safety validation is greatly lowered.

British aesthetician Ben Taylor-Davies commented that the product’s marketing has been stronger than its scientific validation.

In China, the regulatory attitude is completely different. According to the Medical Device Classification Rules and 2022 Announcement No. 103, any product injected into the dermis or deeper that acts as a physical filler or biological stimulator is classified as a Class III medical device and must obtain NMPA registration before it can be marketed; clinical trials require no fewer than 500 subjects.

Re2O has never obtained NMPA registration. Any injection in China is illegal.

The same product is “legally marketed” in South Korea and “illegal medical practice” in China.

III

The original purpose of the human tissue donation system was to provide treatment materials for burn patients, accident survivors, and reconstructive surgery patients.

For patients with extensive burns, autologous skin sources are extremely scarce, and allogeneic skin sources are “extremely scarce and expensive, making it difficult to meet the needs of most patients.” Human acellular dermal matrix is precisely a key material for addressing this dilemma; it is explicitly classified as a Class III medical device, and its official typical use is repair of dermal defect wounds.

Now, these scarce “life-saving materials” are being consumed in large quantities in the highly profitable medical aesthetics market.

Each shot of Re2O is estimated to consume about 5 square centimeters of cadaveric dermis, roughly the area of a 1-yuan coin.

The Korea Health Consumer Federation stated that the legitimacy of human tissue donation is based on public-interest premises such as treating burns and trauma, and using it for invasive cosmetic surgery may undermine the original purpose of the system.

A deeper ethical issue lies in informed consent.

L&C Bio claims it uses only donated tissue for which consent for aesthetic use has been obtained. But U.S. body donation consent forms usually include options such as “only for saving lives and reconstruction” and “U.S. use only.” California’s donation consent form explicitly lists these options.

If the donor did not explicitly check that the tissue could be used for cosmetic purposes, the ethical basis for using it that way does not hold.

Sing Tao Daily noted that “whether body donors fully understand the use of their donations still raises ethical concerns.”

A survey of 1,034 adults by Sookmyung Women’s University showed that 69.8 percent of respondents were unwilling to receive cosmetic treatment derived from body tissue, 60.9 percent supported banning or strictly restricting the use of human tissue in medical aesthetics, and 72.9 percent believed that human-derived ingredients should be mandatorily labeled.

IV

From the South Korean laboratory to the faces of Chinese consumers, the corpse-skin needle passes through a carefully designed commercial chain.

On social platforms, multiple accounts identifying themselves as booking concierges, domestic medical aesthetics institutions, or domestic contact accounts for overseas clinics advertise the effects of the corpse-skin needle under the names “fifth-generation skin booster” and “collagen skin booster,” with clearly marked prices.

After a reporter contacted one of the accounts as a prospective consumer, the other party quickly guided the conversation to WeChat for private communication. It then sent a PDF brochure fully displaying the specifications and prices of an injectable product extracted from human allogeneic dermis, and explained that the injection had to be completed in South Korea.

At the end of several posts was information matching the format of a medical advertisement review document number.

Sun Shubao, a senior partner at Beijing Qiancheng (Shanghai) Law Firm, analyzed that the number conforms in format to the numbering rules for medical advertisement review certificates in Jiangsu Province, but no corresponding public disclosure information could be found in public channels, leaving two possibilities: it has not yet been disclosed, or the number itself is questionable.

He specifically pointed out a key misunderstanding that easily misleads consumers: “The Medical Advertisement Review Certificate is an advertising qualification issued by health authorities to domestic medical institutions. It only allows the institution to advertise its own compliant in-house diagnostic and treatment projects. It is not equivalent to registration approval for an overseas medical device product.”

Once something goes wrong, legal recourse is nearly impossible.

In October 2025, Ms. Zhou from Jiangsu received botulinum toxin injections at a clinic in Seoul after being introduced by a Chinese student intermediary. After returning to China, she developed generalized weakness and blurred vision and was diagnosed with botulinum toxin poisoning.

The only record of the procedure she had was handwritten by the clinic, with no official seal, no payment receipt, and no formal contract.

Her lawyer told her clearly: this model, in which a foreign student acts as an illegal intermediary connecting to a South Korean clinic, is very common. The intermediary is an individual, not registered in South Korea, and not subject to South Korean regulatory accountability. The clinic refused to provide medical records. The responsible party had vanished from the moment payment was made.

Cross-border rights protection requires high lawyer fees and travel costs, and litigation takes a long time. Many victims ultimately choose to give up.

Spend more than 3,000 yuan to get an injection in South Korea of a product extracted from donor skin. After the injection, there may be hard lumps on the face. When you try to defend your rights, you find there are no medical records, the intermediary has blocked you, and the clinic denies everything.

And all of this can happen because in South Korea it is classified as “human tissue” rather than a “medical device,” and in China it has never been registered.

V

When Huang Guangtao said “there is no need to take such a risk,” the burns and plastic surgery department where he works deals every day with another kind of patient.

Patients with extensive burns. Patients whose autologous skin is insufficient. Patients waiting for allogeneic skin to cover their wounds.

Those donated skins that traveled from the United States to South Korea could have become skin sources for these people. Now they are ground into microparticles, loaded into syringes, and injected into the dermis of people seeking beauty.

Chen Youbai raised a question that L&C Bio has not answered: in addition to obtaining informed consent from the families of body donors, the company should also fully inform people seeking treatment about the product’s ingredients.

After learning the truth, one consumer said: “If I had known in advance that the raw material came from the deceased, I would not have gotten it.”

Her sentence points to something larger than one bad consumer decision. It points to failures in regulation, disclosure, and cross-border accountability.