A Stranger In A Hair Salon Diagnosed Emma Chamberlain With PCOS After Noticing This Specific Thing About Her Appearance — Here's How It Wound Up Changing Her Life
It's not often you go to the salon for a beauty treatment and leave with a health diagnosis from a stranger; however, Emma Chamberlain found herself in that exact scenario.
In a new video as part of Vogue's Beauty Secrets series, 23-year-old Emma talked about the changes she's seen in her health since she was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) at her hair salon, of all places.
'I got diagnosed with PCOS at the hair salon. I was sitting in the chair getting my hair washed, and a woman was next to me and she turned to me and she said, 'Do you have PCOS?'' Emma recalled, telling the story while applying her skincare.
As you may know, PCOS is a hormonal disorder that impacts how the ovaries work. It's way more common than you might think, and symptoms can include ovarian cysts, irregular menstrual periods, and excess hair growth on the face and body. However, the condition can impact people very differently.
Caught off guard by the random question, Emma told the stranger that she didn't know if she had PCOS, but that there was a history of hormonal conditions in her family. 'I was like, 'I don't know. My mom has PCOS. She has PCOS and endometriosis, and she's had a lot of challenges,'' Emma said, to which the woman replied: 'I think you have PCOS.'
'I was like, what's happening?!' Emma recalled.
So, as it turns out, the stranger in the salon was a qualified OBGYN and could 'tell by the acne' on Emma's cheeks that she was experiencing some kind of hormonal imbalance. 'She diagnosed me with PCOS. It's really changed my life, to be honest,' she explained.
According to Healthline, up to 70 percent of women with PCOS haven't been formally diagnosed, meaning they probably aren't getting the treatment they might need. Discussing her experience, Emma explained how her life has improved now that she's got a handle on her hormones. 'My periods are so much more chill, my skin is so much more predictable,' she said. 'My hair is getting thicker. It's just feeling like I'm coming back to myself in a way.'
Emma first talked about her PCOS diagnosis during a March 2024 episode of her Anything Goes podcast, in which she shared insight into her symptoms. 'I found out it's the reason that for many years I've had irregular periods, cystic acne, anxiety, depression, and a slew of other issues,' she told listeners at the time. 'It's common. I know a lot of girls with PCOS, and I think I have a milder version of it. I don't have the cysts, I don't have all of the symptoms of PCOS, but alas, I have it.'
Well, it sounds like things have definitely improved for Emma in the past year, and it's all thanks to a stranger in a hair salon. You can watch her full Vogue Beauty Secrets video here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s New Report Actually Nails What's Wrong With American Health. Too Bad About the Other Part.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Emma lives in France. She wakes up in a country where junk food advertising to children is controlled. At school, she eats a nutritious lunch—half of which must come from locally sourced ingredients. The chemicals in her food are more strictly monitored; France bans many food additives that are still allowed in American products. When she gets home, she's not bombarded by algorithm-driven social media designed to maximize engagement through addictive content. Madison lives in Ohio. She wakes up to a breakfast, marketed directly to her through cartoon characters, packed with sugar and artificial additives. At school, she can buy snacks from a vending machine—something banned in French schools—stocked with products from companies that spend millions targeting her developing psychology. Her toys and environment contain harmful chemicals like PFAS and bisphenols that remain largely unregulated in America, unlike in France. After school, she's on social media platforms that use sophisticated algorithms to keep her scrolling, often on to content that makes her feel worse about herself. The health outcomes speak for themselves: France ranks third globally in child well-being, while the U.S. ranks 36th. The difference between Emma and Madison isn't that French doctors practice medicine differently. It's that the French government governs differently. As a pediatrician, I see this policy gap play out in my practice every day. The food we eat and the environment we live in are the primary drivers of chronic disease. Poor nutrition from ultra-processed foods drives obesity and diabetes, environmental toxins contribute to asthma and developmental disorders, and social media algorithms fuel mental health issues. I spend most of my time recommending lifestyle changes that work beautifully in countries like France but struggle to take hold in America's toxic environment. So when I opened the Trump administration's new 'Make America Healthy Again' report on childhood chronic disease, I was genuinely intrigued. Finally, I thought, a government document that seemed to understand what I see daily in clinical practice. The statistics cited are sobering. Over 40 percent of American children now have at least one chronic disease, with childhood obesity increasing by more than 270 percent since the 1970s. As a pediatrician treating these conditions, I was impressed by how thoroughly the commission had documented the crisis. But as I continued reading, I kept waiting for the group to outline a solution. Nearly 70 percent of children's calories come from ultra-processed foods designed to override satiety mechanisms and increase caloric intake, and kids are exposed to 15 food ads a day, with over 90 percent promoting products high in fat, sugar, and sodium. Not to mention the pesticides and microplastics commonly found in at alarming levels in their blood and urine. Americans, as the report demonstrates, simply live in an environment that is saturated with foods and chemicals that are terrible for our health. Just trying to avoid all this stuff can be impossible, particularly if you are a child. The logical thing to do to 'make America healthy' might be to regulate the industries that profit from making us sick—restricting predatory food marketing, cleaning up our chemical environment, and ensuring that kids have access to nutritious options. But MAHA doesn't suggest doing that. Instead, I found something far more fascinating: a document that makes the most compelling progressive case for government intervention I've ever seen, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to embrace its own conclusions. The MAHA report reads as if it were ghostwritten by a liberal think tank. It meticulously details what it calls 'corporate capture'—the way industry interests dominate and distort government actions, regulatory agencies, and medical institutions. The commission even provides a blueprint for solutions, citing countries with superior pediatric health outcomes. It notes that France bans junk food advertising to kids. Japan mandates comprehensive school nutrition programs. Regulation is possible and desirable. It's a lever that government could pull so that citizens lead healthier lives. The MAHA Commission has accidentally written a landmark conservative admission that the free market doesn't work in health care—that allowing corporations to operate without regulation corrupts institutions and undermines children's well-being. Stunningly, rather than embrace the obvious solution its data demand, the report pivots to blaming 'the overmedicalization of our kids.' That is, it claims that doctors like me and our health care system at large are too focused on treating illness and not on preventing it in the first place. It calls for 'unleashing private sector innovation' while explicitly rejecting 'a European regulatory system'—the kind that bans harmful food additives and restricts corporate marketing directed at children. This is where the commission's logic completely breaks down. It has spent dozens of pages documenting how corporate greed harms children, from selling them ultra-processed foods to exposing them to chemical toxins, creating an environment that leads to obesity, asthma, and other chronic illnesses. Then the group proposes solving this issue by giving those same interests more power while scapegoating the doctors trying to treat the resulting diseases of a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. As someone who treats these children regularly, I can tell you: This 'overmedicalization' narrative is completely backward. One example that the report gives of this phenomenon is asthma, noting that prescriptions for medications to control it went up by 30 percent over the course of a decade and declaring, 'American children are on too much medicine.' But the medicine isn't the problem. When I treat a child with asthma, I am dealing with the social determinants of health. That child gasping for breath in my office needs an inhaler because they live in substandard housing with environmental toxins that the government refuses to regulate. This is the reality of practicing pediatrics in America: We're forced to medicalize what other countries prevent through policy. Childhood obesity isn't just a medical condition—it's the symptom of a society that refuses to regulate the food industry. Doctors are left treating the symptoms, with the actual disease being the upstream social and economic factors. I agree with MAHA. This is not ideal. As much as we try, a doctor's stethoscope can't fix what a politician's pen breaks. The MAHA report's critique of doctors reveals how little the commission, which includes not one pediatrician, understands about practicing medicine. For example, the report notes that antidepressant prescriptions were written for greater than 2 million adolescents in 2022, a statistic that makes it seem as if doctors randomly hand out antidepressants. But this ignores that teenage depression rates have skyrocketed, with 5 million adolescents (20 percent of them) having a major depressive episode. When I prescribe an antidepressant to a teenager, it's not because I prefer pharmaceutical solutions. It's because I've already recommended therapy and behavioral changes. We spend much of our time advising nutritional improvement, increasing physical activity, and limiting screen time. However, that teenager lives in a country where all of that is constantly undermined by social media and chronic stress—the very societal factors the report identifies. When it comes to food and mental health, can kids and teens really do anything differently? The typical anti-regulation argument of 'personal responsibility' completely collapses when applied to minors. Children aren't autonomous actors who can meaningfully consent to destructive behaviors. Society has a moral imperative to protect children from predatory behavior. The typical response—that parents should simply 'take more responsibility'—ignores that we're asking families to fight billion-dollar industries alone. That approach has clearly failed. This is particularly true when it comes to guns. A child cannot be held responsible for gun safety. The report's ideological blinders are perhaps most evident in what it omits entirely: There is no discussion of firearm-related fatalities, the leading cause of pediatric deaths. The report does make important observations about pharmaceutical-industry capture, noting: '9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry.' This is a real problem, and the solution is shutting the revolving door between industry and government. Instead, the MAHA Commission uses these legitimate concerns to promote distrust of evidence-based medicine entirely— undermining confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule and framing the worsening mental health crisis as doctor-driven overmedicalization. Despite its flaws, the MAHA commissioners have handed both parties a critical moment of choice. For conservatives, it's a test of whether they're truly the populist party they claim to be. The commission has made the case for government intervention better than any progressive ever has. The question is whether they'll follow their own logic or remain trapped by free-market orthodoxy that's clearly failing America's children. For progressives, it's a reckoning: MAHA has accurately diagnosed the problem. It has correctly identified that U.S. institutions—the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medications from companies that later hire its commissioners; the Department of Agriculture, whose dietary guidelines are written by committees with extensive food-industry ties—are failing American families. Democrats, meanwhile, have found themselves defending institutions that are no longer serving their original purpose—regulatory agencies captured by the very industries they're supposed to regulate. While Republicans have the diagnosis correct, neither side has presented a cure. MAGA's answer is to let DOGE destroy the government's ability to regulate, while establishment Democrats champion the failing status quo. As the popularity of the MAHA movement shows, Americans aren't anti-government; we're anti-corruption. The real answer is pragmatic progressivism—not defending captured institutions but reimagining government—by explicitly channeling antiestablishment anger into pro-government reform. Without these changes, in another decade a different administration will release the next report documenting the same crisis, but with worse statistics. If that happens, the MAHA report will be remembered not as the document that made America healthy again—it'll be remembered as the moment we chose ideological paralysis over taking back our democracy, despite the cost to our children.
Vogue
8 hours ago
- Vogue
Addressed: What Is the Best Summer Hat to Protect My Face From the Sun?
Welcome to Addressed, a weekly column where we, ahem, address the joys (and tribulations!) of getting dressed. So far we've unpacked how to wear shorts at the office and beyond, how to pack for a carry-on bag for a work trip, how to dress with style in your third trimester, and even how to layer without looking like that chair in your room (you know the one). Download the Vogue app and find our Style Advice section to submit your question. This week's question comes from a Vogue editor: 'I hate bucket hats and baseball caps are too bro-y, but I need to protect myself from the sun—what are my alternatives?' First, let me say that I absolutely live for a little hat—the jauntier and weirder the better. In the summer I love to lean into the classics, so you can almost always find me wearing a bucket hat at the beach or by the pool, but I understand your conundrum, they can often appear somewhat childish. Still I think they are the most practical of sun hats because they do a great job of truly covering your face, and I think there are many designers approaching the style with enough savoir faire to avoid the kiddie connotations. Loro Piana has been going hardcore in the millinery department, and I think its crochet version in 'nougat'-colored cashmere is just delightful—as is this one in natural crocheted raffia from Polo Ralph Lauren. There are also a few truly out-there designs from designers that decided to chop and screw the style: at Hed Mayner, the designer's spring collection featured a hybrid baseball cap/bucket hat; and Miuccia Prada and Raf Simons had an absolute ball making unhinged ladies' gardening visors with little plastic nuclear-inspired windows on the brim (turn your real-life anxieties into a fashion statement!) for Prada's collection. (They also have terriffic nylon and crochet versions that could possibly change your mind about bucket hats!) A cashmere crochet hat from Loro Piana. Photo: Courtesy of Loro Piana A futuristic visor/bucket hat at Prada. Photo: Armando Grillo / Baseball hats, I agree, can be trickier to pull off, and it can be hard to find one that isn't emblazoned with a logo for this thing or that thing. So if you don't have a sports team that you feel like repping at all times, a plain ol' canvas—or even leather, like at Coach—option could be great. But as I think summer is a time to have fun, I would invite you to dip your toe in the wonderful world of personalized hats. Five or six years ago, a group of friends and I all got matching beige caps that said MARK RUFFALO across the front in a serif font. It was an inside joke (and I can't even recall how it got started), but it was fun. It's like repping your own team of friends. There is always the wide-brim sun hat, which brings a real level of drama and panache to every occasion—and can be subverted from its saccharine ways—just look at how Alessandro Michele paired his at Valentino with a pair of groovy trousers and an opulent cropped jacket on the runway. There's also the cowboy hat, which is enjoying time in the spotlight thanks to the millions of people seeing Beyoncé's Cowboy Carter tour. But realistically I think your answer lies in a trustworthy hat from the people that make hats for actually doing stuff outdoors. I love Patagonia's Brimmer Hat and Surf Brimmer Hat styles—I also think the chin strap is a cool look, as long as you don't tighten it right underneath your neck. REI's Boonie Hat has a bit more of a flared brim, and its Horizon Breeze Brimmer Hat has a real safari vibe, which is never not synonymous with Yves Saint Laurent and therefore chic. A little bit country and a little bit rock n' roll at Moschino. Photographed by Acielle / Style Du Monde How to wear a picture hat but make it punk rock at Valentino. Photo: Courtesy of Valentino
Medscape
10 hours ago
- Medscape
Continuing Metformin Reduces PCOS Pregnancy Risks
Continuing metformin throughout the first trimester in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) showed the potential to reduce miscarriage risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.64) and increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.57) compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 1708 women suggested that stopping metformin at pregnancy confirmation might be less beneficial than continuation through the first trimester. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating metformin started preconception and continued at least until positive pregnancy test compared with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS. The analysis included 12 trustworthy studies with 1708 participants, with trials conducted across 14 countries spanning five continents, all graded as low to moderate quality evidence. The primary outcome measure focused on miscarriage rate, defined as pregnancy loss prior to 20 completed weeks of gestation, while secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Investigators performed indirect comparisons between treatment groups using the Bucher technique to evaluate clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates for metformin treatment continued throughout first trimester vs stopped at a positive pregnancy test. TAKEAWAY: Women receiving preconception metformin continued throughout the first trimester had higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.23), potential reduction in miscarriage (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-1.25), and possible increase in live birth (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.59-2.61) compared with placebo or no treatment. Participants who stopped metformin once pregnant showed an increased clinical pregnancy rate (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.80) but suggested higher miscarriage risk (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.73-2.90) compared with placebo or no treatment. Indirect comparisons consistently favored continuing metformin through first trimester vs stopping at pregnancy confirmation for clinical pregnancy (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83), miscarriage (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.16), and live birth (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.41-3.13). IN PRACTICE: 'Women with PCOS have been shown to have a fivefold increased risk per year of developing insulin resistance and subsequent type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance has been shown to be independently associated with a higher risk of miscarriage. Metformin acts by decreasing gluconeogenesis, lipogenesis and enhancing glucose uptake, all of which in turn reduce insulin resistance,' wrote the authors of the study. SOURCE: The study was led by James Cheshire, PhD, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust in Birmingham, England. It was published online in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology . LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the main limitation was the inherent heterogeneous nature of the study population and the overall low quality of evidence. Women with PCOS have different phenotypes and varying degrees of hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance, which could not be accounted for in the analyses. Additionally, many studies did not subdivide pregnancy outcome data by body mass index (BMI), preventing meaningful analyses in BMI subgroups. The limited outcome data in spontaneously conceiving populations (only 30 women from two studies) make it difficult to extrapolate findings to this group. DISCLOSURES: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The study received no external funding.
