Nurse shows surprising results of having Botox on ONE side of her face
Brittany Krautheim, 41, from Queenstown, Maryland, has spent the past 21 years working as an esthetic nurse practitioner.
In recent months she decided to conduct an experiment in which she received Botox on half her face and documented the outcome online in the hopes of enlightening others about the pros and cons of injectables.
Brittany said: 'I injected the entire left side of my face (upper and lower). Areas included the 11s, forehead, crows feet, downturned smile, and platysmal sheath/bands.
'I stayed true to FDA on label dosing (but half since it was only half my face). Between my brows, I did 10 units, my forehead 10 units, my left eye 12 units, left downturned smile five units, left platysmal bands/sheath 18 units.'
And while some may think that the results would be dramatic, they're actually more subtle.
She said strangers often tell her they would not have noticed that she had Botox in half her face if she hadn't pointed it out.
And according to the expert, that's a good thing.
'I think the biggest misnomer about Botox is that it's going to change how you look,' she explained.
'However, that's not really the goal. Good Botox allows you to keep your normal appearance while subtly reducing facial muscle contractions that cause wrinkles due to repetition.
'I think the results speak for themselves. I think both sides of my face look "natural."'
Facing up: She had injections in the upper and lower areas, including her forehead and crows feet; pictured before (left) and after (right)
While the differences aren't that noticeable yet, she said she believed that if she continued on with the project, the changes to her face would become more pronounced.
'Over time if I continued this project, let's say over the course of a year, one side of my face would have significantly more set in fine lines and wrinkles because the facial muscles are constantly contracting in the same place.'
According to Brittany, there have been some negative side effects.
'It is strange to only have half of your face injected and I will say that around the third week I was getting headaches and having trouble focusing my vision because of the imbalance.'
Brittany has been documenting the endeavor on TikTok, where her videos have racked in millions of views.
It has sparked a fierce debate about Botox, with some claiming in the comments section that they prefer the 'natural' side and that it made them not want to get the injectables, while others writing that it has inspired them to go get some.
In the end, the nurse practitioner said she hopes people can use her experiment to make 'informed and educated' decisions when it comes to cosmetic enhancements.
And she slammed any beliefs that she did this to gain more customers.
'It's frustrating when people comment on these types of posts that I'm just trying to promote something or sell something.
'My goal is to educate and to develop a relationship with each person that I encounter.
'If at the end of that conversation, they feel like an esthetic treatment is in their best interest, then great.
'If that's not the case, that's OK too! The "right" choice, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.'
She also shared some advice to women who may feel insecure about their decision to get Botox.
'Every woman should have the freedom to take care of themselves in a way that feels best to them without shame or judgment.
'As we grow into our age and beauty remember that there is no one look or set of rules.
'While some of us choose to smooth our lines while others don't, remember that we are all beautiful in our own right and we all deserve to feel seen and supported.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Shares fall after weight loss pill disappoints in trial
Eli Lilly 's experimental weight-loss pill, orforglipron, achieved an average 12.4 per cent body weight reduction in patients over 72 weeks, according to a new study. The results led to a 14 per cent drop in Lilly's shares, as they fell short of competitor Novo Nordisk 's injectable Wegovy, which showed a 14.9 per cent weight loss. Orforglipron is a small molecule pill, which is hoped to provide a convenient and pain-free alternative to injectable treatments. Lilly plans to file for regulatory approvals before the end of 2025, aiming for the pill to be used for early intervention and long-term weight management. While common side effects were mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal issues, the drug also showed benefits in lowering heart disease risk markers.
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Senators Wyden, Warren launch probe into UnitedHealth's nursing home practices
Aug 7 (Reuters) - U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren are launching an investigation into UnitedHealth Group (UNH.N), opens new tab related to allegations that the company secretly paid nursing homes thousands in bonuses to cut hospital transfers of sick residents. In a letter dated August 6 to UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley, the senators called on the healthcare conglomerate to provide detailed information about its reported incentive programming and its impact on the nursing home residents. This follows a May report from the UK's Guardian that the company made secret payments to nursing homes, as part of a series of cost-cutting tactics that helped the company save millions but risked residents' health, according to an investigation carried out by the newspaper. "Nursing home residents and their families should not live in fear of a for-profit health care company withholding care when it is most critical," the senators said in the letter. They have sought a response from the company by September 8 about its hospitalization policies, directives related to care planning for nursing home residents enrolled in its institutional special needs plans (I-SNPs), marketing practices related to those plans and federal oversight related to them. The company said it has received the Senators' letter and will continue to educate its staff and share information on the I-SNP model and its proven benefit for seniors. The allegations stem from an article that misrepresents a program and the U.S. Department of Justice extensively reviewed these allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing, UnitedHealth said on Thursday. UnitedHealth is also under investigation by the U.S. DoJ over its Medicare business, a U.S. government program that covers medical costs for individuals aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. The company said in July it is complying with both criminal and civil requests from the federal agency.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How Trump's executive order could criminalize homelessness: ‘Terrifying'
Donald Trump's executive order that pushes local governments to remove unhoused people from the streets will exacerbate the issues already facing people who have unstable housing, mental health conditions and substance use disorders – and the vague wording could be used for wider action, experts say. 'It's one of the most harmful things to happen to folks who live outside in decades. It is not going to help anybody,' said Jesse Rabinowitz, campaign and communications director at the National Homelessness Law Center. 'It sets the stage for rounding up folks who are homeless, folks with mental health issues, folks who are disabled – and instead of helping them, forcing them into detention camps and institutions. So it's terrifying.' The order instructs states and municipalities to crack down on public substance use; camping, loitering, or squatting in urban spaces; mental health issues; and sex offender registration. It calls for 'shifting' people without stable housing into 'long-term institutional settings'. 'It is essentially creating a pathway to criminalize larger and larger numbers of people,' said Margaret Sullivan, a family nurse practitioner and director of programs for immigrant and unhoused communities at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University. The order is 'vague and broad and potentially leaning toward creating more civil rights violations', she said. The conditions for detainment outlined in the order are poorly defined, which means it could be interpreted broadly to detain and involuntarily institutionalize people in public spaces. And it doesn't detail who may make determinations on institutionalization. 'It doesn't define 'mental health crisis'. It also doesn't define who's qualified to make an assessment,' said Rabinowitz. Individuals with mental illness are defined in the order as people who 'pose risks to themselves or the public', which could be broad enough to encompass many people, he said. And while the order sometimes refers to cracking down on 'illicit' substance use, at other times it speaks more generally to substance use disorder – a condition that can include legal substances such as alcohol and prescription medication. Many states already have laws on involuntary commitment for mental illness, Sullivan said. Typically, the process begins with clinical healthcare providers or mental health professionals and goes through the judicial system. 'There's a judicial system to ensure that the rights of the individual are not being violated. To strip away those checks and balances, and make it so that there's more essentially policing on the streets of mental illness … has never been proved to be effective in the long run,' Sullivan said. 'This goes a step further than what we've seen in some other states or cities,' she added. The order would also expand drug courts and mental health courts, and it would 'allow or require' anyone receiving federal funding for homelessness support to collect health information and share it with law enforcement. The Trump administration will also stop supporting housing-first policies, which provide housing and support services as quickly as possible to people experiencing homelessness, the order said. It comes amid significant proposed reductions for affordable housing. 'The Trump administration is going to make housing more expensive. They're going to force more people into homelessness. And then once people are homeless, they're going to take away actual solutions, and instead lock people up for being homeless,' Rabinowitz said. This approach has serious repercussions for health, he added. 'Housing is the best form of healthcare, period. The health impacts of housing are tremendous, and the health consequences of homelessness are devastating.' Higher rates of involuntary institutionalization would add greater strain to the healthcare system, Sullivan said. 'We know that involuntary commitment leads to more people being in the emergency room and emergency rooms being more overwhelmed than they currently are.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Cuts to Medicaid will also make it harder for people with mental illness and substance use disorder to access healthcare, Sullivan said. And the new federal budget cuts funding for supportive services like mental health care and substance use treatment. The administration also plans to review grants for existing substance use programs, with explicit instructions not to fund projects on harm reduction – which often includes overdose response and naloxone distribution, needle and syringe exchanges, and education on safer drug use, among other initiatives – and safe consumption. And the order instructed Trump administration officials to pursue possible lawsuits against such programs. States and cities receiving federal funding could see that money restricted or frozen if they don't enforce the new rules, the executive order said. In the wake of last year's supreme court decision on Grant's Pass, upholding the Oregon city's ordinance that effectively criminalizes homelessness, several states and municipalities introduced stricter laws to target people living outside. 'Especially when federal funding is really disappearing, this hamstrings cities and municipalities into compliance in order just to fund vital services,' Sullivan said. Focusing on programs addressing these issues in innovative ways 'makes it seem like this is another mechanism for going after places like LA or Portland or Chicago or any place that is trying to do something different with addressing homelessness and substance use', Sullivan said. 'That is, to me, what it seems like – this is a way to go after not just individuals and people, but to go after areas,' she said. But it will have sweeping effects on homeless people and others to whom the order is applied. 'I think that they are motivated by this incorrect belief that homelessness is a choice, that we have to punish people in order for them to make a better choice,' Rabinowitz said. Even if that were true, he said, 'there are no carrots right now, there's no housing that anybody can afford, but there are a whole ton of sticks, and we know that people don't need a stick. People want housing; there's just no housing that they can afford. But the executive order does nothing to address the actual causes of homelessness.' Sullivan agreed. 'It does nothing to address underlying poverty. It does nothing to address the persistently unaffordable housing crisis,' she said. 'It does nothing to expand access to Medicaid for impoverished people. Meanwhile, the numbers in the US of people who are experiencing chronic homelessness and disability are increasing.'
