Home Electrolysis
Claudia Williams
Hello everyone,
Does anyone here have any experience with home electrolysis? I saw a
home electrolysis kit in the Sears Catalogue for CDN$49.95 and I was
wondering if it's just as effective and permanent as professional
electrolysis. I realize that there are certain risks in these
contraptions being used by inexperienced people. I'm mostly interested
in how it compares to professional services in terms of permanency.
Also, does a "rotating disk" hair removal system (one that pulls hair
out at the root) have the same effect as waxing in terms of hair
growing back slower, thinner and lighter?
Thanks for your help.
.....love and happiness.
Amy Lewis
Hi Claudia!
I've been doing my own for a long time, and making good progress with it
too. I've been using the Inverness machine that you can get in beauty
stores, and its working just fine. It does take some practice and you have
to have the pain threshold to deal with it, but once you get used to this
you can save yourself literally thousands of dollars.
Not everyone can do this apparently, some just can't deal with using a
needle on themselves, or can't deal with the pain, though I have to
wonder how they are going to get it done anyway if they can't take the
pain. Perhaps its just easier for them if the pain is inflicted by someone
else, which raises some intresting questions ;)
For my part, I found it much less painful doing it myself than when an
electrologist did it because I could feel what was happening and control
the insertions better. Sometimes an electrologist will make a new pore
instead of getting into the pore they are shooting for (ouch!), and they
can be a lot rougher than you would be getting the same thing done. They
can't feel it, you can.
The home units do the very same thing as those costing thousands of
dollars, though you may have to make some modifications to them to get
everything you want out of them. I've had to find ways to make the needles
longer, and keep the contact band moist, and other things that escape me
at the moment, but I've been getting really good results.
I've learned a lot and don't mind answering questions if you want to make
a go of it. I'm not familiar with the Sears unit, is it needle
electrolysis? This is the only kind that works, do not be suckered in by
such marketing gimmicks as
* Transdermal electrolysis
* Tweezer electrolysis
* Hair pullers of various types
* Laser hair removal
All of these are crap! The only effective method of permanant hair removal
is needle electrolysis, so don't waste your money or time on the others.
I tried the Silk Epil (tm) and found it to be a thoroughly brutal device,
and not very well made at that. I do not believe it to be much good as a
hair removal method, though I am certain it is an exellent means of
extracting confidential information from uncooperative interrogation
subjects. Start on their bikini lines and they will tell you anything ;)
I can sit and zap my face for 8-10 hours at a time, but I can't take that
Silk-Epil!
Amy
--
CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
others.
- Ambrose Bierce
jste...@ix.netcom.com
Amy -- One small correction: tweezer galvanic electrolysis is considered
permanent hair removal by FDA and therefore not "crap" as you term it.
This is an important distinction that the other techniques you list in
your "crap" list do not have.
Just wanted you to have some more recent information.
Judith
In article <alewis-2403...@pinelli1393.usfca.edu>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Amy Lewis
> Amy -- One small correction: tweezer galvanic electrolysis is considered
> permanent hair removal by FDA and therefore not "crap" as you term it.
> This is an important distinction that the other techniques you list in
> your "crap" list do not have.
>
> Just wanted you to have some more recent information.
>
> Judith
Wrong Judith,
The FDA does not consider tweezer electrolysis to be an effective method
of permanant hair removal, and in fact they are not the least bit
concerned about whether it is permanant, only that its safe to the extent
that it does no physical harm, same as laser hair removal, which is
equally ineffective.
check your facts.
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <lewisa-0104...@pinelli1393.usfca.edu>,
lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> In article <8598699...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > Amy -- One small correction: tweezer galvanic electrolysis is considered
> > permanent hair removal by FDA and therefore not "crap" as you term it.
> > This is an important distinction that the other techniques you list in
> > your "crap" list do not have.
> >
> > Just wanted you to have some more recent information.
> >
> > Judith
Wrong, Amy and I offer the following as proof FDA has a new position on
tweezerolysis as you term it.
March 10, 1991 -- Chicago, IL Electrolysis Research, Inc., seminar
presented by Dr. James E Schuster, MD, EE, "Between 2 and 10 microamps of
galvanic current will go through a hair. 10 microamps for 60 seconds
will produce 6 units of lye."
August 5, 1991 -- FDA clearance letter issued to GHR No-Needles
Electrolysis device stating the device is "substantially equivalent" to
needle epilators and therefore CLEARED FOR MARKETING AS PERMANENT. You
can see this letter in their web site http:www.wow-me.com/GHR
July, 1992, Chicago, IL An FDA official met with the Board of the
American Electrology Association and TOLD them the galvanic tweezers are
permanent in FDA's opinion based on the data submitted to the agency.
Further, that radio frequency tweezers still had not been cleared for
marketing as permanent.
October 28, 1992, San Antonio, TX Business meeting of the AEA - the
president of the American Electrology Association said, ". . . the
galvanic tweezers are allowed to advertise as permanent, the radio
frequency tweezers are not allowed to advertise as permanent."
February 1, 1993, Amarillo Globe-Times, interview with FDA Chief
Compliance Officer, Gwendolyn Gilbreath ". . . the GHR is substantially
equivalent to other devices that are out on the market. GHR also can
market itself as a permanent hair removal method. We do not object to
that label."
"Good Morning America" September 14, 1995, Dr. Barney Kenet, MD,
Dermatologist ". . . the challenge for no needle hair removal is to make
sure that it's better than electrolysis and then of course it would be
preferable."
And, since FDA has looked at the data submitted and determined this
device is able to permanently remove hair, it would be preferable.
September 1996, FDA Consumer, page 21 under the picture and not available
in the text on the FDA web site "Electrolysis is one way to remove hair
freom underarms and other areas."
Continuing in the same reference, page 23, middle column "Electrical
Epilators, Two types of devices use electric current to remove hair: the
needle epilator and the tweezers epilator."
Continuing in the same reference, page 24, middle column "Like needle
epilators, tweezers epilators use electric current to remove hair. The
tweezers grasp the hair close to the skin, and applied current travels
down the hair shaft to the root. And, like needle epilatorss, electric
shock is possible if the tweezers touch the skin instead of grabbing the
hair. Tweezers epilator manufacturers can claim permanent hair removal
if they can provide supporting data."
I have given you two FDA representatives that have allowed themselves to
be quoted in print and at the AEA Board meeting stating the GHR No-Needle
Electrolysis device is allowed to advertise and label the device as
PERMANENT based on data submitted to the agency.
What you are probably confused by is the latest "information" sent out to
the world by needle people quoting the Federal Register, August 14, 1995,
notice requesting manufacturers of tweezers epilators to submit safety
and effectiveness data. THIS APPLIES TO THE ONES WHO HAVE NOT DONE SO TO
DATE and illegally advertise "Permanent" such as the Forever Free, I'GIA,
Epilysse, Removatron, etc., all of which are RADIO FREQUENCY TWEEZERS who
have not submitted any such data on either safety or efficacy. Once the
data is received, a determination will be made device by device.
But the needle people don't bother to tell people the complete truth and
that is once you've submitted the data requested and the agency has
studied the data and cleared the device for marketing as permanent, as it
did the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis epilator, THAT'S THE END OF THE
QUESTION, PERIOD. Permission has been granted and received as herein
described.
If you do not choose to like this, that's fine. But you really ought to
have YOUR facts straight before you pontificate to the world based on
incorrect information on your part. Regarding your statement ". . . and
in fact they are not the least bit concerned about whether or not it is
permanent . . ." run that by them and see what they say. I think they'll
disagree because they are THE agency that regulates advertising (referred
to as labeling) of any device that attempts to alter a structure of the
body. This is done by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and
works with the MD Committee for General and Surgical Devices.
Why don't you check with FDA about whether or not they care if a device
is permanent or not? They'll be surprised to hear that all they care
about is safety and not labeling and efficacy.
So, Amy, who is the Informationally Challenged here? You contribute a
lot to the internet and seem to be a very helpful person. Had you not
told me to "check my facts" I would not have responded in such an
aggressive manner. I have no desire to argue with you based on your
personal opinion, to which you are always entitled. But if it's facts
you want, you've got them.
If you want physical copies of any of these documents, give me your snail
mail address and I'll mail them to you. And, if you don't, that's fine.
You can read them (including the clinical data submitted to FDA) on the
web site http:www.wow-me.com/GHR Yours for a better, less facially
scarred, less physically tortured, more accurately informed and hair free
world,
Judith
PS -- love your signature
> Wrong Judith,
>
> The FDA does not consider tweezer electrolysis to be an effective method
> of permanant hair removal, and in fact they are not the least bit
> concerned about whether it is permanant, only that its safe to the extent
> that it does no physical harm, same as laser hair removal, which is
> equally ineffective.
>
> check your facts.
>
> Amy
>
> --
> CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
> distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
> others.
>
> - Ambrose Bierce
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Amy Lewis
Would you care to offer an explanation of why there are no salons using
tweezer electrolysis? I personally do not care what the FDA says, I would
not spend my money on it as I've no verifiable information that it is
indeed permanant. The FDA allows the marketing of lasers for hair removal,
even though they are not permanant, on the grounds that they are safe.
I am still very skeptical of tweezolysis, and you can post all you want
about the FDA and alleged research results, but until the salons start
using it I will stick to needle electrolysis, which the industry still
maintains is the ONLY permanant method of hair removal.
BTW, hair does not conduct electricity.
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <alewis-0204...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
ale...@usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> Would you care to offer an explanation of why there are no salons using
> tweezer electrolysis?
What makes you think there are none? Just because you might not know of
them doesn't mean they're not out there using it. In fact, there are
several in the San Francisco area.
>I personally do not care what the FDA says, I would not spend my money on it as
>I've no verifiable information that it is indeed permanant.
And this is your perogative. The point I was making is your opinion is
just that -- your opinion. And that doesn't mean the GHR doesn't work in
terms of permanent hair removal. It just means you don't choose to
believe it.
>The FDA allows the marketing of lasers for hair removal, even though they are
>not permanant, on the grounds that they are safe.
What the FDA says is that the lasers may only claim what they have proven
-- 30% reduction in 60-70% of 13 test subjects So they can only claim
hair reduction for up to three months.
It is the doctors who are claiming permanent in violation of the labeling
laws of FDA. And, there's a big surprise!!! Remember when every one of
them was jumping on the minoxidil band wagon and compounding stuff in
their back rooms, putting it into a bottle and selling it to their
patients even before it was an approved use of the drug? They don't fear
FDA because FDA is run by doctors who don't apply the sections of the
Food, Drug amd Cosmetic Act to the doctors the same as they do
manufacturers of devices, drugs, skin care products and OTC medications
including vitamins and minerals.
>
> I am still very skeptical of tweezolysis, and you can post all you want
> about the FDA and alleged research results,
And just where do you get the authority to call the results "alleged" and
disparage them? Do you know any of the details of the research done in
this area? Or are you still confusing the radio frequency tweezers which
produce a thermolytic effect and their lack of results as applicable to a
completely different current (DC) that works on electrochemical
decomposition written up in any and every physics text in the world under
Faraday's Law as "alleged?"
>but until the salons start using it I will stick to needle electrolysis, which
>the industry still maintains is the ONLY permanant method of hair removal.
What the industry says is that IN THEIR OPINION and for membership
purposes, they only accept needle people in their organization. They
have stopped sending out press releaes saying the tweezer doesn't work
becaue they got sued for that.
And why do you think the needle electrolysis industry is so afraid of
more effective and less painful, less risky permanent hair removal
technique that the consumers prefer over the needle -- could it be fear
of competition and a desire to control information to the public? I
really doubt that they could have such a self-serving agenda behind their
repetious litany of "Only the Needle Works -- Only the Needle Works" in a
Chicken Little tone of voice.
They also get together at the meetings and circle their needles because
the Attacks of the Galvanic Tweezers and the Lasers are upon them.
You should read the fear and trepidation they are currently exibiting in
the needle publications regarding the laser. While they did not fear a
beauty salon using a galvanic tweezer because they could always say
"they're just a cosmetologist and I'm a Health Professional" to try and
snow their clients.
Now REAL Board certified Doctors are getting into the business. (Did you
ever wonder why they keep adding initials behind their names and making
up Boards of this and Boards of that to sound more professional, medical
and knowledgeable?)
And yet they fight like tigers to keep from being licensed in the first
place and specifically under a medical board in the second place.
Every time a doctor does a study on needle electrolysis that they don't
like because it describes the scarring, pitting, high rates of regrowth
and spreading of infection across the face of a client, they cry "Foul --
what does a doctor know about needle electrolysis." Then, another doctor
who likes it writes an article and then a doctor knows a lot about needle
electrolysis.
You see, they only want the prestige and not the responsibility. They
don't even want Informed Consent procedures to apply to them even though
that is a big responsibility in the medical and quasi or allied medical
fields.
>
> BTW, hair does not conduct electricity.
Well, finally you're absolutely correct: hair is NOT a conductor but
more importantly it is a SEMI-CONDUCTOR which means only a little bit of
electricity goes through it. And that's all that is needed to pass
through it in order for the job to be done -- just like your computer
from which you e-mail.
You don't have to take my word for it. Check the December, 1982, Journal
of the Society of Cosmetic Chemistry (peer reviewed journal) and find the
article "Physical Properties of alpha Keratin Fibers" because these PhD's
in textile physics are the ones who did the measurements (excuse me
"alleged" measurements).
You can't accept the Laws of Semi-Conductance in your computer and deny
it when it comes to getting a current through a hair. Don't know if that
constitutes Intellectual Bait and Switch but it certainly is Pick and
Choose which is not intellectually defensible.
Again, I'm not arguing with your own personal opinion but you challenged
my very quiet little correction. And, that's your choice based on
opinion. However, your opinion doesn't make my "alleged" facts any less
factual. Everyone has to decide for themselves what they want to do. I
was only trying to let you know there's been a slight change in opinion
at FDA about whether or not tweezers could be permanent because you
didn't seem to know about it.
And, in the end, isn't that the best way to form an opinion? Have all of
the facts and latest information? While you may not change your mind at
least you are better informed. Judith
rose...@aol.com
>Would you care to offer an explanation of why there are no salons using
>tweezer electrolysis?
>
>[...]
>
>BTW, hair does not conduct electricity.
Dear Amy,
There ARE salons offering tweezer electrolysis -- I went to one for a while. The
theory sounded reasonable, and I wasn't having the best luck with needle
electrolysis. To tell the truth, so far I'm not sure I have found ANY permanent
method of hair removal -- and that includes needles in the hands of respected
professionals.
It's not fair. The rest of me heals so poorly, how come my follicles can do it so well?
As for hair not conducting electricity -- granted. Galvanic tweezers use a conductive
gel applied to the hair above the skin, and count on the moisture in the hair sheath
to conduct electricity below the skin. With gel, I *know* hairs can conduct
electricity -- I've measured it with a milliammeter. MY milliammeter.
When you find lots of competing methods -- galvanic, thermolysis, blend, tweezer --
it is a sure sign that people are satisfied with none of them. We still have not found
the True Solution.
Plucky hugs -- Rose
Practice safe philosophy. Use conundrums.
Amy Lewis
Would you mind NAMING the alleged salons in the Bay Area using tweezolysis?
As to the alleged "facts" you posted about the FDA finding it to be
permanant, please check Michelle Stiener's post clarifying that.
I am curious to know what your stake in this is. Are you marketing this
stuff? Seems like a rather petty thing for you to spend all of this time
debating and arguing unless you have a compelling motive.
Have you yourself achieved permanant results with this method of hair
removal? Can you refer me to anyone who has?
Amy
--
|\_/| .-------------------------------------------.
| @ @ Woof! | Amy Lewis (lew...@usfca.edu) |
| <> _ | |
| _/\------____ ((| |)) | : A dog may bark all night, but his legs |
| `--' | | will not grow longer. |
____|_ ___| |___.' | |
/_/_____/____/_______| `-------------------------------------------'
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <lewisa-0404...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> Would you mind NAMING the alleged salons in the Bay Area using tweezolysis?
Amy -- I don't know the names of any "ALLEGED" salons. I only know of
actual, real live salons.
Now if you want REAL salons rather than "alleged," let me know.
> As to the alleged "facts" you posted about the FDA finding it to be
> permanant, please check Michelle Stiener's post clarifying that.
I am always interested in any and all posts on hair removal and
electrolyis. I have tried my best to find a post from a Michelle
Stiener. I have seen posts about Michelle Steiner and one post by
Michelle Steiner -- nothing to do with hair removal.
Perhaps if you would supply me with more information about the post or
where I can find it, I would appreciate it.
>
> I am curious to know what your stake in this is. Are you marketing this
> stuff? Seems like a rather petty thing for you to spend all of this time
> debating and arguing unless you have a compelling motive.
If you'd gone to the web site you'd know the "compelling motive" is
getting more accurate information about a better hair removal system out
to the public and correcting misinformed people who post their opinions
as fact rather than opinions.
Freedom of choice is one of the many, many benefits of our system. The
second best is correct and accurate information upon which to exercise
the choice.
>
> Have you yourself achieved permanant results with this method of hair
> removal?
Yes I have. I shaped my eyebrows with two treatments some 9 years ago.
Since I've never had a real hair problem, I've only done this area.
>Can you refer me to anyone who has?
I don't know which kind of hair removal scenario interests you most -- if
you're interested in the name and telephone number of a man who wanted to
thin his beard (not remove all of it forever) and achieved permanent
removal (for about 4 years so far) of 50% of his beard, his name is
Roland Sarrazen and he lives in Orange County, CA. He now uses his
equipment as a business and does the hair removal service on the paying
public. His telephone number is 714-236-9396.
I know a woman who did her bikini line in just a few treatments (can't
recall exactly how many 3-5 or so) with this method who lives and owns a
hair removal clinic in the Atlanta/Marietta area named Sue Richards @
770-943-0002.
I know lots of people who have achieved permanent hair removal with this
method. If you want to speak with more of them, I will get their
permission to post their names and telephone numbers in the newsgroup.
This one should get you started. Cute White Mastif you've got. Looks as
though he/she's right at home near the hearth in the castle beside the
Chief's throne.
Judith
>
> Amy
>
> --
> |\_/| .-------------------------------------------.
> | @ @ Woof! | Amy Lewis (lew...@usfca.edu) |
> | <> _ | |
> | _/\------____ ((| |)) | : A dog may bark all night, but his legs |
> | `--' | | will not grow longer. |
> ____|_ ___| |___.' | |
> /_/_____/____/_______| `-------------------------------------------'
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <19970404004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rose...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <alewis-0204...@amylewis.usfca.edu>, ale...@usfca.edu (Amy
Lewis) writes:
>
> >Would you care to offer an explanation of why there are no salons using
> >tweezer electrolysis?
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >BTW, hair does not conduct electricity.
>
> Dear Amy,
>
> There ARE salons offering tweezer electrolysis -- I went to one for a while.
The
> theory sounded reasonable, and I wasn't having the best luck with needle
> electrolysis. To tell the truth, so far I'm not sure I have found ANY
permanent
> method of hair removal -- and that includes needles in the hands of respected
> professionals.
>
> It's not fair. The rest of me heals so poorly, how come my follicles can do it
so well?
>
> As for hair not conducting electricity -- granted. Galvanic tweezers use a
conductive
> gel applied to the hair above the skin, and count on the moisture in the hair
sheath
> to conduct electricity below the skin. With gel, I *know* hairs can conduct
> electricity -- I've measured it with a milliammeter. MY milliammeter.
Rose -- thank you for telling of your own actual experience and
measurment of electricity (small amounts to be sure) through hair.
Perhaps Amy will find this helpful. I know I did.
>
> When you find lots of competing methods -- galvanic, thermolysis, blend,
tweezer --
> it is a sure sign that people are satisfied with none of them. We still have
not found
> the True Solution.
Amen to that!!! While needle electrolysis works for some, it does not
work for all. The same with galvanic tweezer electrolysis -- it works
for many but not for all. The only point I was trying to make is that
galvanic tweezer electrolysis is a permanent method as far as FDA ws/is
concerned.
And with the needle, the most important aspect is whether or not an
individual electrologist has successfully developed the art of insertion
into a small target she/he cannot see.
With galvanic tweezer electrolysis, the limiting factor is whether or not
the tech does the procedure absolutely correct because hair carries much
less current than the needle.
The beauty of the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis technique is that ALL of the
current gets into ONLY the hair follicle because the hair is only in the
follicle.
Everyone is different and their success rates are different in hair
removal.
Hair growers are looking at most possibly a lifetime of need for the
service. The treatments are less frequent but nonetheless, if the body
grows new hair, it grows new hair, period. And it's not the fault of the
needle electrologist or the galvanic tweezer piloelectrologist. Yell at
your bubbies because they may be culpable.
Judith
>
> Plucky hugs -- Rose
> Practice safe philosophy. Use conundrums.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
REGAN PYLMAN
Fans of this thread know that I'm butting in to a discussion between
Amy (two posts back, in the >> lines) and Judith, in the last post.
>> Would you mind NAMING the alleged salons in the Bay Area using tweezolysis?
>
>Amy -- I don't know the names of any "ALLEGED" salons. I only know of
>actual, real live salons.
>
I kinda have to agree that Amy is a little quick off the mark in using
the world Alleged. In fact, this whole thread seems unusually confrontational
to me, but then, a lot of what goes on in these groups seems unusually
confrontational to me.
>> I am curious to know what your stake in this is. Are you marketing this
>> stuff? Seems like a rather petty thing for you to spend all of this time
>> debating and arguing unless you have a compelling motive.
>
>If you'd gone to the web site you'd know the "compelling motive" is
>getting more accurate information about a better hair removal system out
>to the public and correcting misinformed people who post their opinions
>as fact rather than opinions.
>
Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me
like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
epilator in 1986."
Er... Judith, this wouldn't happen to be you, would it?
>Freedom of choice is one of the many, many benefits of our system. The
>second best is correct and accurate information upon which to exercise
>the choice.
All of which is great, really, except of this one tiny little thing... your
GHR device is three and a half grand. Now, I realize that a lot of us are
facing a boat load of electrolysis, and I'm not sure what the going rate for
needle electrolysis is, but... I c'n get a lot of it for three and a half
grand.
I, for one, have no desire to go into business removing other people's hair...
I just don't wanna be that close to some of the people I see leaving my
electrologist's office, thank you very little.
So... until I see some more compelling proof of the effectiveness of your
device, I'll put my money into the status quo. It's not perfect, but I c'n
talk to a lot of people who've had it done, and are happy with it.
>> Have you yourself achieved permanant results with this method of hair
>> removal?
>
>Yes I have. I shaped my eyebrows with two treatments some 9 years ago.
>Since I've never had a real hair problem, I've only done this area.
Err... pardon me again. Judith, were you perhaps born female? If so,
and really, I've no problem with that, I wish I'd been, but if so, can
you really understand the investment that many of us are making? If our
hair grows back, it's not an annoyance, as in eyebrows, or shins, but a
real problem... not to mention a waste of three and a half grand, which,
to me, at least, is a lot of money.
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <5ib5he$9...@katie.vnet.net>,
tenb...@katie.vnet.net (REGAN PYLMAN) wrote:
>
> Fans of this thread know that I'm butting in to a discussion between
> Amy (two posts back, in the >> lines) and Judith, in the last post.
>
> >> Would you mind NAMING the alleged salons in the Bay Area using
tweezolysis?
> >
> >Amy -- I don't know the names of any "ALLEGED" salons. I only know of
> >actual, real live salons.
> >
>
> I kinda have to agree that Amy is a little quick off the mark in using
> the world Alleged. In fact, this whole thread seems unusually confrontational
> to me, but then, a lot of what goes on in these groups seems unusually
> confrontational to me.
Thank you. I was just trying to make a small correction regarding FDA
and galvanic tweezer devices being permanent and I got body slammed with
"check your facts" so I thought I'd just show that I had them.
>
> >> I am curious to know what your stake in this is. Are you marketing this
> >> stuff? Seems like a rather petty thing for you to spend all of this time
> >> debating and arguing unless you have a compelling motive.
> >
> >If you'd gone to the web site you'd know the "compelling motive" is
> >getting more accurate information about a better hair removal system out
> >to the public and correcting misinformed people who post their opinions
> >as fact rather than opinions.
> >
>
> Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me
> like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
> development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
> epilator in 1986."
That is only one sentence out of literally hundreds and hundreds in the
site. Hardly compelling by any standard. What is the bulk of the site is
information (you know, all the other sentences in the site). In fact, I
think it was Escapade that reviews sites for content and they said ours
was very educational and "Tells you everything you wanted to know about
hair and more. They even show you . . ." They never mentioned marketing
at all.
>
> Er... Judith, this wouldn't happen to be you, would it?
Of course it is. And your point would be . . .? Do you really think I am
so ignorant as to give the web site, give my REAL e-mail address (unlike
many people who put stuff in these groups), speak so knowledgeably about
it and NOT be that name? I have absolutely nothing to hide so I don't
play these "Find me if you can" e-mail, internet games that others find
so amusing. I just want people to know about an effective alternative
and that's all.
The GHR marketing does not occur on the web. We do this through
advertising in trade journals, consumer magazines, trade shows and direct
mail. And, as soon as someone develops a good, reliable, Pre-op TG list
to which we can market by direct mail, we will. That's where we'll try
to sell you the device.
>
> >Freedom of choice is one of the many, many benefits of our system. The
> >second best is correct and accurate information upon which to exercise
> >the choice.
>
> All of which is great, really, except of this one tiny little thing... your
> GHR device is three and a half grand.
And that isn't Milk Money, is it. If you compare that one-time, finite,
can't cost more than this with the cost of needle electrolysis to
complete phase I of the transition protocol, you'll see the real savings
with the GHR.
It is not uncommon for hair removal to run $6K - $12K and more for
maintenance treatments (maybe) to treat any new stuff that grows. Many
people have to delay surgery because they don't have the funds to rip
right through phase I non-stop.
Then, GHR becomes a bargain both in time and money. You can work on
yourself whenever you want according to your schedule and not the office
hours of your friendly needle electrologist.
Once you've spent the money or perhaps I should say your insurance
carrier has paid for it, that's it. And there's the real economy. Plus,
you're in complete control of your progress -- not your funding.
Now, I realize that a lot of us are
> facing a boat load of electrolysis, and I'm not sure what the going rate for
> needle electrolysis is, but... I c'n get a lot of it for three and a half
> grand.
Absolutely but will you be through with your phase I for $3.5K? Most
likely not.
Going rate for needle electrolysis is $40-$120/hr depending on where you
live. AEA did a survey of electrologists all over the USA and the
methematical average was a little less than $50/hr.
> I, for one, have no desire to go into business removing other people's hair...
> I just don't wanna be that close to some of the people I see leaving my
> electrologist's office, thank you very little.
(I'm totally underwhelmed!)
Again, this is your choice. However, some TG's buy it for personal use
and then start to work on the community. Some even restrict their
practice to this.
And, some people share in the cost and work on each other. They even
make a bit of a party of it slumber or otherwise.
A Princess of the Saudi Arabian royal family bought one and has her
princess relatives over to the compound and do just that -- party in the
limited fashion available to them within the family compound.
A gay couple here has plans to open a B&B to their community and will
offer the hair removal in very private areas of the body because many,
many needle electrologists discrinate against men and won't work on
private parts of the body for the hair removal. Absolutely
unprofessional and not medical at all but they do it anyway.
>
> So... until I see some more compelling proof of the effectiveness of your
> device, I'll put my money into the status quo.
Again, your money -- your choice.
Let me tell you a cute little story along these lines -- two Canadian
needle electrologists stopped by the GHR booth in Chicago at the Midwest
Beauty Show where the device was marketed. They saw the bikini photos on
the web site wherein 90% of the hair was killed in a SINGLE clearing
treatment. The woman has never had any new hair or regrowth hair show up
in the last 3 years!!!! I told them that there wasn't a needle
electrologist in the world who could match that. They said "Yes, but it
is permanent?" I just laid on the table, looked up at them and said "How
many years do you want me to wait before you accept this as permanent?"
They laughed, of course, because then they could see how ridiculous their
statement was. They were very nice and friendly and ot the least bit
nasty but this is typical. They cannot conceive of a single treatment
being effective BECAUSE they can't do it.
I've talked to needle electrologists at meetings and while we're sitting
around chatting, they mention how long it took them to clear their bikini
line -- usually upwards of two years and yet the THREE years this bikini
line has stayed clear isn't enough for them. Does this defy logic or
what. Am I the only one who sees that this is permanent if you have no
hair for three years?
Basically, any area that stays clear for one hair growth cycle (2-4
months) has had the existing hair follicles PERMANENTLY removed. So, the
GHR tretments can do just that and yet people still ask it is permanent?
You might have some thoughts to share as to what you consider permanent.
It's not perfect, but I c'n
> talk to a lot of people who've had it done, and are happy with it.
It is hard to compete with 130 years of experience with needle
electrolysis when the GHR has only been available for 11.
You're correct -- you can walk down the street, ask 20 women if they've
had needle electrolysis or are familiar with it and you'll get far more
saying yes than if you walk down the same street, talk to the same 20
females and ask if they've had or heard of GHR and you'll be lucky to
find one. But that will change in time.
I know of one electrologist who bought the GHR because during one week,
she had two new clients who moved to the area from different parts of the
country and both had had GHR treatments and told her they were permanent.
That convinced her where the FDA thing hadn't. Go figure.
>
> >> Have you yourself achieved permanant results with this method of hair
> >> removal?
> >
> >Yes I have. I shaped my eyebrows with two treatments some 9 years ago.
> >Since I've never had a real hair problem, I've only done this area.
>
> Err... pardon me again. Judith, were you perhaps born female?
Yes I was and into a family that does not grow hair but that's my cross
to bear and we all have them.
If so,
> and really, I've no problem with that, I wish I'd been, but if so, can
> you really understand the investment that many of us are making?
I'm sorry that you might think I'm not sensitive to hair problems just
because I didn't have one so far or was born female. But that's because
you don't really know me yet.
I am a Board Certified Clinical Electrologist with an MS in Food Science
Technology who worked in public health for some 20 years, taught Clinical
Nutrition at two medical schools, participated as Project Director on
three research projects and a Full Medical Evaluation site for the WIC
program.
I've been in the hair removal busines for 17 years now (gettin' to be an
old broad, aren't I) and have worked with all the equipment: HF (needle
and tweezer), galvanic, blend, and multiple needle.
I've worked on several TG's with both techniques. I've helped several
TG's get their hair removal covered by their insurance. So I've been
fairly active in the industry even if I'm viewed as a heretic for having
developed an effective alternative that has the needle people scared
hairless.
If our
> hair grows back, it's not an annoyance, as in eyebrows, or shins, but a
> real problem...
But you see, to some TG's, eyebrows ARE a big deal because they see this
as an integral part of their feminine transition.
One of the testimonials on the web site is from a TG who spent $1300 on
needle treatments to her eyebrows and still had to pluck them daily. She
came to Texas and got a GHR and told us that she saw more permanence in 4
treatments than she had in $1300 with the needle. Would you accept her
word more than the man who worked once on his beard (that's all he wanted
to do -- thin it, not completely remove it) and had a 50% reduction? If
so, I'll contact her and see if she will give me permission to post it to
the group.
I won't post anyone's information here without their prior knowledge and
consent. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say TG's still are
subject to ridicule and hate. I'm not going to do anything to increase
that possibility.
And, although you didn't ask, I will not give out the name of the salon
UNTIL they contact me and give me their permission. They are about 500
feet from Castro Village and work predominantly but not exclusively on
their community, Nonetheless, I don't want to contribute to the
possibility that some people in Arkansas (don't write me about this --
you know there's some truth here) decide to load up the truck and go to
the salon with their snakes and hold a conversion service in or near
their salon.
not to mention a waste of three and a half grand, which,
> to me, at least, is a lot of money.
Now I'm disappointed that you seem to think I don't find $3.5K a lot of
money. Would you also feel that anything you spent on needle electrolysis
above $3.5K to be a waste? Think about that for a while because it's a
very real possibility. And, then, you will probably think the GHR
actually cost $7K -- the $3.5K you wasted on the needle treatments
because you had a lot of regrowth and then the $3.5K you spent on the
GHR. Somehow or other we always have a tendency to put the blame on Mame
and her GHR rather than the needle electrologist that could not do a
proper insertion if her life depended on it.
Don't misunderstand -- I know needle electrolysis works -- I've seen the
scars on TG clients and TG needle electrologists I've met in the
business. Their skin is so scarred and puffy that I always wonder if
they really think it is pretty. And a lot of people don't have the
surface scarring but they certainly do have the subsurface scarring.
Thanks for sharing your observations and criticisms (polite to be sure).
The purpose of the posts in my opinion is just that -- constructive,
polite differences of opinion and good, mannerly if passionate debate.
Love it.
Judith
Amy Lewis
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
> In article <5ib5he$9...@katie.vnet.net>, tenb...@katie.vnet.net (REGAN
> PYLMAN) wrote:
>
> >Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me
> >like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
> >development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
> >epilator in 1986."
>
> ooohhh, I missed that one.
>
Ahaaaaaaa!!!!!
I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this! She denied being able
to find your post correcting her assertions about the FDA's approval of
this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
Heheeheheeee! Thank you very much!
ROTFL,
Michelle Steiner
In article <lewisa-0804...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this! She denied being able
>to find your post correcting her assertions about the FDA's approval of
>this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
When she wrote that, I responded to her with my original message
included--and emailed a copy to her at the same time.
I've yet to see any response from her about it.
--Michelle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelle Steiner | First say to yourself what you would |
| ste...@best.com | be; and then do what you have to do. |
| http://www.best.com/~steiner | --Epictetus (55 - 135 CE) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jste...@ix.netcom.com
> ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>
> > In article <5ib5he$9...@katie.vnet.net>, tenb...@katie.vnet.net (REGAN
> > PYLMAN) wrote:
> >
> > >Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me
> > >like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
> > >development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
> > >epilator in 1986."
> >
> > ooohhh, I missed that one.
> >
You wouldn't have if you'd READ the information rather than just flipping
it off. It's only the first sentence in the left hand column of page 1
right after you get into the site. But I guess you weren't looking that
closely before you closed the site.
>
> Ahaaaaaaa!!!!!
>
> I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this!
I don't have any stake in this other than information. In fact, the site
is so unmarketing, that people write to us and ask the price.
Now, if I were marketing on the web, wouldn't more people be able to find
the price? Wouldn't I have an order form on the site (there is none)?
Wouldn't I have a secure site to take charge cards or faxed checks of it
were a MARKETING site? Wouldn't we have our toll free number in big
numbers on EACH AND EVERY page? Wouldn't we have a bar button titled
"ORDER" to click on and send me money?
But we don't have any of these things because this is not where or how we
market.
>She denied being able to find your post correcting her assertions about the
>FDA's approval of this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
Again, Amy, you're wrong. FDA does not APPROVE devices -- only drugs.
What they do is allow one to market a device with certain label claims
via the 510(k) letter.
This form letter does not say "permanent" in it because it goes to all
device manufacturers -- it is a FORM letter.
If you have a device for dialysis that is very similar in end function as
one already on the market, you submit your request for that labeling
claim and the data to support it.
Then, if FDA thinks you have data that supports your requested claim
(i.e., the whites of the eyes never appear yellow between treatments
indicating better filtration by our device), they send you the same form
letter eve though it's a completely different device. Get it?
That's why I referred you to the quotation from the FDA Chief Compliance
Officer wherein she said ". . . GHR is substantially equivalent to other
similar devices [i.e., needle] that are out on the market. GHR also can
market itself as a permanent hair removal method. We [i.e. FDA] do not
object to that label."
We requested permission to claim "permanet" and it was granted via this
clearance letter. The quote from the newspaper is is a translation of the
510(k) clearance form letter allowing us to make the specific claims we
requested in our 510(k) application.
GHR can and does make the "permanent" claim in all of our advertising and
have been doing so since 1986, having filed our first 510(k) in May,
1985.
If either one of you knew half as much as you think you do regarding this
legal process, you wouldn't be making these snide remarks. I know that
needle electrolysis has been around a lot longer and many people confuse
our device with the Radio Frequency Tweezers that were around since the
1960's when a patent was issued to Elizabeth Fozard, a needle
electrologist who had this hot idea.
Amy, you sent me an e-mail about how hair does not conduct current and
that the tweezers claim to produce heat in the hair by radio frequency
current and this idea had been rejected years ago. So far, so good.
The problem is, Amy, the GHR is NOT a radio frequency tweezer!! This is
explained in the second sentence of the left hand column page 1, right
after you enter the site. And, just before it is the one saying I
developed it -- another sentence neither of ;you read.
Before you start jumping to all these conclusioons, why don't you use
your reading and comprehension skills and then we can have a much better
debate on facts and not all of these unnecessary snide remarks. I don't
go around starting wars but I will charge right back at you when you tell
me "check your facts" because I have them.
FDA does not APPROVE of the needle epilators either. Each needle
manufacturer has the EXACT SAME FORM LETTER as the GHR. Since they made
a request for a labeling of "permanent" the same as we did, their
"clearance" letter gives them legal permission to do so.
in marketing its device, i.e., permanent hair removal. >
> Heheeheheeee! Thank you very much!
You're very, very, welcome. We try very hard to educate -- sometimes its
easier than other times. (~)
>
> ROTFL,
>
> Amy
>
> --
> |\_/| .-------------------------------------------.
> | @ @ Woof! | Amy Lewis (lew...@usfca.edu) |
> | <> _ | |
> | _/\------____ ((| |)) | : A dog may bark all night, but his legs |
> | `--' | | will not grow longer. |
> ____|_ ___| |___.' | |
> /_/_____/____/_______| `-------------------------------------------'
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Amy Lewis
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
> In article <lewisa-0804...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
> lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> >I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this! She denied being able
> >to find your post correcting her assertions about the FDA's approval of
> >this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
>
> When she wrote that, I responded to her with my original message
> included--and emailed a copy to her at the same time.
>
> I've yet to see any response from her about it.
>
> --Michelle
Thank you so much Michelle, I'm still chuckling over this one! If you are
in town in the near future I'd love to treat you to dinner :)
big hug,
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>
> In article <lewisa-0804...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
> lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> >I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this! She denied being able
> >to find your post correcting her assertions about the FDA's approval of
> >this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
>
> When she wrote that, I responded to her with my original message
> included--and emailed a copy to her at the same time.
Michelle and Amy -- one really big question: On April 4, 1997, Amy
refers to Michelle's post saying I should go read it. I look and look
and look and I can't find it so I write back that info on April 5, 1997.
I mean, I can't find the one "correcting her assertions about the FDA's
approval of this method". Found all kinds of posts in the past but
nothing on correcting my assertions about the FDA. So I wrote back and
explained that.
Looked for a post on Saturday in between you two spamming me. Amy,
remember when someone did that to you and how much you liked it? I feel
the same way. Hope you two got all your jollies doing that. It's such a
mature action for grown women.
Then, under "Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:09:36 -0800" I received an e-mail
from Michelle saying it has also been posted to soc.support.transgendered
and alt.transgendered. So, again, I look for the post and still can't
find it.
I realize, Michelle, that I'm not nearly as smart as a software quality
assurance test engineer but just where is the post? If I can find the
post, I will be only too happy to respond. Where have you put it? Why
don't you repost it if you really want a reply. I don't think you do.
Amy knew about the response on Friday or before, I looked for it as soon
as I heard about it on Saturday and Sunday (after receiving your e-mail)
and Monday and Tuesday and still can't find it. Did you remove it?
I even had some computer guru pals of mine (three) to look for it and they
couldn't find it either. Why would that be? What am I doing wrong?
> I've yet to see any response from her about it.
As soon as you tell me where to find it or repost it, I'll respond.
>
> --Michelle
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michelle Steiner | First say to yourself what you would |
> | ste...@best.com | be; and then do what you have to do. |
> | http://www.best.com/~steiner | --Epictetus (55 - 135 CE) |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Michelle Steiner
In article <lewisa-0904...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>Thank you so much Michelle, I'm still chuckling over this one! If you are
>in town in the near future I'd love to treat you to dinner :)
For a free dinner, I'll come to town. <smile>
>big hug,
And backatcha,
Amy Lewis
---total snip--
Yeah yeah, yawn....
give it up, I'm not interested. Your motives in this are clear now and I'm
not going to bother reading all this. You have been disingenuous thus far
and I have no reason to suppose you will change your tactics. I asked you
once if you were marketing this method, and you dodged the question,
saying you were only interested in giving us the best method of hair
removal, rather than admitting the truth, that its your product you were
defending.
Thank but no thanx
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <8606433...@dejanews.com>,
jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
> ste...@best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
> >
> > lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
> >
> > >I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this! She denied being able
> > >to find your post correcting her assertions about the FDA's approval of
> > >this method, and seemed on the whole very combative about it.
> >
> > When she wrote that, I responded to her with my original message
> > included--and emailed a copy to her at the same time.
-- hair removal and electrolysis -- more than one way to permanently
remove unwanted hair other than the needle --
> > --Michelle
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > | Michelle Steiner | First say to yourself what you would |
> > | ste...@best.com | be; and then do what you have to do. |
> > | http://www.best.com/~steiner | --Epictetus (55 - 135 CE) |
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Michelle Steiner
>Looked for a post on Saturday in between you two spamming me. Amy,
>remember when someone did that to you and how much you liked it? I feel
>the same way. Hope you two got all your jollies doing that. It's such a
>mature action for grown women.
I sent you exactly one email. That is not spamming.
>Then, under "Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 00:09:36 -0800" I received an e-mail
>from Michelle saying it has also been posted to soc.support.transgendered
>and alt.transgendered. So, again, I look for the post and still can't
>find it.
That's the one.
>I realize, Michelle, that I'm not nearly as smart as a software quality
>assurance test engineer but just where is the post? If I can find the
>post, I will be only too happy to respond. Where have you put it? Why
>don't you repost it if you really want a reply. I don't think you do.
It appeared on both newsgroups when I posted it. You have my permission to
repost the email version of it, and reply to that.
>Amy knew about the response on Friday or before, I looked for it as soon
>as I heard about it on Saturday and Sunday (after receiving your e-mail)
>and Monday and Tuesday and still can't find it. Did you remove it?
>
>I even had some computer guru pals of mine (three) to look for it and they
>couldn't find it either. Why would that be? What am I doing wrong?
I have no idea what you or your service provider are doing wrong.
The message ID for my original message containing the quote is
<steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>
The message ID for the second message (that I also copied to you via email)
in which I quoted the first one is
<steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>
Have at it.
Michelle Steiner
>In article <lewisa-0804...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
> lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>>
>> In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
>> ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <5ib5he$9...@katie.vnet.net>, tenb...@katie.vnet.net (REGAN
>> > PYLMAN) wrote:
>> >
>> > >Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me
>> > >like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
>> > >development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
>> > >epilator in 1986."
>> >
>> > ooohhh, I missed that one.
>> >
>
>You wouldn't have if you'd READ the information rather than just flipping
>it off. It's only the first sentence in the left hand column of page 1
>right after you get into the site. But I guess you weren't looking that
>closely before you closed the site.
Actually, I was looking for the FDA letter, and took the time to find it,
download the graphic, run it through my OCR, spell check it (for OCR
errors), and post it in a message here. A message that you said you never
saw, so I reposted it, with a copy to you via email.
>> I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this!
>
>I don't have any stake in this other than information. In fact, the site
>is so unmarketing, that people write to us and ask the price.
That is good marketting; you have people writing to you for the price--that
shows that the marketting works. Marketting rarely shows prices;
advertizing often does. They are not the same.
>Now, if I were marketing on the web, wouldn't more people be able to find
>the price? Wouldn't I have an order form on the site (there is none)?
>Wouldn't I have a secure site to take charge cards or faxed checks of it
>were a MARKETING site? Wouldn't we have our toll free number in big
>numbers on EACH AND EVERY page? Wouldn't we have a bar button titled
>"ORDER" to click on and send me money?
Nope; that would be sales.
>That's why I referred you to the quotation from the FDA Chief Compliance
>Officer wherein she said ". . . GHR is substantially equivalent to other
>similar devices [i.e., needle] that are out on the market. GHR also can
>market itself as a permanent hair removal method. We [i.e. FDA] do not
>object to that label."
How about posting the FDA's definition of "permanent"? I posted it in my
previous messages.
Amy Lewis
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
> In article <8606433...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >Looked for a post on Saturday in between you two spamming me. Amy,
> >remember when someone did that to you and how much you liked it? I feel
> >the same way. Hope you two got all your jollies doing that. It's such a
> >mature action for grown women.
>
er... excuse me! What on earth are you referring to? What precisely is it
that you are calling a spam? I believe you and I exchanged perhaps two
private emails, and a short exchange of posts on here. Not exactly what
one could accuratly term a spam.
wondering,
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
ste...@best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
>
> In article <8606380...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >In article <lewisa-0804...@amylewis.usfca.edu>,
> > lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
> >> ste...@antispamm.best.com (Michelle Steiner) wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <5ib5he$9...@katie.vnet.net>, tenb...@katie.vnet.net (REGAN
> >> > PYLMAN) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Um, I did go to the site, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks to
me
> >> > >like the 'compelling motive' is, and I quote, "After three years of
> >> > >development, Judith Stephens introduced the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis
> >> > >epilator in 1986."
> >> >
> >> > ooohhh, I missed that one.
> >> >
> >
> >You wouldn't have if you'd READ the information rather than just flipping
> >it off. It's only the first sentence in the left hand column of page 1
> >right after you get into the site. But I guess you weren't looking that
> >closely before you closed the site.
>
> download the graphic, run it through my OCR, spell check it (for OCR
> errors), and post it in a message here. A message that you said you never
> saw, so I reposted it, with a copy to you via email.
If you reposted it, why doesn't the article show up in the list? I've
told you I got the e-mail but I can't respond to the post if I can't find
it. Now I realize I'm not as competent as you on these computers so why
do you keep ignoring my request to tell me where it is? My female guru
pals that can't find it either are web site developers and Certified
Microsoft Engineers so you'd think they could find it even if I can't.
But they can't find it either.
>
> >> I KNEW she had a little too much of a stake in this!
> >
> >I don't have any stake in this other than information. In fact, the site
> >is so unmarketing, that people write to us and ask the price.
>
> That is good marketting; you have people writing to you for the price--that
> shows that the marketting works. Marketting rarely shows prices;
> advertizing often does. They are not the same.
Again, you don't understand or know our marketing plan. We always
include the price on the equipment when we market it: in direct mail, at
trade shows, in trade journals, etc. Perhaps you see them differently
but we don't.
>
> >Now, if I were marketing on the web, wouldn't more people be able to find
> >the price? Wouldn't I have an order form on the site (there is none)?
> >Wouldn't I have a secure site to take charge cards or faxed checks of it
> >were a MARKETING site? Wouldn't we have our toll free number in big
> >numbers on EACH AND EVERY page? Wouldn't we have a bar button titled
> >"ORDER" to click on and send me money?
>
> Nope; that would be sales.
>
Again, you don't unmderstand our marketing approach. I don't like things
that come to me without prices so I include the price on all of our
marketing literature. So, if you don't agree, that's fine. The fact
that you don't agree with our marketing plan has nothing to do with the
site. It was never intended for marketing -- only to get the information
and documentation out to the world that there is an effective, permanent,
no-needle electrolysis technique and equipment that FDA allows to be
advertised as permanent.
And, most of the e-mail we receive off the site or otherwise, is geared
towards where do I have this done -- not where do I buy this. You see,
consumer education.
> >That's why I referred you to the quotation from the FDA Chief Compliance
> >Officer wherein she said ". . . GHR is substantially equivalent to other
> >similar devices [i.e., needle] that are out on the market. GHR also can
> >market itself as a permanent hair removal method. We [i.e. FDA] do not
> >object to that label."
>
> How about posting the FDA's definition of "permanent"? I posted it in my
> previous messages.
How many more times would you like me to tell you, I can't find that post
and haven't been able to since last Friday, April 4, when Amy mentioned
it.
Would love to respond but I need your help in finding your post because
when I do a search on your name, it doesn't come up: when I do a search
and thread on "Re: home electrolysis" it still doesn't show up even
though the e-mail you sent me says that's the subject.
I've used inclusive dates of 4/1/97 through 4/9/97 and it still doesn't
come up so if you'll just tell me what I'm doing wrong, I'll do it right
and respond.
You tell me what you think their definition of permanent is. If you're
referring to the newspaper article where Ms Gilbreath said that the "FDA
considers a device as a permanent hair removal method if the hair is
removed and stays removed for a certain percentage of time." this is not
a definition but an explanation. Do you think this is their definition?
That defines nothing.
Hair follicles have different durations of the telogen or quiescent phase
on different parts of the body. Therefore, you can't simply say a
uniform period of time as a single definition of permanent.
The International Guild says permanent hair removal is 40% killed in the
first hair growth cycle with 50% being accomplished sometimes and as much
as 60% is possible.
Our clinical showed 60% average in a single treatment to the shins of
five people with the GHR and 40% average in a single treatment with the
needle to the shins of the same five people. This protocol was used
because that's what the IGPE says is the correct protocol to demonstrate
permanent hair removal. They set the protocol at 50 hairs on the shin,
treat them once, watch for two weeks and chart anything in the area
during that time as new, at the end of nine weeks, count the hairs and
work a percentage.
I don't agree with this but that's what the industry has as the only
standard.
If you have a problem with this protocol or have a better suggestion for
one, you might need to discuss that with IGPE. We just followed theirs.
At the time of the clinical, we used these standards and protocols because
that's all there were.
Our next clinical we've designed, ran it by FDA to see if they have any
problems with our protocol (they didn't) and this will be using the most
difficult part of the body from which to remove hair -- the facial beard
and neck.
Very few people undertake a permanent hair removal program for shin hairs
but that's what the IGPE thought was real scientific. Give me a break.
But please -- be critical of them and not me. I didn't dream that up --
they did.
That's just like the laser -- they used the back of the thigh as the hair
site!! Right -- that's just exactly where most permanent hair removal
technicians work on people.
But you see, no one in this industry really wants to demonstrate their
efficacy on the TOUGH stuff 'cause they want to keep the status quo. As
soon as the needle is put to a clinical study on facial hair, we'll see
how "permanent" that really is or is not.
Personally, I don't think "permanent" hair removal requires years and
years and years of weekly treatments. That sounds a lot like a
tremendous amount of regrowth. I know, I know -- the time goes from 40
hours a month to 35 and then 30, etc., but if it takes you 2 years (eight
hair growth cycles on the beard area) to start to seeing it be
manageable, that's a lot of regrowth!!!
So, Michelle, what do you consider permanent? How about the single
treatment to the bikini area shown on our site that has stayed clear for
three years? Is that permanent enough?
The industry says any site that stays clear for one hair growth cycle has
had the existing hairs removed permanently. However, if you're a hair
grower, there's a real possibility that maintenance treatments may be
necessary to treat new follicles as they convert (go from producing
non-noticeable hairs to hairs with length and/or color).
Another example: you have a hair problem develop in adolescence or after
a couple pregnancies. You have that permanently removed.
Then, along comes menopause -- or maybe just middle age -- it is very
likely a new hair problem will show up. Does that mean the other
treatments some 10-15-20 years earlier weren't permanent? Of course not.
New hairs can show up after a successful series of permanent hair removal
treatments and that doesn't negate the effectiveness of the treatments.
It only means that your genetic make-up, circulating free testosterone
and individual hair follicles susceptibility to uptake and conversion of
free testosterone to DHT (the biologically active form that stimulates
the follicles to produce hair) at the hair follicle receptor sites.
Isn't this pretty much what Ms. Laird says in her post? Do you disagree
with this? If so, let me know what you think these definitions and
standards ought to be.
Judith
>
> --Michelle
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Michelle Steiner | First say to yourself what you would |
> | ste...@best.com | be; and then do what you have to do. |
> | http://www.best.com/~steiner | --Epictetus (55 - 135 CE) |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Michelle Steiner
Posted and mailed.
In article <8607433...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>If you reposted it, why doesn't the article show up in the list? I've
>told you I got the e-mail but I can't respond to the post if I can't find
>it. Now I realize I'm not as competent as you on these computers so why
>do you keep ignoring my request to tell me where it is?
It is amazing that you don't see only those messages that you don't want to see.
I just emailed you a copy of the message in which I identified the two
messages containing the FDA letter, and in which I gave you permission to
use my emailed copy of the newsgroup messages for your reply.
>> How about posting the FDA's definition of "permanent"? I posted it in my
>> previous messages.
>
>How many more times would you like me to tell you, I can't find that post
>and haven't been able to since last Friday, April 4, when Amy mentioned
>it.
Why is it that you can find only those messages that you want to find?
Further, you have said that you received the email copy I sent to you; you
can reply to that.
>You tell me what you think their definition of permanent is. If you're
>referring to the newspaper article where Ms Gilbreath said that the "FDA
>considers a device as a permanent hair removal method if the hair is
>removed and stays removed for a certain percentage of time." this is not
>a definition but an explanation. Do you think this is their definition?
>That defines nothing.
That certainly looks like a definition to me.
Regardless, your documentation, or whatever you want to call it does not
address in any way whatsoever how well your product works on a male
beard--and that's the bottom line for us MTF transsexuals.
Michelle Steiner
You have a web site devoted to your product, replete with testimonials and
technical explanations of why you think that product is better than the
competition.
That, dear lady, is marketing.
Amy Blanchard
I have an offer to make. If there is a salon in the Detroit/Ann Arbor, MI
area that uses the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis device and is willing, I
will:
1) submit a patch of one thigh to regular treatment for however long the
manufacturer believes is necessary for effective treatment. I'll pay for
expendables.
2) Make a photographic record of progress available to the 'net community.
This record would include a three-month post-treatment photo as proof of
effectiveness.
And if the device works, I will buy one.
Or, if the manufacturer wants to send me an evaluation unit, I'd be happy
to provide a photographic record of my progress (on the legs or arms,
since my face is about done). Again, if the unit is effective, I'll buy
it.
--
To reply by email remove "NeedBoobs-" from my email address. This is to
foil spammers who gather email addresses from news posts.
Amy
mde...@selah.net
In article <lewisa-0104...@pinelli1393.usfca.edu>,
lew...@spamless.usfca.edu (Amy Lewis) wrote:
>
> The FDA does not consider tweezer electrolysis to be an effective method
> of permanant hair removal, and in fact they are not the least bit
> concerned about whether it is permanant, only that its safe to the extent
> that it does no physical harm, same as laser hair removal, which is
> equally ineffective.
>
> check your facts.
Laser hair removal is still under study by the FDA. I am currently in a
clinical trial sponcered by the FDA using a laser for hair removal. For
me, it's too early to say whether laser is effective, but I'll post my
experience when appropriate.
>
> Amy
>
> --
> CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
> distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
> others.
>
> - Ambrose Bierce
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Caitlyn M. Martin
Amy Blanchard wrote:
>
> I have an offer to make. If there is a salon in the Detroit/Ann Arbor, MI
> area that uses the GHR No-Needle Electrolysis device and is willing, I
> will:
>
> 1) submit a patch of one thigh to regular treatment for however long the
> manufacturer believes is necessary for effective treatment. I'll pay for
> expendables.
>
> 2) Make a photographic record of progress available to the 'net community.
> This record would include a three-month post-treatment photo as proof of
> effectiveness.
>
> And if the device works, I will buy one.
>
> Or, if the manufacturer wants to send me an evaluation unit, I'd be happy
> to provide a photographic record of my progress (on the legs or arms,
> since my face is about done). Again, if the unit is effective, I'll buy
> it.
>
Hi, Amy,
It's been a long time since I've seen you post. I was just a lurker
back then... I'm glad you're still here.
I'll go Amy one better. I'm just starting on electro on my face, and
have VERY sensitive skin, so needle electrolysis is no fun at all.
Since for a MtF transsexual the beard being gone is absolutely key--here
is an even better offer. Basically, the same one Amy made, but in San
Francisco, and it's my face that'll be worked on. If your product
really works, I'll not only buy it, but I'll sing it's praises
publicly. You'll have tons of free marketing in the TS community.
Judith, it's a pity that I don't believe you'll take up either Amy's
offer or mine. You see, I can't find a single transsexual woman who
believes that this product works for us.
Regards,
Kate
Jay Denebeim
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
Michelle Steiner <ste...@best.com> wrote:
>Posted and mailed.
>
>In article <8607433...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>If you reposted it, why doesn't the article show up in the list? I've
>>told you I got the e-mail but I can't respond to the post if I can't find
>>it. Now I realize I'm not as competent as you on these computers so why
>>do you keep ignoring my request to tell me where it is?
>
Um, Michelle, there's a very good reason that she didn't see it. I
got curious about all this smoke, and went and looked at the original
posting. For whatever reason in the message you two have been
fighting about, you put a 'x-no-archive: yes' header in. jstephnz
clearly is posting from Deja-News, so of course, it isn't there. You
put the header in to disable deja-news from storing the message.
Now, looking at other posts you've made, I don't believe you're in the
habit of putting that header into your posts. It kinda begs the
question why you did it that particular time.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
Ted Molczan
mde...@selah.net wrote in article <8608308...@dejanews.com>...
> Laser hair removal is still under study by the FDA. I am currently in a
> clinical trial sponcered by the FDA using a laser for hair removal. For
> me, it's too early to say whether laser is effective, but I'll post my
> experience when appropriate.
To the best of my knowledge, FDA does not sponsor clinical
trials, but manufacturers do. As of now, four lasers have
been cleared to market by FDA, and several others are
awaiting clearance, or still conducting their clinical
trials.
None of the lasers cleared to-date have been allowed to
claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
months, based on their clinical trial results.
Ted Molczan
Toronto
Michelle Steiner
In article <5ip7oi$6...@marvin.deepthot.cary.nc.us>,
dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
>Michelle Steiner <ste...@best.com> wrote:
>>Posted and mailed.
>>
>>In article <8607433...@dejanews.com>, jste...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>>If you reposted it, why doesn't the article show up in the list? I've
>>>told you I got the e-mail but I can't respond to the post if I can't find
>>>it. Now I realize I'm not as competent as you on these computers so why
>>>do you keep ignoring my request to tell me where it is?
>>
>>It is amazing that you don't see only those messages that you don't want
to see.
>
>Um, Michelle, there's a very good reason that she didn't see it. I
>got curious about all this smoke, and went and looked at the original
>posting. For whatever reason in the message you two have been
>fighting about, you put a 'x-no-archive: yes' header in. jstephnz
>clearly is posting from Deja-News, so of course, it isn't there. You
>put the header in to disable deja-news from storing the message.
>
>Now, looking at other posts you've made, I don't believe you're in the
>habit of putting that header into your posts. It kinda begs the
>question why you did it that particular time.
Jay, I have had that header in *all* my usenet messages for a few months
until a about a week ago, when my computer crashed and I restored from a
backup that was made before I put the header in. This is the same time my
return address reverted to ste...@best.com from ste...@antispamm.best.com
I didn't realize that the backup was missing that information until I read
your message. I just restored it.
If you'd care to check deja-news, you'll see that nothing from me between a
few months ago and a week ago shows up there.
So, saying that I did it "that particular time" shows either that you did
sloppy research or you have an axe to grind.
The fact that she reads and posts from deja-news is her problem, not mine.
If she had been using a real newsreader, she would have been able to see
the messages.
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5ipen3$9...@news.inforamp.net>,
Yes, about the same as with plucking, only lots more expensive and
possibly dangerous.
Unconstitutional Government Hate Crime Of The Decade!
The Colorado State Legislature Is Trying To Ban Our Presently Legal Marriage!
Read all about it! :
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/marriage.htm
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/wpdsgn.htm
http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/melissas.htm
Personal opinions I express are not necessarily those of the organizations I may be doing volunteer work for.
Abusive email may be posted.
Please don't send me email copies of your follow ups to my posts unless I request it.
Jay Denebeim
In article <steiner-ya0240800...@nntp.best.com>,
Michelle Steiner <ste...@antispamm.best.com> wrote:
>Jay, I have had that header in *all* my usenet messages for a few months
>until a about a week ago, when my computer crashed and I restored from a
>backup that was made before I put the header in. This is the same time my
>return address reverted to ste...@best.com from ste...@antispamm.best.com
Ah, forgive me then for any thoughts I may have had. I just checked
the other posts in this thread before saying that. I probably should
have checked closer.
>So, saying that I did it "that particular time" shows either that you did
>sloppy research or you have an axe to grind.
Michelle, honestly, yeah, I do. I find you rather agressive, and you
pick fights, and sometimes bring them here from elsewhere. I also
find you supportive of other people who need it sometimes. So, just
like everybody else, you've got your faults, but you've got good
points as well.
>The fact that she reads and posts from deja-news is her problem, not mine.
>If she had been using a real newsreader, she would have been able to see
>the messages.
Yeah, well, I told her that in e-mail. She posts from netcom, and
they've got great connectivity usenet-wise. However, she's a
neophite, she says she is, and it shows. So, be gentle with her
computerwise. It's not a fair tactic in an argument to take advantage
of someone's lack of computer expertise.
As far as her machine goes, well, I'm hardly one to be able to speak
on the subject. However, I will say that if she designed a machine,
she potentially knows quite a bit about how the machine works and
about hair removal. She says it works, that she has FDA approval for
using 'permanent' on it, and so on. Yeah, she could be hyping snake
oil, I don't know. The thing is, it seems that rather than denying it
could possibly work as she says it does, tell her to put up or shut
up. She's in SF IIRC, or that vacinity, I doubt it would be difficult
to provide a test subject from the newsgroup. If she's sure of her
product, then I don't see why she'd refuse, I'm sure she'd sell a
boatload of them to people just on this newsgroup if her box works as
advertised.
(As a side note, I saw a commercial on TV last night advertising
perminant hair removal using something that sounds like this
technology for $129, I have no idea what that would mean, either
they're in violation of the law with that ad, or the FDA has given
this technology permission to use perminant.)
Ted Molczan
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone <Mel...@asupernet.com> wrote in article
<5irp8c$gdg...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>...
> >None of the lasers cleared to-date have been allowed to
> >claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
> >they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
> >months, based on their clinical trial results.
>
> Yes, about the same as with plucking, only lots more expensive and
> possibly dangerous.
I believe that your doubt of laser's safety is justified. The three new
lasers
cleared to market by FDA in March are ruby lasers, and at least one of
them operates at a much higher fluence (energy density, measured
in J/cm^2 (Joules per square cm)) than Thermolase's SoftLight, which
was cleared 2 years ago.
The one I refer to is the Epilaser, by Palomar Medical Technologies'
Spectrum Medical Technologies subsidiary. This laser hair removal
system was developed at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1994-95,
and licensed exclusively to Palomar in Aug'95. Clinical trials are ongoing
at MGH, though I believe that they are also now treating paying customers,
due to the FDA clearance.
I have a recent copy of MGH's patient letter, given out prior to treatment.
First, the letter informs that 80 percent of test subjects had regrowth
within
2 to 3 months of treatment. Then it goes on to recommend the use of the
topical anesthetic EMLA, 1.5 hours prior to treatment; and mentions that
xylocaine injections are also available as an alternative. Post-treatent
pain
is likened to that of a sunburn, possibly requiring the use of a mild
analgesic in patients with a low pain threshold. So much for all the hype
we used to hear about laser being virtually painless!
The letter suggests that no permanent skin changes or serious complications
have been seen so far, but it does admit that all test subjects experienced
darkened skin immediately after treatment. For 75 percent, this darkening
was fast fading, but for the other 25 percent the fading took about 3
months.
The letter does not say what the cumulative effects of numerous treatments
might be, but given the high re-growth rate, and the letter's
recommendation
for follow-up treatment at 2 to 3 month intervals, or whenever regrowth
appears, I think the potential for long-term side effects has to be
considered.
As far as I know, none of the four systems cleared by FDA provided more
than about 6 months of clinical data, and most of it limited to one or
perhaps two treatments during that period. So how do they know that
it is safe? Perhaps that is why some laser hair removal clinics require
that patients sign a consent form. I wonder what legal rights they are
being asked to sign away?
Considering the poor efficacy, unproven long-term safety, and very high
cost, I do not see much of a future for laser. Prospective patients should
ask lots of questions. Also, the FDA's Office of Consumer Affairs can
provide accurate information on laser hair removal devices. They can be
reached at 301-594-2062.
Ted Molczan
Melissa Devons
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone wrote:
> >> Laser hair removal is still under study by the FDA. I am currently in a
> >> clinical trial sponcered by the FDA using a laser for hair removal. For
> >> me, it's too early to say whether laser is effective, but I'll post my
> >> experience when appropriate.
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge, FDA does not sponsor clinical
> >trials, but manufacturers do. As of now, four lasers have
> >been cleared to market by FDA, and several others are
> >awaiting clearance, or still conducting their clinical
> >trials.
> >
> >None of the lasers cleared to-date have been allowed to
> >claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
> >they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
> >months, based on their clinical trial results.
> >
> >Ted Molczan
> >Toronto
I know that, this is what the study is for.
While it's premature to say whether laser is effective, others going to
the treatment have had quit positive results.
The FDA has given the clinic a grant, the clinic's purpose is to find
out whether laser is effective.
> Yes, about the same as with plucking, only lots more expensive and
> possibly dangerous.
It's A LOT less expensive, but then again, because of the grant, I get
reduced rates ($8.00/pulse (which clears a little less than a square
inch)). About the dangers - with this study, I haven't seen anyone have
any negative results. Again, it's too early to say. That's what the
study is for.
Joining the study is a risk I want to take. So far, I'm very pleased,
but like I've said, "It's too early to tell". I will post any
information I can gather, as well as my own experiences.
I see a lot of negative post about laser, and maybe some of those posts
will be correct, but for right now, it's too early to say. I'm going to
at least find out.
Melissa
Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone
In article <5it4cv$6...@news.inforamp.net>,
"Ted Molczan" <mol...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone <Mel...@asupernet.com> wrote in article
><5irp8c$gdg...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>...
>> In article <5ipen3$9...@news.inforamp.net>,
>> "Ted Molczan" <mol...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>
>> >claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
>> >they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
>> >months, based on their clinical trial results.
>>
>> possibly dangerous.
>
>lasers
>cleared to market by FDA in March are ruby lasers, and at least one of
>them operates at a much higher fluence (energy density, measured
>in J/cm^2 (Joules per square cm)) than Thermolase's SoftLight, which
>was cleared 2 years ago.
There have been articles in the Electrology Journals about massive herpes
outbreaks in people, even using the thermolase. People who never had
herpes before. Herpes explosions, was the way they put it.
>The one I refer to is the Epilaser, by Palomar Medical Technologies'
>Spectrum Medical Technologies subsidiary. This laser hair removal
>system was developed at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1994-95,
>and licensed exclusively to Palomar in Aug'95. Clinical trials are
ongoing
>at MGH, though I believe that they are also now treating paying
customers,
>due to the FDA clearance.
AFAIK no laser system has been ruled safe and effective yet by FDA for
any hair removal use.
>I have a recent copy of MGH's patient letter, given out prior to
treatment.
>First, the letter informs that 80 percent of test subjects had regrowth
>within
>2 to 3 months of treatment. Then it goes on to recommend the use of the
>topical anesthetic EMLA, 1.5 hours prior to treatment; and mentions that
>xylocaine injections are also available as an alternative. Post-treatent
>pain
>is likened to that of a sunburn, possibly requiring the use of a mild
>analgesic in patients with a low pain threshold. So much for all the hype
>we used to hear about laser being virtually painless!
>
>The letter suggests that no permanent skin changes or serious
complications
>have been seen so far, but it does admit that all test subjects
experienced
>darkened skin immediately after treatment. For 75 percent, this darkening
>was fast fading, but for the other 25 percent the fading took about 3
>months.
And sun damage takes 20-30 years to turn into skin cancer. Does the lack
of immediate damage make it long term safe? Your guess is as good as
anyone elses'.
>The letter does not say what the cumulative effects of numerous
treatments
>might be, but given the high re-growth rate, and the letter's
>recommendation
>for follow-up treatment at 2 to 3 month intervals, or whenever regrowth
>appears, I think the potential for long-term side effects has to be
>considered.
Yes.
>As far as I know, none of the four systems cleared by FDA provided more
>than about 6 months of clinical data, and most of it limited to one or
>perhaps two treatments during that period. So how do they know that
>it is safe? Perhaps that is why some laser hair removal clinics require
>that patients sign a consent form. I wonder what legal rights they are
>being asked to sign away?
Probably the usual. That they won't sue no matter what happens to them.
- Melissa
If you actually read my post, are not a spammer just harvesting names for your trash junk mail,
and if you'd like to reply by email, please remove the XXX out of my email address in the address listed
before sending it to me. Thanks.
Jay Denebeim
<I'm not looking for a fight, so, I'm snipping most of this stuff. It
was just my opinions on the subject, and people can take them for
whatever they want them for as far as I'm concerned>
>BTW, I have brought in only one fight from somewhere else--which is a lot
>less than what some other people have done here.
Yeah, but it's a doozy, and you've got Joan in there as well. Look, I
know that they can't hurt you, and you can give as good as you take.
However, many of the people here are alot more emotionally vulnerable
than you. Baiting these morons in the rougher groups is just asking
for them to come trolling through here. They could seriously damage
people here, I've seen it happen too many times on usenet. Your ego
and identity arn't here, you're invulnerable to attacks, that's not
true of everyone.
>I wasn't taking advantage of her lack of computer expertise. I was
>responding to her based upon the content of her messages. She was the only
>person who claimed not to have seen my messages, and since I could not see
>any reason other for that, I called her on it. That she posted from
>deja-news completely escaped me, and even if I had noticed, I probably
>would not have made the connection.
Again, forgive me. I know you're good with computers, you can read
headers. May I suggest that next time something like this comes up
you look at that rather than implying that they're lying about not
seeing your post?
>But, if she's a neophyte, how did she make such an elaborate web site?
She's obviously a neophyte, she thinks that web page designing and
Microsoft certification is an indicator of computer and programming
ability.
As far as who designed her page, I would imagine it was the three web
monkeys, who were as clueless as she about what her problem is that
she mentioned in her post.
jste...@ix.netcom.com
> > clinical trial sponcered by the FDA using a laser for hair removal. For
> > me, it's too early to say whether laser is effective, but I'll post my
> > experience when appropriate.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, FDA does not sponsor clinical
> trials, but manufacturers do. As of now, four lasers have
> been cleared to market by FDA, and several others are
> awaiting clearance, or still conducting their clinical
> trials.
>
> claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
> they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
> months, based on their clinical trial results.
>
> Toronto
Ted: As usual you're correct. FDA does not sponsor or conduct trials.
They review trial protocols of manufacturers and/or test facilities for
the "well-controlled clinical trials", the manufacturer has to have an
Institutional Review Board sign-off on the test protocols, consent forms,
etc., and then the testing is done. The results of the testing are
reported to FDA. FDA then deliberates over the data submitted and allows
or does not allow certain claims as requested by the manufacturer.
What some doctors are doing is telling patients they (the docs) are
participating in the clinical trials to determine the efficacy of the
device for submission to FDA. This might have been construed as
participating in a clinical trial sponsored by FDA. And that would be
incorrect: FDA does not conduct clinicals.
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <335300...@selah.net>,
Melissa Devons <mde...@selah.net> wrote:
>
> Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone wrote:
>
> > >> Laser hair removal is still under study by the FDA. I am currently in a
> > >> clinical trial sponcered by the FDA using a laser for hair removal. For
> > >> me, it's too early to say whether laser is effective, but I'll post my
> > >> experience when appropriate.
> > >
> > >To the best of my knowledge, FDA does not sponsor clinical
> > >trials, but manufacturers do. As of now, four lasers have
> > >been cleared to market by FDA, and several others are
> > >awaiting clearance, or still conducting their clinical
> > >trials.
> > >
> > >None of the lasers cleared to-date have been allowed to
> > >claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
> > >they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
> > >months, based on their clinical trial results.
> > >
> > >Ted Molczan
> > >Toronto
>
>
> While it's premature to say whether laser is effective, others going to
> the treatment have had quit positive results.
>
> The FDA has given the clinic a grant, the clinic's purpose is to find
> out whether laser is effective.
What clinic is this? What type of laser is this -- ruby, YAG, Argon or
whatever? I don't think FDA gives grants to anyone or clinics to do a
study for a manufacturer of a medical device to prove its efficacy. This
is the responsibility of the manufacturer. This has me very confused.
Can you give more details?
>
> > Yes, about the same as with plucking, only lots more expensive and
> > possibly dangerous.
>
> It's A LOT less expensive, but then again, because of the grant, I get
> reduced rates ($8.00/pulse (which clears a little less than a square
> inch)). About the dangers - with this study, I haven't seen anyone have
> any negative results. Again, it's too early to say. That's what the
> study is for.
If the clinic has a grant, why do they charge you $8/pulse? How much
does that become an hour? Does the hair disintegrate eventually? Do
they wax it off after treatment? Do you go home with the hair? From
what sites on the body are they studying the permanency -- face or still
on the legs as the others have done? Do you have to use an antibacterial
ointment on the site after treatment?
>
> Joining the study is a risk I want to take. So far, I'm very pleased,
> but like I've said, "It's too early to tell". I will post any
> information I can gather, as well as my own experiences.
>
> I see a lot of negative post about laser, and maybe some of those posts
> will be correct, but for right now, it's too early to say. I'm going to
> at least find out.
>
> Melissa
>
> >
> > Unconstitutional Government Hate Crime Of The Decade!
> >
> > The Colorado State Legislature Is Trying To Ban Our Presently Legal
Marriage!
> >
> > Read all about it! :
> > http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/marriage.htm
> >
> > http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/
> > http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/wpdsgn.htm
> > http://www.asupernet.com/~melissa/melissas.htm
> >
> > Personal opinions I express are not necessarily those of the organizations I
may be doing volunteer work for.
> > Abusive email may be posted.
> > Please don't send me email copies of your follow ups to my posts unless I
request it.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
jste...@ix.netcom.com
In article <5iuikd$g2k...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>,
Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
>
> In article <5it4cv$6...@news.inforamp.net>,
> "Ted Molczan" <mol...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> >Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone <Mel...@asupernet.com> wrote in article
> ><5irp8c$gdg...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>...
> >> >claim permanent, or even long-term results. About all
> >> >they may claim is a reduction of hair for up to three
> >> >months, based on their clinical trial results.
> >>
> >> possibly dangerous.
> >
> >lasers
> >cleared to market by FDA in March are ruby lasers, and at least one of
> >them operates at a much higher fluence (energy density, measured
> >in J/cm^2 (Joules per square cm)) than Thermolase's SoftLight, which
> >was cleared 2 years ago.
>
> There have been articles in the Electrology Journals about massive herpes
> outbreaks in people, even using the thermolase. People who never had
> herpes before. Herpes explosions, was the way they put it.
>
> >The one I refer to is the Epilaser, by Palomar Medical Technologies'
> >Spectrum Medical Technologies subsidiary. This laser hair removal
> >system was developed at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1994-95,
> >and licensed exclusively to Palomar in Aug'95. Clinical trials are
> ongoing
> >at MGH, though I believe that they are also now treating paying
> customers,
> >due to the FDA clearance.
>
> AFAIK no laser system has been ruled safe and effective yet by FDA for
> any hair removal use.
They have been cleared for use in hair removal with efficacy to be
deterined as well as long term safety.
>
> >I have a recent copy of MGH's patient letter, given out prior to
> treatment.
> >First, the letter informs that 80 percent of test subjects had regrowth
> >within
> >2 to 3 months of treatment. Then it goes on to recommend the use of the
> >topical anesthetic EMLA, 1.5 hours prior to treatment; and mentions that
> >xylocaine injections are also available as an alternative. Post-treatent
> >pain
> >is likened to that of a sunburn, possibly requiring the use of a mild
> >analgesic in patients with a low pain threshold. So much for all the hype
> >we used to hear about laser being virtually painless!
> >
> >The letter suggests that no permanent skin changes or serious
> complications
> >have been seen so far, but it does admit that all test subjects
> experienced
> >darkened skin immediately after treatment. For 75 percent, this darkening
> >was fast fading, but for the other 25 percent the fading took about 3
> >months.
And one of the subjects continued to have redness and swelling with a
brown pigment to the skin at the end of the six months. Since there were
only 13 subjects, this is a pretty high rate for skin that wasn't damaged
to continue with the appearances of trauma. Perhaps the laser actually
induced photosensitivity in a previously non-photosensitive person? Just
a suggestion.
>
> And sun damage takes 20-30 years to turn into skin cancer. Does the lack
> of immediate damage make it long term safe? Your guess is as good as
> anyone elses'.
Excellent point!! Other laser procedures are one-time things: face
resurfacing, a couple of treatments for port wine, tattoos, etc.,
blasting out clogged arteries, reshaping other tissues in the body, etc.
Therefore, if the hair removal is going to continue to have the high
rates of regrowth (5 out of 13 in the LaserMetrics study @ MGH had
complete regrowth), then the continued use on the same sight for the same
purpose aimed at the same tissue is a whole different thing.
Another consideration: since the LaserMetrics study eliminated
photosensitive people (such as people on retin-A, etc) people who have a
tendency to keloid (there go all the African American's with
pseudo-folliculitis for whom permanent hair removal is important as well
as a lot of others), people with immunosuppression (lupus, HIV, chemo),
pregnancy, and poor wound healing (no diabetics need apply). This begs
the question: who are the 25 people left that can be a candidate?
And, if it's so safe, why all these exclusions? Seems like a lot of
contraindications to me.
Plus, why do they continue to use leg hair as a test site? Guess
everyone still thinks the old IGPE sugestion of leg hair as an
appropriate test site is valid. Personally, I'm waiting for them to take
on the real hair growth problem areas: upper lip, chin, neck, beard.
> >The letter does not say what the cumulative effects of numerous
> treatments
> >might be, but given the high re-growth rate, and the letter's
> >recommendation
> >for follow-up treatment at 2 to 3 month intervals, or whenever regrowth
> >appears, I think the potential for long-term side effects has to be
> >considered.
>
> Yes.
>
> >As far as I know, none of the four systems cleared by FDA provided more
> >than about 6 months of clinical data, and most of it limited to one or
> >perhaps two treatments during that period. So how do they know that
> >it is safe? Perhaps that is why some laser hair removal clinics require
> >that patients sign a consent form. I wonder what legal rights they are
> >being asked to sign away?
>
> Probably the usual. That they won't sue no matter what happens to them.
Fortunately, that won't hold up. Even though you've signed an Informed
Consent, you cannot give away your rights to redress in advance.
And, after all was said and done, the pooled data reveals between 15% and
23% more effectiveness than shaving and/or tweezing at the end of the
study.
Since the regrowth did not show up at first, within 30 days of treatment,
it seems that the laser is good at "scaring" the follicles or as the
report said "ruby laser produces a growth delay consistent with induction
of prolonged telogen with apparently permanent hair removal in some
cases."
>
> - Melissa
>
> If you actually read my post, are not a spammer just harvesting names for
your trash junk mail,
> and if you'd like to reply by email, please remove the XXX out of my email
address in the address listed
> before sending it to me. Thanks.
>
S. Angela Maria
In article <5iuikd$g2k...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>,
Melis...@asupernet.com (Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone) wrote:
> In article <5it4cv$6...@news.inforamp.net>,
> "Ted Molczan" <mol...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> >Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone <Mel...@asupernet.com> wrote in article
> ><5irp8c$gdg...@dialup1.den.asupernet.com>...
> >lasers
> >cleared to market by FDA in March are ruby lasers, and at least one of
> >them operates at a much higher fluence (energy density, measured
> >in J/cm^2 (Joules per square cm)) than Thermolase's SoftLight, which
> >was cleared 2 years ago.
> There have been articles in the Electrology Journals about massive herpes
> outbreaks in people, even using the thermolase. People who never had
> herpes before. Herpes explosions, was the way they put it.
From what I have heard, there are at least two or three different
lasers that do not induce this effect when used for hair removal.
While you are correct, and this does occur with some of the lasers,
it is not, by far, a problem that is associated with all of them.
More information could be made available on request (given some
time).
> >I have a recent copy of MGH's patient letter, given out prior to
> treatment.
> >First, the letter informs that 80 percent of test subjects had regrowth
> >within
> >2 to 3 months of treatment. Then it goes on to recommend the use of the
> >topical anesthetic EMLA, 1.5 hours prior to treatment; and mentions that
> >xylocaine injections are also available as an alternative. Post-treatent
> >pain
> >is likened to that of a sunburn, possibly requiring the use of a mild
> >analgesic in patients with a low pain threshold. So much for all the hype
> >we used to hear about laser being virtually painless!
> >
> >The letter suggests that no permanent skin changes or serious
> complications
> >have been seen so far, but it does admit that all test subjects
> experienced
> >darkened skin immediately after treatment. For 75 percent, this darkening
> >was fast fading, but for the other 25 percent the fading took about 3
> >months.
>
> And sun damage takes 20-30 years to turn into skin cancer. Does the lack
> of immediate damage make it long term safe? Your guess is as good as
> anyone elses'.
Point one - I have been trying a laser hair removal treatment. It appears
I have a low tolerance for pain as well. I cannot imagine how bad it
would be to go to electrolysis (but I will if I have to!)
Point two, and less beside the point - From my current treatment,
I have only experienced a "redness" which is kind of like the
skin's reaction to a sunburn. Once the redness had dissipated,
no signs (including darkening) remained aside from a notably
decreased hair density in that area.
Point three - yes, there did seem to be some pain. Perhaps the
EMLA treatment was not effective, perhaps my skin is overly
sensitive from years of shaving. However, and perhaps somewhat
amazing, placing ice (ordinary ice cubes) on an area to be treated
for a few minutes prior to treatment seemed to eliminate any
associated pain.
Four: Current scientific theory states that a person's tan is
mostly due to radiation in the ultraviolet an higher (shorter)
spectrums. In had with this theory is that one of the radiations
in this spectrum (or many) is the cause of cancer related to
sun damage. Most of the lasers being used for hair removal (ruby
lasers being a prime example) operate in the red, infrared or
lower (longer) spectrums. To my mind, that would leave me to
believe that this problem may not truly be an issue.
> >The letter does not say what the cumulative effects of numerous
> treatments
> >might be, but given the high re-growth rate, and the letter's
> >recommendation
> >for follow-up treatment at 2 to 3 month intervals, or whenever regrowth
> >appears, I think the potential for long-term side effects has to be
> >considered.
On regrowth - it should be expected, although reduced, depending
on the laser, the person, and probably several other factors I
have no idea about. It seems hair growth occurs in three different
stages, and in only one of those stages can the hairs be "killed".
In addition, success ratios will vary, but the minimum that I
have heard is a 20% ratio after a one hour session.
On follow-ups - where I am receiving treatments, they request
that you space each treatment at least one month apart.
On long-term side effects - Yes, they should be considered. Weigh
them in your own mind. Are the results worth the risk? I know
that I have taken some time with it, and have come to my own
conclusions - but each person is different, and may have another
reaction.
> >As far as I know, none of the four systems cleared by FDA provided more
> >than about 6 months of clinical data, and most of it limited to one or
> >perhaps two treatments during that period. So how do they know that
> >it is safe? Perhaps that is why some laser hair removal clinics require
> >that patients sign a consent form. I wonder what legal rights they are
> >being asked to sign away?
I from the form that I signed, I believe the stipulations were this:
1) I am aware that the treatment cannot be guaranteed as permanent
2) I am aware that research is still ongoing.
3) I have been made aware of the risks, and agree to take them.
This may be different in each jurisdiction. Canadian Law has an
odd habit of being inconsistent with that of the USA.
On a similiar note - the FDA is far from being the only, or most
respected, regulating body when it comes to these issues. The
laser I am being treated by has not been approved by the FDA, but
has been approved by several reputable European agencies, including
one (if memory serves) in the UK.
Additional points:
On lasers versus electrolysis and/or thermolysis - While the pain
is not eliminated totally, it is greatly reduced. Effectiveness,
in the immediate term, seems to be more significant than that of
the other methods. Number of treatments is lessened, length of
treatments is increased.
All told, and please recall the old "Your success may vary"
(modified for those metricly inclined), they expect that I will
receive a total of 5 one hour treatments under this laser for
complete removal of beard and mustache. While the hourly
cost seems to be greater than that of electrolysis et al,
overall cost is greatly reduced.
If you will forgive me for talking issues of money, my treatments
will cost me a total of $2000 in Canadian funds, which, if I can
get the conversion right, is about $1500-$1750 in US funds, and
about 1000 pounds sterling. From what I hear, this is much less
than the average electrolysis cost for the same region that I
hear quoted at $10,000 US.
I am not disputing facts (or at least I hope I am not), but
attempting to provide more. Thank you for listening.
Wishing Light Paths (no pun intended),
S. Angela Maria
P.S. Melissa, I would like to offer you a public apology - two in
fact. The first for using your middle name as your first, and the
second for grossly misspelling even that name. I thought that
since I made the mistake publicly, in my last posting, I should
also make the apology equally public.
--===============================================================--
.signature under repair due to foreign posting systems.
"Normal is like a median, it depends on where you
are standing when you make the measure." - Source unknown
Web page construction proceeding at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2164
e-mail: sam...@geocities.com
--===============================================================--
emu-mo...@mailhost.net
There is fact list between TE system and GHR
TE system looks better than GHR, Is it true??
www.shadow.net/~mystery/te-facts.html
hairremov...@gmail.com
Best Beauty salon in Virginia by New look Day Spa and laser we offer Professional Services for Laser Hair removal,Laser Skin rejuvenation,Laser Acne Treatments,Hair Services,Nail Services,Body massage,facial,Hair Threading, Eyebrows Threading Services, facial threading Services,eyebrow shaping ,Waxing, Full Body Waxing, bikini waxing,facial services, microdermabrasion, diamond microdermabrasion, microdermabrasion crystal,laser microdermabrasion, microdermabrasion and acne.
For more details please visit:
http://www.newlookdayspaandlaser.com