Several consumers have contacted me about this practitioner's
shady sales tactics. Cash only, doesn't like to give receipts,
and basically works on commission to recruit new sales affiliates
(which is where the real money is with the device).
A reader said that when she complained, owner Lee Cole offered
to pay her to travel around the country talking up the device,
but first she had to hand over her medical records to him and
take a class in North Carolina.
Below is my my letter to the local paper, which had written an
article and not checked the facts on Ms. McLaughlin:
To: jdennis@pantagraph.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:29 PM
Subject: Unchecked facts and consumer fraud
Dear Ms. Dennis--
My name is Andrea James, and I am a consumer activist who is
currently focusing on hair removal fraud through the website
HairFacts:
http://www.hairfacts.com
This week, a Pantagraph reader (who has requested anonymity)
sent me an article that appeared on the front page of your paper's
business section on August 13, 2001. This reader and her friend
spent a lot of money at the hair removal business featured in
this article, and they had no results.
I wanted to alert you to the very poor reporting and fact-checking
by your staff.
Pantagraph staff writer Kelly Josephsen features The Academy
of Professional Hair Removal and its owner Catherine McLaughlin
in an article titled "A Growing Business." Ms. McLaughlin
uses a device called the Super Phaser Gold, manufactured by
a North Carolina company currently called Rejuvenu International
Limited (they change names frequently).
Ms. Josephsen's article characterizes the Super Phaser Gold
as a "more permanent [sic] hair removal system." Ms.
Josephsen reports, "The sodium hydroxide decomposes the
hair follicle, making it impossible for new hairs to be produced."
These manufacturer claims are not only unfounded, they are illegal.
1. Ms. Josephsen writes that "the process has been approved
by the Food and Drug Administration."
A call to FDA would have shown that the Super Phaser Gold is
not cleared by FDA for any indication and has been cited more
than once for federal violations stemming from claims that it
can achieve permanent hair removal. The latest letter from FDA
was sent to the manufacturer in April 2001. You can see a copy
on my website at:
http://www.hairfacts.com/makers/etweezer/ihrs/fdaviolations.html
2. Ms. Josephsen writes that Ms. McLaughlin is "a certified
instructor with International Depilation Institute."
A quick check would have shown that there is no such institute,
and that it's a front set up by the manufacturer to confer legitimacy
on those who sell their equipment and treatments with it. The
same company has used similar fronts over the years, such as
the "Carolina Institute of Dermology [sic]."
The tweezer attachment shown in one of the photos is equally
suspect. In 1998 FDA reclassified electric tweezers and acknowledged
that "there is no statistically significant scientific
data available at this time to support promotional claims of
permanent or long-term removal of hair through use of the device."
For details, please see:
http://www.hairfacts.com/govregs/fda/97n0199.html
http://www.hairfacts.com/methods/etweezer.html
The bottom line is that a painless and permanent method of
hair removal requiring no skill simply does not exist at this
time. If it did, market forces would quickly make all other
methods obsolete.
-----
There are several reasons quacks like Ms. McLaughlin are able
to stay in business.
1. They sell false hope to a steady stream of consumers who
are often desperate to deal with unwanted hair quickly and quietly.
This can include women with medical conditions like PCOS, who
could use the money lost to Ms. McLaughlin on other needed therapies.
2. There is a very high placebo effect in hair removal. Hair
growth is an extremely complex process caused by many variables,
and some consumers think that even bogus products are working.
Clinical studies with the prescription drug Vaniqa showed that
one in three patients given a placebo were assessed by physicians
to have improved. This indicates how hard it can be to judge
hair growth, especially individual results.
3. Practitioners require a series of treatments, which continue
until the consumer runs out of patience or money (or both, in
the case of your reader who wrote to me).
4. Hair removal is considered by many to be a very personal
and embarrassing matter, and most consumers who feel they have
lost money will not pursue recourse for this reason (as in the
case of your reader who wrote to me).
5. People like Ms. McLaughlin also make money selling these
devices and selling training to others as home businesses or
salon add-ons. This in turn leads to even more people being
ripped off in what boils down to a pyramid scheme, with the
manufacturer at the top of the pyramid.
6. Poor fact checking by journalists. Unfortunately, Ms. Josephsen's
uncritical report with no fact-checking and no opposing viewpoint
is not that uncommon, especially at smaller newspapers.
I suspect Ms. Josephsen's article sent some additional business
to Ms. McLaughlin, thus causing your readers to waste money
on a device promoted illegally. Quacks like Ms. McLaughlin often
actively seek out chances to appear in papers, since it confers
legitimacy on their unproven devices. Many times, the reporters
are even offered a course of treatments in exchange for an article.
Some of the less ethical reporters even accept.
I grew up in a small Midwestern town, and I know the important
role the local newspaper plays in community life. I'm sure Pantagraph
readers consider your paper a trusted source of information,
and this kind of reporting can undermine that trust.
Perhaps you'd be willing to run a follow-up article that discusses
all of the facts so that consumers can make a more informed
purchasing decision. I would be happy to assist you in this.
If you have any questions, you can reach me at the email address
above or the phone number below.
Sincerely,
Andrea James
Owner, hairfacts.com (a quackwatch.com affiliate)
Home 
