Quack attack: Mark H. Chandler  Michael
T. Ricks, Sr. of Gemini
Body Works (prior to his 2004 arrest)
put up a site attacking me for stating that he is promoting a
questionable hair removal device called the Super-Phaser Gold
by Rejuvenu.
He has also published a letter from another Rejuvenu salesman
and "medical consultant" Mark Chandler, criticizing
the American
Electrology Association (AEA), an electrolysis trade group:
http://www.truehairfacts.com/truth_about_the_aea_and_teresa_p.htm
Some background: Mark Chandler has been represented by Rejuvenu
as a “dermologist,” which is a bogus medical specialty
made up by Rejuvenu. Mark Chandler is not a dermatologist. Mark
Chandler is, however, a quack who promotes a product with health
claims that have not been backed up with published scientific
data.
Because I am mentioned in the letter, I thought I’d respond
to Mark Chandler’s many unfounded claims and misdirections.
His quotations are followed by my responses.
“As you stated in your letter, the AEA is only rivaled
by the hairfacts.com website in its bias against anything non-needle.”
I am not biased against any method. My standards of proof are
based on accepted scientific principles. When a manufacturer
like Rejuvenu makes a health claim, I expect them to back it
up with published scientific data. Lasers have done this. Topical
preparations have done this. Electrolysis has done this. Even
temporary methods like waxing, shaving, and plucking are reported
in the medical literature. I report all of this information,
along with my analysis and the source material, and let consumers
decide for themselves if my analysis of the data is correct.
“In fact, it is interesting that one of the AEA’s
chief contributors to their website is Andrea James. Hairfacts.com
is constantly quoted on the AEA’s website as a definitive
source of reliable information. It makes you wonder who is paying
who, doesn’t it?”
I’m sure these guys can’t fathom the idea that some
people help others out of principle, rather than for money.
I have allowed AEA to reprint information from my website at
no charge, as I have for other manufacturers, distributors,
individuals, and trade groups who have asked.
“You see, she and others think they are better than the
FDA to determine whether something offers permanent hair removal,
without ever even seeing the equipment.”
This “seeing the equipment” requirement is a common
criticism. Let me give you an analogy to demonstrate the ridiculousness
of this logical fallacy.
Let’s say Mark Chandler also claims he invented a car
that gets 1000 miles to the gallon.
I say, “Prove it.”
Mark Chandler says, “Well, I say it’s true in this
three-page report I wrote, so you have to take my word.”
I say, “That’s not how science works. Did you sleep
through that part of school? Until you prove your claims with
repeatable scientific testing under controlled conditions, your
claim is not scientifically proven.”
Mark Chandler whines, “You’re just biased against
my 1000-mile car!”
I say, “No, I expect proof based on accepted scientific
principles.”
Mark Chandler tries another misdirection: “How do you
know my car doesn’t get 1000 miles to the gallon when you
haven’t even seen the car?”
I say, “I don’t need to see or test drive you car
to say that your claim is questionable. And if your claim is
true, all you have to do is submit your car to a reputable third
party for testing. At that point, I will evaluate their test
results and make a full report of the findings.”
Mark Chandler tries another misdirection: “What do you
know? You don’t make cars, so your opinion doesn’t
matter.”
I say, “Whether I make cars or not is irrelevant. The
fact remains that you have not proven your car can get 1000
miles to the gallon.”
It doesn’t matter if I have seen their device or not.
Mark Chandler can try to divert the topic as many ways as he
wants. The fact remains that there is no published clinical
data indicating the device can achieve permanent hair removal
as they claim. That will still be true if I go there tomorrow
and see their equipment.
“In 1875, when Dr. Michel first developed needle electrolysis,
most of those in the medical professions scoffed at the idea of
“electrocuting” hair. It was not until 25 years later
that the mechanism of electrolysis action at the hair follicle
level was understood.”
Quacks like to compare themselves to legitimate scientists.
Dr. Michel published his findings in a reputable medical journal,
based on 6 years of rigorous scientific research. Mark Chandler
has never had anything published in a medical journal, let alone
anything about Rejuvenu’s amazing patented discoveries.
“When Arthur Hinkel developed and patented the Blend
method in 1945, he was thought of as a quack. The existing electrologists
of his day said it couldn’t possibly work, that you couldn’t
pass both galvanic and high frequency current at the same time.
It took 15 years for the method to be accepted and now the Arthur
Hinkel textbook published in 1968 is still the “bible”
of electrology.”
Again, Hinkel’s book was based on 23 years of rigorous
scientific testing. And again, Mark Chandler and company have
published nothing of scientific merit, choosing rather to sell
their device without scientific substantiation. That’s
textbook quackery. Hinkel’s book was a watershed book due
to its scientific rigor, but it has since been surpassed by
other excellent electrology textbooks, notably Real World Electrology
by his protégé Mike Bono and a voluminous overview
by Dr. R.N. Richards. Chandler needs to drag himself into the
new millennium with the rest of us.
“However, it appears that the AEA summarily dismisses
anything new as being ineffective and harmful.”
On many issues, the AEA takes the same position as I do, that
health claims require proof based on accepted scientific methodology.
Quacks will claim this is “close-mindedness,” but
this is the way science has worked for centuries. You test a
theory under controlled conditions, submit the results to your
peers, they see if they can get the same result, and a determination
of validity is reached.
In the case of the AEA, they are a trade group, so they are
naturally very interested in promoting their method and pointing
out drawbacks of other methods, just as promoters of other methods
do about electrolysis. The difference is that the AEA has taken
the high ground and put a premium on scientifically proven results.
They have also shown a commitment to consumer protection through
considerable lobbying to get all methods of hair removal regulated.
They are to be commended for these efforts, which is why as
a consumer advocate, I am often in agreement with AEA.
Mark Chandler then quotes Nancy Ledins, an electrologist who
became convinced that Rejuvenu’s “proprietary gel”
was enough to make an electrified Q-Tip achieve permanent hair
removal:
“The issue, interestingly, is not really controversy
over currents, but the proprietary gel that acts as a catalyst
in the formation of the sodium hydroxide.”
Here we get to the crux of the matter, and further evidence
of Mark Chandler and Lee Cole’s quackery: reliance on patents
and proprietary gels rather than published data. Patent-based
medicine has a very long, sordid history in the U.S., and Chandler
and Cole are simply carrying on in that unfortunate tradition.
It runs parallel to accepted scientific methodology and has
had a resurgence in recent years.
Some background: by the 19th century, the country was overrun
with “proprietary” products that supposedly gave amazing
health benefits. In fact, the biggest patent-medicine trade
group was called the Proprietary Association of America. While
it’s possible to own the rights to a chemical or formula
used in a medicine, legitimate products are not secret like
Rejuvenu’s supposedly proprietary gel.
Legitimate companies list their ingredients and license their
technology to others rather than trying to protect their turf
with “proprietary” gels and what-not. The FDA clearance
for their device was with a standard electrode gel called Signagel.
I hope they aren’t claiming this is proprietary now—that
would adulterate their FDA clearance (again!).
Take lasers, for instance of how a legitimate patented technology
is researched and sold. Much of the laser research and intellectual
property comes from universities, who then enter into agreements
with manufacturers to license their technology. Chandler and
Cole have not done this because no one wants to license a scientifically
unproven technology. Instead, they present it as some secret
exclusive method only they can do. Textbook quackery.
Conclusion
I mean, come on, does Mark Chandler think most consumers are
THAT gullible?
If some country doctor and a hairdresser had solved the problem
of permanent hair removal, their product would be a household
name, like Viagra or Rogaine. Companies would be lining up around
the block to license their technology, and every hair removal
practitioner in the world would be using it. Unfortunately, their
quackery will always find a welcome audience in poorly-educated
people like Michael T. Ricks, Sr. and unsuspecting beauticians
who lack the ability to see through sophisticated doublespeak.
All I can do is present the facts and hope that as many consumers
as possible see the truth and avoid quacks like Mark Chandler
and Michael T. Ricks, Sr.
Claiming that Rejuvenu's transdermal or transcutaneous hair removal
is permanent is a violation
of federal regulations. If you have lost money to Michael
T. Ricks Sr. or Rejuvenu, please contact
me, and I’ll be happy to help you sue them in small claims
court. I have already helped consumers recoup thousands of dollars.
-----
For an interesting backgound on proprietary and patent medicines,
check out The Toadstool Millionaires: A Social History of Patent
Medicines in America before Federal Regulation by Dr. James Harvey
Young (1961, Princeton University Press). Available online at
QuackWatch.
I am proud to be listed on QuackWatch as their source for hair
removal information
|
