Super-Phaser Gold (WARNING!)


A note on personal attacks on me by Rejuvenu salespeople

For many years, I’ve used hairfacts and my other sites to help consumers make more informed decisions about hair removal options. I have focused most on methods claiming to be permanent. “Permanent hair removal” represents the most complicated and most widely-abused term used to sell hair removal products and services.

Numerous methods make claims of permanent hair removal that have not been proven with published clinical data. One of the most persistent of the unproven methods is transdermal or transcutaneous hair removal, also called no-needle or hands-free hair removal.

Because these salespeople target my community and other vulnerable consumer groups with their unsubstantiated claims and false hope, I have worked very hard to get the word out that consumers should avoid products with no published proof they can achieve permanent hair removal. I have also pointed out that the US Food and Drug Administration has stated that devices like Rejuvenu’s have not been cleared for marketing.

Naturally, these facts threaten those making money from these unsubstantiated claims. Recently, a couple of sites involved with a transcutaneous hair removal device called Rejuvenu Super-Phaser Gold have resorted to attacks against me personally, rather than discussing facts about their products which I have brought up.

FDA has stated that the promotion and sale of Rejuvenu Super Phaser Gold is a violation of federal regulations.

2002 Update: the Rejuvenu attack page has been removed as part of their site redesign, and I’ve responded to the latest attacks by Michael T. Ricks, Sr. and Mark Chandler.

Smoke screens

When some people want to avoid discussing the facts, they attack the messenger.

Below are two websites currently attacking me personally to avoid discussing the facts I have brought up about their Super Phaser Gold transcutaneous patch device.

http://www.truehairfacts.com/the_truth_about_andrea_james.htm
http://www.rejuvenu.com/ajames.asp

Rejuvenu salespeople compare me to al Qaeda terrorists, call my gender into question, and even claim that I don’t exist. They also seem to be more obsessed with websites I find interesting than the facts I bring up about their products.

So, for the record, allow me to comment on a couple of silly accusations about my site and myself.

1. My credentials

Rejuvenu salespeople attack my credibility, claiming that somehow the facts I present are irrelevant because I am not a doctor or a hair removal practitioner.

My expertise is in marketing and advertising. I’ve spent a decade writing commercials, so I am very aware of marketing tactics used to move products. Legitimate companies do research and then market their products based on proof. Companies like Rejuvenu put the cart before the horse and sell their device based on health claims that have not been backed up with published data. In the case of Rejuvenu, their claims are in violation of federal regulations.

Rejuvenu makes unsubstantiated marketing claims about permanent hair removal, and the reason they can’t do anything about my site is because I am telling the truth. They claim they want to sue me… I say bring it on. I’d love to own some property in North Carolina.

2. I don’t need to try something to say it’s unproven

Many quacks think that if someone hasn’t tested their product, they can’t make any claims.

I haven’t tried slathering mayonnaise on my arm, but I can say that mayonnaise hasn’t been proven to remove arm hair. It doesn’t matter whether I try something or not, if it hasn’t been proven, facts are facts.

Rejuvenu has not proven their claims with published scientific data. That is a fact whether I have tried it or not.

I’m not saying it doesn’t work. I’m saying they have never proven it with any legitimate scientific data. Until they do, it remains unproven, whether I try it or not.

3. Why my site is free

Michael T. Ricks, Jr. questions why my site is free and supported by reader contributions instead of ads. Simple. The same reason a magazine like Consumer Reports is. You undermine your objectivity as a consumer reporter when you accept advertising. My business model is like a museum or NPR. My goal is to provide free information for those who can’t afford to pay, because those are the people who can’t afford to get ripped off by quacks, either. Luckily, some readers can afford to support projects like mine, so I give them the option of contributing financially as well as by sharing their hair removal experiences. My goals with this and my other online consumer projects are to cover my costs while providing free information to the public. I suspect that these Rejuvenu salespeople can’t fathom that someone might be motivated by something other than money.

4. Why I don’t give out my home address

Michael T. Ricks, Jr. also asks why I use a postal box for correspondence. I don’t list my home address for my own safety. I have received a death threat in 2002 by someone who was angered by the facts on my site. It turns out some people angered by the truth move beyond Rejuvenu’s name-calling and unfounded legal threats into criminal activity.

5. Why these people have such misplaced anger

I’ve been dealing with well-meaning but misled people like Michael Ricks for years now. He clearly thinks he’s well-educated, so he’s the perfect target for quackery like Rejuvenu. It appeals to the curiosity and vanity of someone like Michael Ricks to disregard scientific evidence in favor of personal experience — to “think for yourself.” He probably doesn’t intend to mislead anyone—people like this are usually motivated by a sincere wish to help others. They just don’t realize how difficult it is to evaluate a hair removal product’s long-term effectiveness on the basis of personal experience.
These kinds of people try my patience at times, but I know that in time they will come to understand the facts.

6. How you can always reach me

These people seem to think that you can’t contact me, and they even think I don’t exist.

I have been helping consumers online since 1996, starting with my own community and branching out to the general market in 1998. I am always available to answer any questions about facts on my site, including comments by Michael T. Ricks, Jr. and other Rejuvenu salespeople. Anyone who wants to correspond with me directly can always use the forum on my site hairtell:

http://www.hairtell.com

The facts about Rejuvenu

Now that we’re past the smoke screen, let’s look at the facts:

1. The Super Phaser Gold is not cleared by FDA for any use.

The promotion and sale of the Super Phaser Gold is in violation of federal regulations.

Michael T. Ricks conveniently omits the most important letter from FDA on his page of correspondence:

http://www.truehairfacts.com/fda_letters.htm

Here’s what FDA has to say on the letter he doesn’t bother including:

http://www.hairfacts.com/makers/etweezer/ihrs/fda1001.html

“Absent FDA clearance, you have chosen to market this device, and include claims that imply FDA clearance or approval. It appears that you have made a decision independent of regulatory review that your devices are equivalent to the cleared device.”

“There are no premarket notification clearances, for any indication, for so-called hands-free transcutaneous, transdermal cotton-tipped applicator probes, or continuous hair removal.”

For a list of ALL the correspondence, including the letter stating that Rejuvenu is not cleared to market their device for any indication, please see:

2. There is no published data showing the SuperPhaser Gold is permanent

Michael T. Ricks has posted part of an unpublished report on his website:

http://www.truehairfacts.com/rejuvenu_studies.htm

Unfortunately, this unpublished, unreviewed in-house study conducted and written by two Rejuvenu salespeople doesn’t answer that question.
The title of this shoddy unpublished report asks: “Transcutaneous Patch Electrode Hair Removal. Does It Work?”
This is much like the shoddy methodology used in Chandler’s 1990 unpublished report:

http://www.hairfacts.com/makers/etweezer/ahrs/ahrscomp1.html (scan)
http://www.hairfacts.com/makers/etweezer/ghr/ghrcomp2.html (text)

I’ve seen better-designed middle school science fair experiments.

56 women received six treatments spaced two weeks apart on their upper lips. Immediately after the final treatment, observers counted hairs that had been waxed from the area and compared this number to the amount at the start of treatment.

Where to start on how badly designed this is? Among the most obvious flaws:

No follow-up after final treatment. Legitimate hair removal studies make follow-up observations at three, six, and twelve months after final treatment, possibly longer.

You cannot make any conclusions about permanence immediately after the final treatment.

Mark Chandler, who has been on the Rejuvenu payroll since the company started many years and many names ago, may consider this “conclusive evidence” of permanent hair removal, but this report would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

These guys seem to think I condemn everything on the market. I simply point out the pros and cons of all methods. In the case of transcutaneous hair removal, I simply point out the facts:

Stating that the Super-Phaser Gold can achieve permanent hair removal is a violation of federal regulations.

Stating that the Super-Phaser Gold is FDA approved is a violation of federal regulations..

There is no published clinical data indicating that the Super-Phaser Gold can achieve permanent hair removal.

The only people who claim that the Super-Phaser Gold causes permanent hair removal are the people who sell it or have just started treatment.

I know of no consumers who are still satisfied one year or more after final treatment.

This device is sold mostly to salons, because the owners are often less educated and more susceptible to Rejuvenu’s quackery.

For additional facts, please see my response to the latest Michael T. Ricks, Sr. attacks.

Conclusion

Finally, if a device came along that was painless and permanent and cheaper than laser or electrolysis, market forces would quickly make it the industry standard. The devices made by Mr. Cole and Dr. Chandler have been around since the 1980’s. If they were really painless and permanent, don’t you think everyone would have switched over by now? Don’t you think that if two guys in the middle of rural North Carolina had invented the answer to unwanted hair, they would be millionaires many times over?

I present both sides in every argument. If you have questions or comments about any of the facts on my site, you can send them along and I’ll be happy to address them.

Until Rejuvenu provides some legitimate scientific proof, the Super Phaser Gold is definitely one to avoid.

If you have lost money to these people, 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.