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.
|
