"Transcutaneous hair removal" Basic facts
Promoters claim an electrified adhesive patch can remove hair
permanently, but there is no scientific proof of this.
Description
 Conductive gel is spread on the skin.
Electricity is passed through an adhesive
patch which is touched to the gel.
Electricity supposedly travels down
the hair follicle and permanently damages the hair root.
Quack claims
“Painless and permanent”
“No side effects”
“Clinically proven”
“More effective than electrolysis,
and without the needle.”
“Hair can conduct enough energy
to kill the root.”
“Offer your salon clients permanent
hair removal.”
“Makes a great home business.”
Background
These devices are heavily promoted to beauticians through trade
shows and magazines. Many practitioners believe the device actually
works as claimed, thus unwittingly taking money from consumers
for ineffective "professional" treatments.
Called transdermolysis, no-needle electrolysis, and non-invasive
electrolysis, as well as “hands-free” or "continuous"
hair removal.
History
After the U.S. Federal Trade Commission brought charges against
the Removatron electric tweezer, [1] a North Carolina beauty salon
owner named Hubert Lee Cole started American Hair Removal System
(AHRS) and patented DC electric tweezers [2] In the early 1990's
Cole and his partner Mark Chandler, M.D. modified their TE 629
electric tweezer. They discovered that they could replace their
electric tweezers with an electrified cotton swab and get the
same results. They called this method "transdermal"
electrolysis, and the modified devices were sold with the electric
tweezer apparatus as an “optional treatment.”
The transdermal apparatus continues to be promoted illegally
as painless and permanent. FDA stated in a 1999 letter pointing
out that FDA had not evaluated these claims. [3]
In the late 1990's AHRS changed their company name to International
Hair Removal Systems (IHRS) and made another unproven modification
using adhesive patches. They changed their method name to "transcutaneous"
hair removal and changed the device name to SuperPhaser Gold.
Like a lot of quack devices, transcutaneous hair removal is based
in part on an accepted scientific method. Patches for active transdermal
delivery of drugs (called iontophoresis) use direct current applied
to an adhesive patch. This is used to deliver medication that
might otherwise need to be injected. For instance, one company
has a useful product for children that delivers lidocaine anesthetic
without using a needle. Unfortunately, this useful scientific
innovation captured the attention of the hair removal quacks,
who saw that “no-needle” anesthesia offered a chance
to expand the quackery of “no-needle” electrolysis they'd
been promoting for years. They patented the idea and proceeded
to think about marketing strategy (rather than bothering to test
it). [4]
Newer devices are sold with the electric tweezer apparatus and
the transdermal cotton swab option as well as the patches. The
“transcutaneous” method continues to be promoted illegally
as painless and permanent, even though FDA has not evaluated these
claims. [3]
On 2 April 2001, FDA told IHRS they were in violation of
federal law in making claims of painless and permanent hair
removal using transcutaneous patches. This was their second such
warning.
Brands
Clinical data
There is no published clinical data indicating transdermal or
transcutaneous methods can result in permanent hair removal.
Claims by the promoters conflict with laws of physics. Hair is
a poor conductor of electricity. Skin is a better one, and conductive
gel is an excellent conductor. Because electricity follows the
path of least resistance, any energy applied by the device is
not going to travel selectively down a hair. It's going to dissipate
across the gel on the skin's surface.
Proven permanent methods hurt because the amount of energy required
to destroy a hair follicle comes in contact with the rich bundle
of nerves around each hair. [5] Even plucking hurts, and it's
been shown to be temporary. The reason these "transcutaneous"
procedures don't hurt much is because the energy is not strong
enough to stimulate the nerves, let alone damage the hair growth
matrix permanently.
See my section on Clinical
data for details.
Promoters have not offered any valid proof their device can work
as claimed. Save your money.
References
- Removatron Int'l Corp., v. FTC, 111 FTC.206, 298, aff'd, 884
F.2d 1489 (1st Cir. 1989).
- U.S. Patent 5,534,003.
- FDA Consumer Safety Office Patricia Jahnes to IHRS, 20 July
1999.
- U.S. Patent 6,039,746.
- Schuster J. Photo of follicular nerve bundle.
(unpublished, 1992).
|
hair removal
facts
for consumers
