"Transdermal electrolysis" Basic facts
Promoters claim an electrified cotton swab can remove hair permanently,
but there is no scientific proof of this.
Description
 Conductive gel is spread on the skin.
Electricity is passed through a cotton
swab 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.
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]
On 2 April 2001, FDA told the main manufacturer of this device
that they were in violation of
federal law in making claims of painless and permanent hair
removal using transdermal electrolysis. 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. [4] 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.
- Schuster J. Photo of follicular nerve bundle.
(unpublished, 1992).
|
