GHR vs. AHRS: stolen efficacy data

GHR vs. AHRS: stolen efficacy data

As appearing on GHR’s "Consumer Beware" sales site

The stolen data below is as it appears on a GHR sales site called Kitty’s Consumer Beware, with modifications to show comparison of FDA data submitted by competitor AHRS.

Parts highlighted in orange were stolen verbatim.
Parts in plain text are slight modifications.
Over 80% has been lifted verbatim.
The device compared changed between the two versions from a Hinkel Electro-Blend to an Instantron Elite.

To see the AHRS original data as submitted to FDA in 1990:

Comparison to needle epilators, p. 1

For more stolen data, see:

Stolen pH data

Guaranty Hair Removal Clinical Trials
Comparison of Effectiveness of Needle and Tweezer Electrolysis

We compared the effectiveness of hair epilation using two electrolysis devices, a needle epilator and a tweezer epilator. The study was designed to comply with the standards set forth by
a national electrologists’ group. The average number of hairs that regrew with the needle epilator was 30; the average regrowth with the tweezer epilator was 20. This shows that the effectiveness of these two devices, according to this standard, are equivalent and that they meet the standard for permanence as set by this group. 

A national electrologists’ group has set standards by which one can judge permanency of hair removal and the effectiveness of hair removal devices. Traditional needle epilators which have existed for over 120 years, use galvanic current which is transmitted through a fine non-insulated needle into the hair follicle. This current produces a chemical (electrolytic) reaction in the follicle producing sodium hydroxide that dissolves the follicular tissue. Galvanic tweezer epilators (not to be confused with high frequency tweezer devices) utilize the same process but apply the negative direct current via an insulated tweezer grasping the hair which has been coated with a highly conductive treatment solution. It is the intent of this investigation to determine the effectiveness of this device as compared to the traditional needle epilator. 

A national electrologists’ group has suggested the following procedures for evaluating alleged processes for permanent hair removal. The following procedures were used as the basis for a blinded clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the GHR galvanic tweezer epilator: 

  1. The investigator must be a qualified graduate electrologist with no less than two years experience and a member in good standing of the International Guild of Professional Electrologists, Inc.
  2. The electrified needle method must be a "Federal Communications Commission" approved device.
  3. Subject: male or female, between the ages of 20 and 30 years.
  4. Test area: anterior shin.
  5. For control purposes 50 terminal hairs are to be removed within a very concentrated area, using an electrified needle and in close proximity, 50 terminal hairs are to be removed by the test method.
  6. The control and test sites are to be carefully examined weekly for 9 weeks. Hair appearing within 14 days are to be considered anagen hair which will be charted and not considered regrowth. Regrowth hair is hair which emanates from treated follicles.
  7. After 9 weeks, results will be recorded and efficacy determined.

Using these test procedures we treated five subjects, ranging in age from 21 to 53 years. The electrified needle device used was the Instantron Elite Galvanic/Thermolysis epilator with standard un-insulated needles of .002 and .003 inches diameter. The device was set at a galvanic only setting according to the tolerance of the patient, generally .1 to .2 mA. 

The galvanic tweezer device used was the GHR epilator Model B10AN220MFS, FDA medical device #A601886. The manufacturer’s instruction for treatment were followed. All procedures were done by a certified electrologist with 12 years experience. 

On each of the five test subjects, two adjacent sites on the right anterior shin with fifty visible hairs each were identified and marked with a combination of semi-permanent pigment (12 weeks durability) and anthropometric measurements. For each subject, each site was treated with both the needle device and the tweezer test device. 

Following these treatments, the subjects were examined weekly. After two weeks, all hairs visible within the site were counted and charted. After 9 weeks, the subjects were again examined and the total number of hairs counted and charted. As stated in the above protocol, the total number of hairs that regrew were considered to be those that had appeared between the 2nd and 9th week.

The following is a summary of the results obtained:

Subject Age, Race, Sex  Number of Regrown Hairs and Percentage of Hairs Killed
  Needle GHR Tweezer
21 yr old white female 27 hairs or 46% 19 hairs or 62%
30 yr old black female 35 hairs or 30% 22 hairs or 56%
40 yr old white male 23 hairs or 54% 17 hairs or 66%
53 yr old white female 36 hairs or 28% 18 hairs or 64%
41 yr old white female 30 hairs or 40% 22 hairs or 56%

Average Percent Killed: Needle = 40%, GHR tweezer = 60%

From a study of these results, it is reasonable to conclude that both of these devices achieve permanent results
with the tweezer device being 150% more effective in destroying the germinative cells of the hair follicle with a single treatment. The needle device achieved the minimum standard definition of "Permanent Hair Removal" as developed by a national electrologists’ group. 

The tweezer device achieved more because the destructive energy created around the hair is exclusively inside the follicle. Both devices achieve a minimum of 40% permanent hair removal in one treatment in this study.