Letters to the Editors
(March 2003)
Past Letters
GOING THE EXTRA MILE
Dear Editors:
I would like to thank you for the back-issues of Hair Route and the
magazine subscription coupons that you kindly donated to my campaign to promote
electrolysis and my personal practice to medical doctors in my area. I am still
flabbergasted that you “went the extra mile” for my somewhat unusual request.
Sometime within the next two weeks I’m going to start making my rounds to
doctors in my immediate vicinity. From here I will branch out to the
Fargo-Moorhead area, and after that it will visit some of the rural clinics in
the area. Everywhere I go I’ll be passing out the Hair Route materials to
doctors that show the most interest in my services.
I will also be sending Hair Route brochures to the Wisconsin Electrology
Association (WEA) and to the Electrology Association of North Dakota (EAND),
with a reminder that the Magazine will publish, without cost, any future
meetings of their respective Associations or other news they would be willing to
share with your readers.
I truly feel that your magazine is a quality product, and that it should be used
for reference by anyone with interests or concerns in the unwanted hair growth
professions. The more people that read up on the causes of unwanted hair and the
many different ways to handle it (from seeing a physician for hormone testing,
to having electrolysis treatments, or a combination of both), your magazine
tells it like it is. It also keeps electrologist abreast of current happenings
in our field.
Keep up the good work!
— Karen Thorp
Detroit Lakes, Minnesota
WHEN BUDGETS ARE CHALLENGED
Dear Editors
I am writing in response to Hair Route’s comments on the
Editorial page of the December 2002
issue. I agree that the shock and impact of 911 temporarily affected all
business in our country: God Bless America. However, I strongly disagree with
your statement that electrolysis is a “nonessential business.”
As a licensed and practicing electrologist since 1975, I have found electrolysis
to be a very essential service for many individuals. Electrolysis is the
ultimate solution for many female patients seeking treatment for hormonally
stimulated facial hair. Nothing instills a feeling of confidence, or makes
patients feel so feminine and good about themselves, as much as electrolysis
does. When their beauty budget is challenged, they will often space their
electrology treatments a little further apart, but they usually find the
finances to continue their treatments. That necessity is the heartbeat of many
of our practices.
In Massachusetts, we have laser all around us. In fact, many electrologists are
also offering laser hair removal. The biggest difference in our practices is
that some of our patients – those who came for electrolysis treatment on large
areas of their body – have turned to quick-fix laser treatment. But colleagues
that offer both electrolysis and laser hair removal in their practice tell me
that not everyone is a candidate for laser. Many potential patients, when
provided with a quality consultation by the electrologist, will continue to
choose electrolysis. There will always be a need for electrolysis. It is cost
effective, and most definitely permanent: My appointment book reflects that.
We, and our industry’s leaders, need to stop criticizing what other hair removal
people are doing and concentrate on our strengths. As electrologists, we must
educate the public and promote what we do best, what our strengths are, and what
we can do that no one else can.
— June Allen
Fitchburg, Massachusetts
PRESERVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
Dear Editors:
In the old days of electrolysis, some epilator manufacturers made machines that
worked only with their own brand of needles. It didn’t matter that those needles
were of poor quality and expensive; once you bought that manufacturer’s
epilator, you had no option but to use their needles.
Today, in our age of personal choice, certain manufacturers seem to be trying to
turn back the clock. Several electrologists have told me that they have had
trouble using their favorite brands of needles with their new epilator, and were
told by representatives of the epilator manufacturer that they could not expect
to get the results they want with their standard needles. Are some companies
intentionally designing epilators that will not work properly with the leading
brands of needles? It seems they want to force electrologists to use only the
epilator maker’s brand of needles.
This isn’t right! Electrologists should not have to lock themselves into using
only an epilator manufacturer’s brand of needle. If they do, they lose their
ability to choose the needle that they believe is most suitable for each of
their clients. And what if the epilator manufacturer goes out of business? What
happens then?
What can your readers do about this? Well, before purchasing a new epilator they
must make sure that it works with different brands of needles. If it doesn’t,
they should complain to the epilator manufacturer, and not buy it!
It is the needle that comes in contact with the client’s delicate skin, and has
the job of delivering the current to the follicle. It is critical that
electrologists are able to select what they believe is the best possible needle
for each individual client.
— Jim Paisner
President, Synoptic Products
Concord, Massachusetts
THE REAL FACTS ABOUT VANIQA
Dear Editors:
I think Hair Route’s coverage of the topical hair removal cream, Vaniqa,
in the “People, Places & Events” section of the December 2002 issue, was nothing
short of a promotional piece. It did not challenge statements such as “The
easy-to-use-cream continues to gain favor among women and physicians
coast-to-coast for its ability to clear unwanted facial hair, or greatly reduce
the time women spend removing or concealing it.”
Here are a few facts about Vaniqa – straight from the Company’s very
sophisticated Vaniqa website:
1. In a clinical study involving 594 women, fewer than 60% showed any clinical
improvement.
2. The earliest anyone saw a result was eight weeks after continued twice-daily
use.
3. Some women experienced skin irritations such as redness, stinging, burning,
tingling and rash.
The website states: “There are products that cut, dissolve, lighten, remove and
even alter the biological production of facial hair. And among all of the
different management methods available, not one of them can permanently remove
hair.” They also state on their website’s electrolysis page, “Permanence is not
guaranteed.”
In my busy electrolysis office in northwestern Pennsylvania, I do not know one
woman who has been satisfied with the product. I do know some that were not
satisfied with the costly prescription drug and quit using it. (A one-ounce tube
of Vaniqa costs $60.99 at my pharmacy.) I asked the pharmacist about its
popularity and he told me they sell very little of the product. Two years ago
you couldn’t open a magazine without seeing full-page Vaniqa ads featuring
close-ups of beautiful, fresh-faced teen-age models with absolutely no facial
hair. The ads have since disappeared.
You do a disservice to your readers by printing a promotional piece such as
this.
— Carol Bowerson
Erie, Pennsylvania
The Editor’s respond:
The Bristol Myers Squibb “easy-to-use-cream” quotation you object to was, as you
suggest, taken from an unabashed promotional piece provided by NDCHealth, Inc.,
a provider of health information services to pharmacies, hospitals, physicians
and “payer businesses.”
Hair Route has been monitoring the Vaniqa story since it first appeared
two years ago. It seems to us, there is a place in the hair removal field for an
effective
alternative to shaving and chemical depilatories that offer temporary freedom
from superfluous hair. As suggested by Dr. Redmond (who is definitely not
involved in any sort of product promotion scheme), Vaniqa makes sense for women
with heavy facial hair growth. “The cream will slow down the growth within a few
weeks,” says Dr. Redmond, “and concurrent electrolysis by a competent
electrologist will produce eventual permanent removal.”
Ultimately, it is consumers that decide whether or not a product “works.” As you
suggest, the $60.99 price tag could also be a determining factor in Vaniqa’s
case. If we can trust the numbers given in NDCHealth’s press release, Vaniqa
“topped one million in prescription sales” in its first two years: That seems
like a very low figure for a pharmaceutical giant like Bristol Myers Squibb. If
it’s true, Vaniqa might not be around much longer. It might (forgive the awful
pun) just vanish into thin hair.
WHEN IS A DISEASE NOT A . . . ?
Dear Editors:
I continue to enjoy your excellent publication. May I bring to your attention
and to that of your readers, a matter that has never been discussed, and I
wonder why.
The following statement is taken from the California Health and Safety Rules
for Schools and Establishments, #984 Diseases and Infestation:
“No establishment/school shall knowingly require or permit a licensee or student
to work upon a client with an infection capable of being transmitted to the
licensee/student.
“Infections capable of being transmitted include but are not limited to the
following: Cold, Chicken pox, Mumps, Tuberculosis, Impetigo, Lice, Crabs.”
Now, here’s the shocker . . . “Blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS and
hepatitis B, shall not be considered infectious or communicable diseases . . . ”
We might well ask, “Isn’t this the ultimate in pure political politeness?”
A few years ago, one of my now-deceased actor clients told me he had just been
diagnosed with AIDS, and would I want to continue giving him treatments? I asked
him how he would feel if I stuck myself with the needle, thus contracting the
disease. (Gloves make no difference, I told him; a needle can smoothly penetrate
a glove.)
The client said he understood the danger I would be in, and declined to pursue
further treatments. Thankfully, he understood something our California board
members didn’t grasp: If an electrologist catches a common cold from a client
that’s one thing; AIDS or hepatitis B, well, that’s something else.
— John Fantz
Whittier, California
DIATHERMY THERAPY ALERT
Dear Hair Route:
I think your readers will be interested in the Health Alert issued by the US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December of last year, regarding diathermy
therapy and deep-brain stimulators (DBS).
The FDA warns that diathermy therapy can cause serious injury or even death for
patients who have DBS implants, even when the DBS device is turned off or
disconnected. The Agency already has received reports of DBS patients who died
after receiving diathermy treatments. One patient received diathermy after oral
surgery, another patient was similarly treated for chronic scoliosis: In both
cases, the patients suffered severe brain damage where the DBS electrodes were
implanted.
Patients with any DBS implants, any other implanted metallic lead, or any device
containing a metallic lead should ask their doctors what diathermy is. They must
avoid all shortwave and microwave diathermy treatments. Doctors who perform
shortwave or microwave diathermy are advised to be absolutely sure that their
patient does not have a DBS or other device with metallic leads or implants.
— Shelby Owens
President, Electrolysis Society of Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Editors’ note:
Since receiving this letter from Ms. Owens we have personally researched this
important news story, and details of the FDA alert (together with additional
information excerpted from the above letter) can be found in this issue’s
“People, Places, and Events” section (page 19, “FDA puts diathermy users on
alert for DBS implants”). We thank Ms. Owens for bringing the news to our
attention.
home
subscribe
advertise
about us
