Dear Hair Route:
Indeed, the company in question is in blatant violation of my copyright. Unfortunately, since publication of my books, I could almost hear the photocopy machines humming in electrology schools and offices. But this “new” violation involves monetary gain based on my material: I will vigorously defend my copyright this time. If any readers have this material, I would appreciate receiving it to document my case.
As to computerization/automatic controls: I think automatic controls are best suited for thermolysis devices. The blend method is, by definition, a manual technique. However, automatic thermolysis devices represent a superb way to remove hair permanently. I have a spot on my arm that Bette DeVito cleared with auto/thermolysis several years ago – it’s still bald!
Arguing about electrolysis modalities, at this point in our history, is downright irrelevant: like two dinosaurs fighting over a carcass, as they watch “the comet” careening toward earth.

— Michael Bono
Santa Barbara, California

IN PRAISE OF BLEND, THE WAY
THE MASTER INTENDED IT
Dear Hair Route:
The letter by Michael Warren in your recent issue [Letters to the Editors, May 2000], prompts me to write in support of manual blend. Like my colleague Michael Bono, I “studied at the feet of the great Arthur Hinkel,” and I would like to share with your readers a note I made in 1966 while listening to one of Mr. Hinkel’s school lectures.
“The whole concept of my blend is manual control. The two-handed mode must be used, allowing progressive epilation. You students must learn to use both hands, both feet and both eyes.” Mr. Hinkel would always emphasize that, “blend is an accelerated galvanic technique.”
I still practice the same Hinkel technique; however, at times I will dispense with the galvanic and use the low-level thermolysis alone.

– John Fantz
Los Angeles, California

EMBARRASSED, AND TOO
ASHAMED TO BE THERE
Dear Editors:
Reading in International Hair Route the agenda of the International Guild of Professional Electrologists (IGPE) Congress 2000, taking place this year at Skin Inc.’s Face & Body show in San Jose, California [July 29-31, 2000], I am greatly disappointed. It looks like an approval meeting for the laser and electronic tweezer methods of hair removal. I feel I have been used and taken as a fool, and I admit to that.
As you and many of your readers probably know by now, Trudy Brown, president of the IGPE, has purchased a hair removal laser. This is probably why the two doctors who are lecturing at the convention, and Ms. Brown herself, will speak positively about laser. So far I am too ashamed and embarrassed to be there, unless you people have heard or received new information about both these methods?
To date, all we receive in our office are very angry ex-laser patients. The company called Greenhouse, that took over Spa Thira hair removal salons from ThermoLase, is now calling its method, “Hair Management Control” – not even “permanent reduction.” I know this because many of my patients have gone back to that company for refunds.
If possible, I would appreciate any new developments that you or your readers have come across.

— Fino Gior
Founder and former
president of IGPE
Great Neck, New York