— Hazel Glusman
President, COPE National
Kamloops, B.C.

I want to respond to a statement, attributed to me, that appeared as part of your story “Electrology Then & Now 1979-1999” in the Nov. 1999 Anniversary Issue of International Hair Route. I refer to the statement, “Fino Gior, who founded the IGPE in 1979 to fight the electronic tweezers, admitted to the audience that he was ‘in negotiations with Palomar [laser hair removal] and was going to try it.’

My complaints are twofold: (a) The International Guild of Professional Electrologists (IGPE) was not founded to fight the electronic tweezer. The purpose of the IGPE is to publicize to the public the benefits of proper electrolysis treatment. As a consequence, erroneous myths that have been attributed to electrolysis treatment will be eradicated.

Secondly: (b) The chief executive officer of Palomar Technologies, Inc. actually called my home as a consequence of one of my very wealthy patients (who happens to be heavily invested). He advised me that the laser may retard growth, but it is not permanent. So I did not investigate any further. This is the rest of the story:

After 42 years of full-time dedication — not to the profession but to the patient — I find it hard to explain my motives. I was literally offered $1 million by contract, to be the authority for a large section of the country for the electronic tweezers. This is on record in Federal Court.

After trying it, and refusing to get involved, I not only lost the million but it cost me thousands of dollars in a federal lawsuit. I eventually won the case with the help of the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration attorneys.

I eventually “tried” the photoepilator, Omicron, and the EpiLight [laser], both I have found not permanent. I tried these devices because I trust no other authority but my own and at my expense. Can we really trust government agencies? If so the galvanic tweezer removes hair permanently! When I test a device the whole profession receives the benefit for free. I will eventually try the new microwave device. Would it be best for me to keep this secret? If this is evil it defies my moral conscience?

My position is this, and only this: the patient comes first. If the new cream, which supposedly removes hair permanently were true, it would be wonderful for the patient. Over these past 42 years I have seen so many severely disfigured patients with excess hair that such a “miracle cream” would be God sent. To all those in the permanent hair removal profession, God doesn’t close one door without opening another. But don’t you close any doors just yet!

If anyone questions my position or motives they can just check my web site. I am semi-retired but I will do my best for a colleague. In 2000 full retirement!

— Fino Gior
Great Neck, NY

First, exactly how effective are current laser hair removal methods? Just being a new and in-demand technique doesn’t make it effective, and research findings seem lacking. If current laser is effective, why do so many electrologists like me find our clients coming back for conventional electrolysis when they discover that seven or eight laser sessions are ineffective? Have we any idea how many of these dissatisfied clients grow sour on hair removal techniques in general, when their hopes are dashed in this way? Are they are embarrassed to return to their original electrologist?

Second, Ms. Adams notes in her editorial that while our SCME has chosen to embrace laser methods, her Membership-Plus program is also actively promoting referrals to conventional electrologists when she visits meetings like the past Southern Comfort conference. Too many SCME members feel we have put our faith in a leadership that now seems to betray this faith by endorsing a rival laser method of questionable effectiveness.

Though Ms. Adams feels “technology is only getting better,” is it not SCME’s role — until then — to educate consumers on any downsides of lasers compared to conventional methods? Hopefully, SCME members do not feel like hungry dogs being thrown a bone when our president says that as long as conventional electrologists are seeing a slump in business, SCME will promote conventional methods alongside the laser methods. Does SCME leadership feel laser will someday make conventional methods obsolete, or that laser is just another method with its own pros and cons?

I sense I speak for many SCME members when I ask if a future presidential message could address these concerns, which press on the minds of many of us who have dedicated our efforts to this profession and livelihood of electrolysis, and rely on our Association to advance our interests.