Electrolysis News 2002 & Prior
December 2002
	Wyeth’s stock suffers side-effects from HRT drugs Progestin not estrogen is link to cancer, study says Gene leaves clues that may lead to hope for the hairless Yes, we’ve got hair to spare, do we hear any more bids? 2-year-old Vaniqa tops one million in prescription sales
September 2002
	Hormone trial halted due to cancer, heart Risk Drug maker amends hormone therapy (HRT) ASDS warns against cosmetic surgery by non-physicians BAE Master Class presents — Will that be One Hand or Two? Pioneer electrologist Ruth Young Block dies at 101 FDA clears first light-based do-it-yourself-at-home device for superfluous hair removal Palomar expands line of light-based hair reduction systems as FDA approves
June 2002
	IGPE suffers major brownout AEA Teaching the Teachers BAE reaches out to others “passionate on permanency” iMM-Pac’s high technology will rev up epilation speed From truffles for facials to laser for blondes AEA forms early plans for 2002 Convention in Vegas
March 2002
	Laser warfare in New York –physicians Vs estheticians Laser treatments a bitter lesson for some patients NTP proposes estrogen be added to carcinogen list IGPE’s Congress 2002 set for springtime in Chicago Different methods of hair removal not without risks OK, but will it get those dirty, dirty hairs out? Androgen therapy may help postmenopausal women Amazon Croton tree sap may be antibacterial cure-all First birth control patch receives FDA approval Attention to hair details is never just for women Postmenopausal diabetics may have help from HRT
December 2001
	IGPE’s Year 2001 Congress rescheduled for April 2002 Laser hair removal victim Sues NY spa for $100M Hinkel Inc’s Delilah knows answer to Samson’s secret Pfizer wants to know why women are quitting HRT Ballet presents Gold Probe Award for the year 2001 Studies prove progesterone noneffective against PMS Dr. Blum says “Goodbye” to IHR and Skin Talk FDA gives the “OK” to a new birth control invention New cataphoresis roller to be Apilus standard in 2000 AEA Grand Raffle winners take home grand prizes P&G donates its valuable hair removal technology
September 2001
	Name that Guild! Will it be IGPE or IGHRS? Hormone Center of New York now a reality Spider vein removal made easy for medical doctors Sterex needles adds a new twopiece to its product line AEA in Memphis for Rockin’ an’ Rollin’ and CEUs "Reduction” only, OK. But who will enforce the rules? “UK Student of the Year” wins trip to Memphis, TN
June 2001
	Who gets to use laser for hair removal in Florida is still anybody’s guess “Rebound epidemic” of HIV may already be underway Electronic tweezer-maker offers new cream to aid laser hair removal Lasers are more versatile, lighter and more available Findings of hair study just another way to raise funds Latex allergies put lower protein gloves in demand Keeping up with misleading ads is a never-ending task U.S. entry at Cannes Film Festival tells a hairy tale
March 2001
	National associations set 2001 convention plans Taking the "wait" out of electrology waiting rooms Women with Mustaches is one hairy exhibit South Africa braces for the "explosive" AIDS epidemic Bulge area of hair follicle may also be home to skin’s all-important stem cells Women seeking HRT advice still favor doctor’s opinion Researchers find two types of stem cells Amazon tree sap the cure for what ails us?
November 2000
	New AEA leader has a "Vision for the Future" New York more accessible city for hirsute patients FDA creates MD registry for drug Accutane Laser manufacturers crank out machines, get OK from FDA and churn out the ads Women fall short on folic acid Researchers weigh pros and cons of HR therapy
Wyeth’s stock suffers nasty side-effects from HRT drugs
	Stock shares of the giant pharmaceutical company, Wyeth, based in Madison, New Jersey, fell 24 percent to a four-year low in July 2002, after a large, long-term study by the Women’s Health Initiative [see Hair Route, Issue No. 92] published in major medical journals, showed that women taking Wyeth’s flagship drug Prempro for hormone replacement therapy (HRT), had an increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and heart disease. Another study released later that month, linked Wyeth’s hormone therapy drug, Premarin, to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. Reporting its quarterly earnings in October, Wyeth said its earnings had slumped a more-than-expected 31 percent as safety concerns hurt sales of its top-selling hormone replacement treatments. Revenue fell to $3.62 billion from $3.7 billion. Net income rose to $1.4 billion, or $1.05 per share, compared with $252 million, or 19 cents per share a year earlier. Excluding one-time items, earnings fell to $626.7 million, or 47 cents per share, from $905.4 million, or 68 cents per share. Analyst’s estimates had ranged from 48 cents to 55 cents per share, with an average forecast of 52 cents per share. Wyeth said it would take a $1.4 billion charge to increase the reserve to settle product liability and personal injury claims from its recalled diet drug cocktail fen-phen, which has been linked to heart problems. The company has so far taken more than $14.5 billion in charges to settle fen-phen claims. In late September, the company warned that 2002 earnings before one-time items such as the fen-phen charge would fall short of expectations, hurt by the slowing sales of hormone replacement drugs and manufacturing problems with its pneumonia vaccine Prevnar. It was also reported that sales of the company’s consumer health products, such as Robitussin cough suppressant and Centrum vitamins, were sluggish.
Progestin not estrogen is link to cancer, study says
	Sales of hormone replacement pills containing both estrogen and progestin have plunged since last summer, when a major U.S. study conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative linked these combination drugs to breast cancer and heart disease. Now the results of another study, conducted at Lund University in Sweden, suggests that women who take hormone replacement drugs containing estrogen alone, may have less chance of developing breast cancer than those who take the combination pill. Women typically take the hormone replacement drugs for relief from menopause symptoms, including hot flashes, trouble sleeping, irritability and vaginal dryness. Using estrogen alone is recommended only for women who have had hysterectomies, because the use of estrogen increases the risk of womb cancer and progestin protects against it. The Lund University study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the Swedish Society of Medicine in Goteborg, Sweden, involved 30,000 women, including about 3,500 who were taking hormone replacement therapies to ease symptoms of menopause. Results of the study indicate that women who took pills containing progestin had triple the normal risk of breast cancer. Dr. Haakan Olsson, the study’s lead researcher, said, “Women taking drugs with only estrogen had normal rates of breast cancer.” The study showed that among 395 women taking drugs with progestin for more than four years, 25 (6.3 percent) developed breast cancer. Among women taking estrogen-only drugs, the corresponding number was nine of 322, or 2.8 percent, a rate similar to that of the women in the study who were not taking hormone treatment. “The risk [of breast cancer] is about three times higher after more than four years’ use of progestin, and 1.8 times higher after less than four years’ use,” Dr. Olsson said. For many years, scientists have debated the pros and cons of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and tried to determine whether the increased risks involved in this therapy outweigh the benefits of the medications. Critics of the new Swedish study say the number of women studied was too small to provide any answers. Dr. Valerie Beral, head of Oxford University’s epidemiology unit in Britain said, “You can’t use a study like that to draw definite conclusions.” Dr. William Creasman, an expert on HRT at the Medical University of South Carolina, is also skeptical because of the scope of the study. He said even the results of the large, long-term U.S. study on combination treatments published in major medical journals earlier this year was “flawed and raised more questions than answers.”
Gene leaves clues that may lead to hope for the hairless
	Scientists have discovered a gene that causes extreme forms of hair loss; a finding they say could one day point to better remedies for common hereditary baldness. Researchers found the gene – appropriately named “hair-less” – by studying a Pakistan family who for generations has been plagued by the inherited form of alopecia universalis. Sufferers of this rare syndrome are born without eyelashes or eyebrows, quickly lose the hair on top of the head, and never grow any body hair. It’s a far cry from the more common male pattern baldness, which sends millions of men reaching for their hair-growth drugs or toupees. But because the hairless gene regulates the same hair follicles, and appears to switch on other hair related genes, it provides a vital clue to understanding hair growth and loss. Dermatology professor, Dr. Angela Christiano, the lead researcher of this study at Columbia University says, “There are several forms of hereditary hair loss, but scientists until now have been unable to find any of the genes responsible. We’re hoping this will lead us to the next gene and the next.” Dr. Christiano said they have begun test-tube experiments to uncover exactly how the gene for hairlessness works. “This is sort of like getting your foot in the door,” agreed Dr. David Valle, a medical geneticist and pediatrician at Johns Hopkins University, who praised the study, recently published in the journal Science. Dr. Christiano said, “Researchers think hair growth is regulated like a clock and needs to pass through certain checkpoints before a new hair can grow. We’re hoping this is the first checkpoint. If so, following the hairless gene’s trail as it makes proteins that switch on other genes, could uncover where milder forms of baldness originate, and suggest possible new therapies. It’s a field already attracting interest. Drug giant Johnson & Johnson has recruited balding families for its own gene hunt, and a California company says that if the genes to stimulate hair growth are found, it has the technology to transfer them into empty hair follicles for gene therapy.
Yes, we’ve got hair to spare, do we hear any more bids?
	What do you do with all those hairs you remove from clients, anyway? Do you store them away safely, for that day in the future when your client is world famous? – No? Well maybe you ought to think the idea over again. At an online sale at MastroNet, Inc. on Oct. 28, 2002, some hair of the legendary rocking ’n’ rolling “Elvis the Pelvis” Presley went on the auction block. The precious bundle of jet black hair clippings (approximately the size of a baseball), was originally cut from the “King’s” head by his personal hairdresser, “Gill” Gilleland – and you’re going to feel like weeping when you hear the price it sold for and think about all the great hairs you’ve trashed in the last 10 years. What do you suppose they’d be worth today? Homer M. Gilleland (better known as Mr. Gill), was Elvis’s personal hair stylist for over 20 years. During those years, the singer gave Mr. Gill numerous gifts of clothing, including the Flame Jumpsuit, assorted jewelry, a 1972 Lincoln Mark IV, a home on Jean Drive, in Memphis and, presumably, all the hair clippings he could carry. Born in North Carolina, Mr. Gill attended New York’s Antoinne Beauty School in 1937, and was later given a job starting beauty schools in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Memphis. Settling in Memphis, he worked as a hairdresser at Goldsmith’s Department Store, and it was there that he met up with the Presley family. From that point it was a giddying ride – wherever the King traveled, Mr. Gill traveled also. From the Hawaii “Aloha Special” satellite broadcast, to the New York City Madison Square Show. From the late 1950s until May 1976, Mr. Gill was there, attending to Elvis’s coloring, cutting and styling needs, and picking up the mess of hair clippings that were left behind. Shortly after Elvis’s death – across from Graceland at Mr. Tubbs’s Souvenir Shop – Homer Gilleland was selling samples of hair that he’d collected from his old boss during his years of service. Five years ago, before he died, Mr. Gill gave the remains of his hair collection to Elvis’s old friend, Tom Morgan Jr., who recently made the decision to sell. Going to auction, along with the ball of hair, was a long, documented provenance, and letters of authenticityfrom John W. Heath (the world’s foremost Elvis memorabilia expert) and John Reznikoff, of University Archives (the world’smost trusted authority in the field of hair collecting today). And what does a ball of Elvis’s hair go for? Well, superfluous hair of the stars doesn’t come cheap. The Oct. 28 opening bid was $10,000. There were 32 parties bidding, and the closing bid was $100,105. It’s time, ladies, to get out those jam jars and start preserving all those juicy little anagen hairs. There’s no knowing what they’ll be worth 25 years from now!
2-year-old Vaniqa tops one million in prescription sales
	Just two years after getting clearance to market from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the topical hair removal cream Vaniqa, developed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Gillette Co., has topped one million in prescription sales in North America. According to data released in September by NDCHealth, Inc., ”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.” The presence of facial hair is among the most prevalent and bothersome cosmetic concerns a woman faces. NDCHealth says an estimated 41 million American women have removed unwanted facial hair at least once in the last six months. Likewise, the market for hair removal services and products of all kinds is in excess of $1.8 billion annually. Confirming the need for a product that slows hair growth, 43 percent of women surveyed by NDCHealth reported they were unhappy with their current method of hair removal, and 60 percent thought the hair grew back too fast. Geoffrey Redmond, MD, Hair Route magazine's medical consultant and columnist, was involved in the development of Vaniqa and did much of the research showing it to be effective. Jeanne Sweeney, DCT, a nationally known electrologist also worked with him in studying Vaniqa. ”It is an entirely new approach to treating increased facial hair, because it does not work through hormonal pathways,” says Dr. Redmond. ”Vaniqa works directly to slow hair growth by inhibiting an enzyme called ornithine decarboxylase (ODC). When this enzyme is blocked by the medication, metabolic activity in the hair follicle decreases, and hairs grow in more slowly. Vaniqa does not itself remove hair, so it needs to be used in combination with a removal method.” Vaniqa (eflornithine hydrochloride) is the first and only product to receive the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration for decreasing growth of women's facial hair. Available only by prescription, the cream can be used by women of all ages and all skin types, and is effective regardless of the cause of excess facial hair, be it hereditary or hormonal. It is gentle enough to be used daily, as part of a woman's regular skin care regimen, and during clinical trails results improved the longer Vaniqa was used. Dr. Redmond confirms that many of the women who used Vaniqa in the clinical trials were pleased with results. ”Vaniqa is for women who are already doing some kind of hair removal,” says Dr. Redmond. ”Slowing the growth of the hair means fewer hair removal sessions; more importantly, it increases the time after removal that a woman can feel confident that her facial hair is not noticeable. I know of no reason why women undergoing electrolysis should not also use Vaniqa. For those women with heavy facial hair growth, this makes sense because the cream will slow down the growth within a few weeks and the electrolysis by a competent electrologist will produce eventual permanent removal.” Vaniqa does have some limitations. Testing involved only application on the face, so it is not indicated for increased hair elsewhere. Bikini-line use would raise particular concern since a topical applied to that area might be absorbed more than when it is applied on the face. Side effects, if they occur at all, are quite mild. When applied right after hair has been removed with a razor, mild stinging can occur; but this is brief and not very bothersome. Use by pregnant women was not studied, therefore Vaniqa cannot be recommended for use in pregnancy. ”Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gillette were forward-looking to invest in developing Vaniqa,” says Dr. Redmond. ”For years, most of the medical profession refused to acknowledge that increased hair growth in women was a problem at all. As a result, women embarrassed by visible facial hair have felt quite isolated.”
Hormone trial halted due to cancer, heart Risk
	A major U.S. trial at the Women’s Health Initiative, a unit of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), designed to show the possible benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in combating coronary heart disease, was halted in July when researchers found that the estrogen/progestin combination being used presented “safety concerns.” The trial involved 16,608 women aged 50 to 79 who still had their uterus. Such women are given the estrogen/progestin combination because estrogen alone can promote cancer in the lining of the uterus. Dr. Jacques Rossouw, who is acting director of the NHLBI, said women who have participated in the trial, as well as other patients taking this drug combination, “should not be unduly alarmed,” since the risk to an individual patient is small. However, he suggested “Women with a uterus who are currently taking estrogen plus progestin should have a serious talk with their doctor to see if they should continue it.” Although the combination hormone did reduce the risk of colon cancer and hip fractures, it also increased the risk of heart disease and breast cancer. The trial was said to be the largest, best-designed, and most important study of HRT to date. More than 6 million women in the US currently take estrogen and progestin combination therapy for a variety of reasons, including relief of hot flashes and other menopausal symptoms. The hope – and the hype – has been that such hormones would also confer a number of other advantages, including a reduced risk of heart disease. However, the study suggests that when women take the drugs for more than about five years, the risks of the hormones clearly outweigh the benefits. Women taking the hormones after menopause had a greater risk of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke and blood clots than those who did not take the drugs. The results of the trial, which was supposed to last 8.5 years, were originally scheduled to be published in the August issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, but were released early due to the importance of the findings. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the estrogen/progestin combination or an inactive placebo. They were followed for an average of 5.2 years. Dr. Rossouw said the results showed that if 10,000 postmenopausal women take estrogen plus progestin, in a given year eight more will develop invasive breast cancer, seven will have a heart attack, eight will have a stroke, and 18 more will have blood clots (including eight with blood clots in the lungs) than in a similar group of 10,000 women not taking these hormones. “This is a relatively small annual increase in risk for an individual woman,” said Dr. Rossouw. “However, even small individual risks over time, and on a population-wide basis, add up to tens of thousands of these serious adverse health events.” Dr. Claude Lenfant, director of the NHLBI, said that menopausal women who are considering starting HRT with the hope of preventing heart disease might want to reconsider the idea. “Menopausal women who might have been candidates for estrogen plus progestin should now focus on well-proven treatments to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, including measures to prevent and control high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and obesity,” he said. “Heart disease remains the number-one killer in North America.” Within a day of receiving word about the halting of the U.S. trial, health officials at Britain’s Department of Health were warning British women not to begin a treatment of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to combat coronary heart disease, because the U.S. study had found the drugs could produce “serious side effects.” A spokeswoman at Britain’s Department of Health said: “HRT should not be initiated for prevention of coronary heart disease. A small increase in the risk of breast cancer after five years of use of HRT has been known for some time.” She said that the government’s Committee for Safety of Medicines – an independent advisory committee – would “carefully consider any further implications of the American study and update its advice as necessary.” In England, about six million HRT prescriptions were issued last year, according to government numbers, though the particular combination of drugs was not identical to those used in the U.S. study.
Drug maker amends hormone therapy (HRT) prescribing info
	In a press release dated Sep. 4, 2002, U.S. drug maker Wyeth said it has changed the prescribing recommendations for women taking its hormone replacement therapy (HRT) products to reflect recent studies that raised safety questions about the medicines and sparked a nationwide debate. The labels for Premarin, Prempro and Premphase will now recommend that women remain on the therapies for the shortest time possible given the individual patient’s treatment goals. The drugs should also not be taken to prevent heart disease, and other treatments should be considered for osteoporosis prevention, a common use of hormone replacement therapy. Wyeth says the prescription information for these drugs will include results of a study spearheaded by The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) that suggested Prempro carried a slightly increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, and heart disease after five years of use. A second study prompted safety questions about Premarin. Premarin contains the hormone estrogen for the treatment of menopause symptoms while Prempro combines estrogen with a synthetic female hormone called progestin. Wyeth, which saw prescriptions in U.S. drop more than 20 percent in the weeks immediately after the Prempro study came out in July, has been criticized for not adequately warning patients of the potential risks of the medicines.
ASDS warns against cosmetic surgery by non-physicians
	The 2002 Member Survey of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) indicates clearly that cosmetic procedures performed by non-physicians without adequate training or supervision continue to pose a public safety concern. Numerous medical treatments that traditionally present a low risk profile when performed by qualified dermatologic surgeons are now being cited as the cause of scars, burns, permanent skin discoloration and even misdiagnoses of serious conditions like skin cancers. With these facts in mind, the ASDS has announced that it will extend for another year its awareness campaign to warn consumers about the risks of complications and the unscrupulous practices associated with various invasive and noninvasive medical procedures administered by non-physician operators at spas, salons or clinics. Almost 41% of Survey respondents reported an increase in patients seeking corrective treatment over the past year – due to damage caused by untrained non-physicians performing laser/light hair removal, subsurface laser/light rejuvenation techniques, chemical peels, acne therapy, and misdiagnosis or delayed treatment of skin cancers and rosacea. Laser and light-based hair removal procedures by non-physicians were again the most widely reported complication with 106 dermatologic surgeons noting such adverse effects as second and third degree burns, permanent nerve damage and scarring. This is an increase of 7% when compared to last year’s data for hair removal procedures. In a July press release, ASDS President-elect Dr. Roy G. Geronemus, told reporters that the results of the Survey underscores the need for improved awareness, legislation and enforcement regarding the non-physician practice of medicine. He said, “The Society will remain vigilant in its efforts to protect patients on this issue.” Compared to the ASDS’s 2001 Survey, the incidence of complications from laser and light-based hair removal procedures by non-physicians increased significantly this year, from 24% in 2001 to 31% in 2002. “High-tech hair removal procedures remain the leading source of complications,” said Dr. Geronemus. “And while we are pleased to note some minimal improvement in the rate of complications from certain procedures like rosacea,” he added, “it is worrisome to see chemical peels, acne therapy and hair removal come on the radar screen rather dramatically.” To address these concerns, the ASDS has issued position statements on the non-physician practice of medicine, and Society members have been instrumental in encouraging state medical boards, education departments and health departments to re-examine the legal definition of the practice of medicine. The ASDS’s reform efforts during the past year have resulted in a revised position statement on the utilization of medical lasers and chemical peels under direct and onsite physician supervision by the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners. Oregon introduced new guidelines restricting laser procedures to “direct physician supervision” only. And the New York State Board of Medicine passed a resolution recommending that the use of lasers and intense pulsed light for hair removal be considered the practice of medicine and thus must be performed by a physician or done under direct physician supervision. Policies regarding laser use in Texas are pending review by the state medical board and health department. “The bottom line for our specialty is to protect consumers from the proliferation of non-physicians who typically do not have the necessary medical training and qualifications to diagnose the condition, perform the procedure or adequately address complications when they arise, particularly when treatment is administered outside the medical setting,” says Dr. Geronemus. “Since the incidence of complications reflected in our survey may just be the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ we clearly have more work to do.”
BAE Master Class presents — Will that be One Hand or Two?
	Should the electrologist work with the needleholder in her dominant hand and forceps in the opposing hand; or should she hold both the forceps and needleholder in the same hand? That is a question that has been debated, on and off, at electrologists’ meetings worldwide for many years. And it’s going to be one of many interesting topics on the program of the British Association of Electrolysists’ special “Symposium & Master Class,” to be held at the Hairdressing & Beauty Equipment Centre in London, England, on Sunday Nov. 17, 2002. The one-day event will be open to all electrologists, members and non-members, and to all tutors in both private and state colleges. Among the high-priority topics on the Symposium agenda will be the severe shortage of skilled electrologists in the field today, and the dwindling number of students enrolling in our schools of electrology. At the Master Class, there will be a practical demonstration of the one-handed epilation technique – which requires that the electrologist’s forceps and needleholder both be held in the same hand. Janet Ellard-Smith, the BAE’s press secretary says, “practitioners of this one-handed technique – once used extensively in the West-End of London – claim that it is much faster than the current two-handed method.” In her invitation to potential Symposium visitors Ms. Ellard-Smith says; “If you have never seen this technique you are in for a real treat. I am really looking forward to this as when I have seen this procedure used it is amazing and looks like a magic trick! I have never been able to master it and am hoping to give it a go!” All delegates to the Symposium will be issued with a Certificate of Professional Development. The cost of this one-day experience, with lunch included, is £75. Early registration is advised. Tel: 0870-1280477, or email sec@baeltd.fsbusiness.co.uk for details. For further information contact Janet Ellard-Smith direct on: Email janet.ellard-smith@bigfoot.com Tel: 020-8318 5356 Fax: 0870 132 5833. While attending the Symposium and Master Class, visitors will have the opportunity to become a BAE Member, or Associate Member. The benefits of being a member are numerous and include eligibility to join the Medical Group Insurance Scheme, with preferential premiums and excellent coverage. Electrologists are kept up-to-date on electrolysis issues every two months through the Association’s newsletter Probe. And the Association also has two ‘HELPLINES’ available for any queries from members and the general public. “Come and join us! says the Association. It’s good to talk!”
Pioneer electrologist Ruth Young Block dies at 101
	A pioneer of short wave epilation, Ruth Young Block, died of heart failure on Aug. 7, 2002, just one week short of her 101st birthday. Born August 14, 1901, Ms. Block had transformed her early years of Depression-era penury into a long, high-profile career in electrolysis, followed by 29 years of comfortable retirement in her Chicago lakefront apartment. A Polish immigrant, Ms. Block became an electrologist in 1937, and with borrowed money opened the ‘Ruth Young Block Luxury Salon for the Permanent Removal of Hair’ in Marshall Field’s annex building, in Chicago’s historic downtown Loop district. Throughout the 36 years she worked at this location, she was a constant voice in the promotion of permanent hair removal and a staunch supporter of state and national electrolysis associations. During the span of her career she held various posts in the Electrolysis Society of America (ESA), the Electrologists’ Association of Illinois (EAI), of which she was a founding member and one-time President, and the American Electrology Association (AEA) where she served a two-year term as 1st Vice President (1968-70), and a two-year term in the high office of AEA President (1971-72). From the beginning, Ms. Block was a pioneer of short wave epilation, a method that was in its infancy in the 1930s, and she never ceased promoting the process in her typically aggressive advertising campaigns. Newspaper ads – her favorite form of advertising – regularly declared; “Our short wave method, using radio waves destroys hair five times faster than the old approach,” “Guaranteed permanent,” Private consultation without obligation,” “Trial Treatment $1.” In 1972, Ms. Block’s daughter, Carol – who had been active in the electrolysis business for some years – introduced the Block clientele to a hair removal process that was not to the liking of the professional electrolysis associations of that day. The ensuing controversy soured Ruth Block’s long relationship with some of her peers, and she decided to retire from business in 1973, at the age of 72.
FDA clears first light-based do-it-yourself-at-home device for superfluous hair removal
	The laser manufacturing company, Radiancy, Inc., based at Yavne Industrial Park in Israel, with corporate headquarters located in Orangeburg, N.Y., announced in June 2002 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had granted the Company clearance to market its non-laser, light-based photoepilation system, SpaTouch,” for patient removal of unwanted hair at home. Radiancy’s president, Zion Azar, said the FDA’s new, “Physician Directed Use (PDU)” indication confirms “the superior safety, ease of use and clinical efficacy of the innovative light energy technology exclusive to the SpaTouch.” “The FDA’s clearance is a significant corporate milestone, and we are very excited that our SpaTouch system is the first of its type to be classified as a PDU,” said Mr. Azar. “Our successful clinical results positively establish that SpaTouch is safe and effective for hair removal performed by patients in their homes.” In a study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SpaTouch hair removal when used by patients for self treatment in a home-like environment, 67 patients – with various skin types (I-IV) and blond to black hair – performed two treatments, on two body areas. The first self-treatment was administered at a clinical investigator’s office after instruction and guidance by the physician. The second self-treatment was performed four weeks later at a hotel room, simulating an at-home environment. Safety and treatment response were evaluated at six and 12 weeks following the first self-treatment. Results showed that side effects such as redness and swelling at the treatment site were mild, transient and comparable to those in previous investigations where a similar device was operated by healthcare professionals. “The basic concept of the study was to determine if the average person could treat him or herself without causing harm. Our work showed that patients may administer self-treatments for hair removal in a safe and effective manner,” said Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, the study’s lead investigator in Boston. Radiancy Inc. says there are several aspects of the SpaTouch system that make it ideal for patients to use at home. “The Company’s trademarked Light and Heat Energy (LHE) technology utilizes the heat generated from the light source, enabling the use of low light energy fluences that help avoid the risks associated with high energy lasers.” A bulletin issued by Radiancy, Inc. says, “High-tech hair removal is a multi-billion dollar business, and industry experts expect that the number of installed light-based devices will more than double in the next few years. Seven years after the first laser hair removal unit was approved by the FDA, consumers are spending more than $1 billion annually for treatment, making high-tech hair removal one of the fastest-growing cosmetic procedures.”
Palomar expands line of light-based hair reduction systems as FDA approves
	In a press release dated Aug. 1, 2002, Palomar Medical Technologies Inc. announced that it had received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell and market a new handpiece for its EsteLux light-based hair reduction system– “good for all skin types, including tanned skin.” The red light filtered handpiece expands the EsteLux system’s treatment capabilities by permitting “permanent hair reduction on all skin types,” through a unique combination of optics and energy levels that allows the handpiece to selectively target melanin in the hair follicle. The Palomar Company’s fortunes have not shone too brightly in the past year or two. A leader in the manufacturing and promotion of laser hair reduction in the late 1990s, this high-tech firm has lately been struggling to stay ahead of innumerable competitors. In May 1996, Palomar stock traded above $16 on the New York Stock Exchange, but by April 1997 shares in the company floundered around $4. The Company’s chairman and chief executive officer at that time, Steven Georgiev, told shareholders: “Palomar will focus only on achieving the largest possible market share in our core business – cosmetic laser products and services. We believe that we are positioned to capitalize on these multi-billion dollar markets and achieve a dominant position within the next two years.” Alas, it was not to be. Investors who bought Palomar stock at 1996 prices, were having great difficulty finding buyers who would pay $1.70 for their shares at the beginning of September 2002. These manufacturers have long since given up hope of mining “multi-billion markets” in the medical laser hair removal field. In June 2002, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Palomar fired its independent accountants, Arthur Anderson LLP, because the accounting company had noted on Palomar’s 2001 year-end financial statements “there is substantial doubt about the [Palomar] Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.” As of July 8, 2002, Palomar has a new accounting firm auditing its financial statements, and the manufacturing and retailing departments of the Company are turning their sights toward the possibly more lucrative cosmetology markets and non-laser flashlamps. Pinning its hopes on its much-touted EsteLux pulsed-light hair reduction system ($29,000), Palomar is currently bombarding the esthetics, spa, and salon industries with high-powered advertising in every beauty and cosmetics magazine it can find. Recent promotional material from Palomar reported “sales of the Company’s products continue to be impressive during the historically slow summer months.” And in the line-up of new product offerings there is the LuxY(TM) yellow light filtered handpiece – for fast removal of hair and pigmented lesions on lighter skin types; the LuxG green light filtered handpiece – for pigmented and vascular lesion treatments; and the LuxR red light filtered handpiece – for fast removal of hair on all skin types, including tanned skin.
IGPE suffers major brownout
	All did not go well for the proponents of needle-type electrolysis attending the April 2002 Congress and Membership Meeting of the International Guild of Professional Electrologists in Chicago. A small contingent of members — calling itself the “Ethical IGPE Coalition” — had hoped to stall the reelection of incumbent Guild president Trudy Brown, and, more importantly, defeat a proposal of the Guild board to remove the words “Professional Electrologists” from the corporate name and replace them with the words “Hair Removal Specialists.” The efforts of the Coalition were sadly to no avail. A near two-thirds majority of the scant 61 IGPE members attending the Chicago meeting confirmed Ms. Brown’s position as presidential leader, and voted in favor of the changes to the corporate name. Ms. Brown did not accomplish her mission without considerable political maneuvering. The first order of business when the membership meeting came to order was to shuffle the convention schedule (already quite changed from the one that members received in the mail weeks earlier). According to a report by James Walker — who spearheaded the Coalition — Ms. Brown did not want secret balloting for the vote on changing the words and meaning of the corporate name, and was instead able to arrange for a (more inhibiting) “detractors-only standing vote” — requiring the few persons who disagreed with the proposed changes to stand up and be counted. At the election for Guild president, the rules were tweaked so that only a person present at the Chicago meeting could be nominated for office. “Since the new rules prevented the nomination of anyone who was not present at the meeting, nominations from the floor were predictably sparse,” says Mr. Walker. “No one was now able to nominate Mr. Fino Gior [founder and former president of the Guild] for the position of president, as the Ethical IGPE Coalition had planned to do.” To give Ms. Brown some opposition on the ballot — no matter how untenable the proposal — Mr. Walker nominated himself for the position of president of the Guild. At voting time, only those members present at the convention on election day were allowed to participate. Ms. Brown retained the Guild’s presidency with 39 votes. Mr. Walker received four votes. Five voters abstained. The “new board,” says Mr. Walker, “all of them returning incumbents, were duly sworn and told, ‘You people who stand here; You are the Guild.’” On hearing the results of the voting, Mr. Gior said “Disaster hit the Guild. It went from ‘permanent hair removal’ to ‘hair reduction’ and they call this ‘progress.’ I call, it ‘regression.’ They say laser is here to stay! Well, so is death, disease, crime and greed. Does this equate to a Good?” Mr. Gior added that it will be interesting to hear “how the rest of the Guild’s members — those that were unable to attend the meeting in Chicago — react to these changes.” The answer to this question may not be of much consequence: one Guild critic, who wishes to remain anonymous, estimates that the Guild membership dropped by more than 200 in the 2002 renewal period, and a further loss in number may leave the International Guild of Hair Removal Specialists (IGHRS) with a membership count lower than some state electrology associations.
AEA Teaching the Teachers
	The American Electrology Association’s International Board of Electrologist Certification (IBEC) has developed a program to prepare electrologists to become teachers in a classroom environment. In a recent press release the AEA said, “Once again the AEA is leading the way, setting high standards for the electrology profession by providing this pedagogy program. If you are looking for an opportunity to grow and do something for your profession of electrology then this is the program for you. Here is an opportunity for you to achieve your goals.” A Certified Professional Electrologist (CPE) with at least five years experience in the field will be eligible to participate in this “Teaching the Teachers” program, which will help prospective instructors learn the skills and techniques they require. The curriculum will cover formats, structures, methodologies, and delivery systems. Participants will learn how to prepare lesson plans, develop written and practical tests, and develop presentation skills. The AEA is offering the course prior to the Association’s Convention, Oct. 21-22, 2002. The program will provide a complete course syllabus and teaching materials for classroom and reference use. Learning the skills and techniques to develop overheads and handouts, and make the most of the various available media, will be part of the two-day event. The first class is on Mon., Oct. 21, 2002, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. On Tue., Oct. 22nd, the hours are 9:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. Buffet luncheon will be provided both days at 12:30. Registration is limited to electrologists who hold the CPE credential with five years of experience in the field. Registration fee for the two days is $185.00. For more information about the program contact: Sharon Ortiz — AEA Treasurer, 1616 Cherry St., Wenatchee, WA, 98801-3147. Registration must be before Oct. 1, 2002. For information about the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas, tel. 800-ORLEANS.
BAE reaches out to others “passionate on permanency”
	At the 45th Annual General Meeting and Open Convention of the British Association of Electrolysists (BAE) held at the New Cavendish Club, in the heart of London, on April 28, Sybil Perkins passed the Chairmanship of the Association over to Sue Paradise. Ms. Paradise is a practising electrologist with more than 13 years experience at her Elisabeth Cummings Clinic in Gravesend, Kent. Ms. Perkins, the retiring Chair, held the position of Secretary of the BAE for several years and also assisted with the BAE’s Helpline. Professionally, she has been in private practice for 31 years, formerly with two successful salons, and more recently from a clinic in her home. Ms. Perkins will continue to be an active BAE committee member and work with the Helpline, which the Association runs for the benefit of its membership and the general public. The Vice-Chairmanship of the BAE was passed from Sue Paradise to Janet Ellard-Smith, current press secretary for the BAE and former British Electrologist of the Year. Laura Bateman, who owns a salon in St. Albans, Hertfordshire, took over the position of Association treasurer. Among other important business at this BAE meeting was the launching of the Association’s new web site, www.electrolysis-bae-ltd.co.uk. On this web site consumers can find their closest BAE-electrologist, and members can read all about their committee and even see photos of who’s who! The site also has links to the web sites of the American Electrology Association (AEA), the International Hair Route “the definitive magazine for permanent hair removal,” and Verity, the web site of a self-help group for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). The British Association of Electrolysists is always actively recruiting new members, and any electrologist “who is passionate about permanency” is invited to contact the BAE Helpline, telephone 0870 128 0477, for details about joining the Association. For further information about the BAE contact: Janet Ellard-Smith at: tel. 020-8318 5356, fax. 08701 325 833, or email janet.ellard-smith@bigfoot.com.
iMM-Pac’s high technology will rev up epilation speed
	The speed at which epilation can be performed is of the utmost importance to electrologists’ clients. “This is why something new appears on the market each year, offering a quicker way to remove unwanted hairs,” says Clément Beaumont, president and CEO of the electrolysis manufacturing firm Dectro International. “Computerized electroepilation is no exception to this desire for speed,” Mr. Beaumont adds. “And our Company took up the challenge to increase the speed of electroepilation without compromising the effectiveness of this modality, and we created the new iMM-Pac software, that integrates new, even more outstanding functions for our state-of-the-art Apilus Senior II and SX-500 devices.” Thanks to the Apilus flexibility, owners of the Company’s Apilus Senior II or SX-500 devices can now make their system even more rapidly effective with iMM-Pac Advanced Apilus technology. The first function integrated in the iMM-Pac software is a complete range of programs for insulated probes. These programs are available for each body area and treatment modality. The unique feature is designed to ensure better use of insulated probes, while maximizing results and comfort. Two other interesting options are Dectro’s Multiplex (developed to treat deep follicles and facilitate the removal of hairs in the telogen phase), and MultiBlend (designed to treat very distorted hairs, and strong, difficult anagen hairs). Once restricted to the Apilus SX-500, these two very effective techniques can now be optionally integrated into the Apilus Senior II. Also incorporated in the iMM-Pac, is the MicroFlash — proportional pulsing/variable delay (MPP/VD) function, which makes it easier to use the probe displacement method in the follicle — a method that is becoming popular with the increasing use of insulated probes. The method consists in producing several reduced pulses which are emitted at different locations along the follicle. “The result with this technique,” says Mr. Beaumont “is more extensive destruction between the papilla and the bulge sections of the follicle, with reduced length and intensity when used with insulated probes. Greater comfort and less abundant regrowth.” The Company says the new iMM-Pac technology offers a series of additional assets designed to meet the expectations of the most discriminating clientele, while providing a permanent, comfortable and rapidly effective epilation!
From truffles for facials to laser for blondes
	The U.S. television news networks have not been slow to jump on the controversy surrounding the practice of laser hair removal, particularly in New York City where Kim McMillon “an attractive, 34-year-old Wall Street investment banker” is seeking compensation of $100 million from Greenhouse Day Spa, after receiving permanent facial scars in a laser hair removal “treatment gone wrong.” [Reported in Hair Route, Dec. 2001, page 20.] A CBS 2 Investigation of Ms. McMillon’s case turned up some interesting information on the use of lasers in different states. In their interviews with doctors, CBS 2 learned that “the laws regarding the use of lasers in New York State are murky.” They were told that technicians with as little as one day’s training can perform the procedures, but should be under the supervision of a doctor. However, there are loopholes. A New Jersey surgeon explained to CBS 2, “There is a way to work that out in New York.” When CBS 2 went undercover a plastic surgeon told them how they could set up laser treatments in a spa if he became the physician director. He said he could help them buy and maintain the laser machine and provide additional training if they wanted — but he wouldn’t have to be on site. A CBS 2 undercover producer asked the plastic surgeon, “Okay, this is like a whole package and is that part of the cost of buying the machine?” The doctor responded, “That has nothing to do with the machine, this has nothing to do with the company, this is then between us. They’ll sell you the machine and all that and then what we have is we have a contract.” The CBS 2 reporters discovered this is a common transaction called “rent-a-doctor.” It allows non-physicians to get a doctor to sign off on the purchase of a laser machine and receive malpractice insurance. For a fee, of course. The same plastic surgeon told CBS 2, “There is a fee per month, I think around $500 and for that I’m available whenever, if you need to come back, if you have a lawsuit.” Reporters with the ABC News program Primetime also had a field day when, on May 2 of this year, they did some investigating of the booming spa industry. American women spent almost $9 billion on spas in 2001 alone. The spas offer a wide range of services, which they say can promote health, beauty and a sense of well-being. Primetime wanted to investigate claims about some of the more exotic treatments offered by these operations. During a two-month investigation, Primetime staffers visited spas and beauty clinics in New York City, recording their visits — and the spa operators’ claims — on hidden cameras. Primetime then showed the tapes to medical experts, and confronted the spa operators with what the experts said. The reporters were fascinated at first by the latest beauty treatments at the upscale spas. The signature treatment at one spa was a $140 facial that began with rare truffles — chopped and mixed with fragrant oils and brushed on the face — and ended with a caviar cream “to replenish the skin with minerals and nutrients.” Primetime’s exposé of facials was dull entertainment when compared to investigations into laser hair removal. Laser treatments to remove body hair are becoming available at more and more spas, Primetime discovered, and more than 1 million Americans had laser hair removal in 2001. According to Dr. Roy Geronemus, a leading expert on the topic of laser, dermatologists are seeing a “dramatic” increase in the number of complications from these treatments. “These complications may have lifelong consequences,” he said. Primetime met Kim McMillon (the aforementioned “attractive Wall Street investment banker”) who told them she has been left with permanent scarring, and now, more than a year later, still does not uncover her face in public. Dr. Geronemus expressed his concern to Primetime about training: some operators have only a weekend’s worth. “Even with much more training, mistakes are made,” he said. “There are many different lasers for different skin types and too many operators use the wrong laser for the wrong skin.” The newspeople were further surprised to discover that only 15 states require “physicians only” to perform laser hair removal. In 20 states, including New York, they found there are no regulations at all. To see if testers would be accurately told what to expect and what risks they might take, Primetime sent employees to spas in New York to document their consultations with hidden cameras. These “testers” were all deemed high risk or poor candidates for laser hair removal by Dr. Geronemus. Experts consulted by Primetime said one of the most important things in laser treatment is assessing a customer’s suitability. Some lasers can be dangerous for some darker skin types, they warned, and are ineffective on blond hairs. Primetime’s hidden cameras found that while some laser operators were careful to consider clients, skin and hair type, others were willing to proceed with laser treatments without giving adequate warning of the potential dangers involved. At one spa the operator told a tester with fair skin and blond hair that she could get rid of unwanted hair and would not face side effects because of her skin and hair color. The operator promised that after three sessions, costing a total of $1,000, the tester’s hair would be gone “permanently.” Dr. Geronemus said that was misleading: “Lasers just don’t work on blond hair at this time . . . It simply doesn’t work,” he said. “There’s no point in even attempting this procedure on this patient.” When Primetime told the operator of the doctors’ opinion, she said that while the laser won’t work on many blonds, it will on some, and that you don’t know until you do it. Because melanin absorbs the laser’s heat, people with darker skin are at a much higher risk for side effects. Some lasers cannot distinguish the dark hair from the dark skin. Nevertheless, a black tester who went to a laser hair center in New York was told she would be safe, and was promised that any reaction would last only a few days. Primetime’s experts were shocked to hear the operator’s reassurances, explaining that the laser she planned to use on the black tester was the wrong laser and increased the risk of burning and scarring. There are more than 30 models of hair-removal laser on the market, but operators need to choose carefully which laser to use on which skin type, the experts said. “The mistakes that were made were fundamental mistakes and should not be made,” said Dr. Geronemus. “These are fabulous procedures if performed properly, but there can be significant consequences if not performed properly.”
AEA forms early plans for 2002 Convention in Vegas
	The American Electrology Association (AEA) will hold it’s 2002 Convention at The Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas, Oct. 23-26. The Keynote Speaker will be E. Scott Sills, M.D., an endocrinologist from Atlanta, GA. Dr. Sills will be talking about “PCOS: The Significance of Symptom Awareness in Electrology Settings.” Other speakers include: electrologist Joyce Munson; Mary Ann Ciesla, PhD, MD; electrologist Bette Pritchett, BA; Julie Donnelly, BS; Zev M. Cohen; and Jon Anderson. For more details contact the AEA Executive Office, 106 Oak ridge Road, Trumbull, CT 06611. Fax: (203) 372-7134, or email convention@electrology.com.
Laser warfare in New York physicians Vs estheticians
	The questions of permanency or “permanent reduction,” were never even hinted at in the lengthy, cosmetic laser story featured in the Styles section of The New York Times, on Sunday, February 17. The big debate in this article, written by Elizabeth Hayt and titled “Whose Hand Holds the Laser,” was not about the efficacy of laser hair removal but rather about who should be allowed to perform the potentially dangerous procedure. “Originally developed by physicians” reports Ms. Hayt, “these treatments, which promise the dewy luster of youth, have in the last two years moved out from the fluorescent lights of doctors’ offices and into the candlelighted eucalyptus-scented interiors of skin-care salons and ‘wellness centers.’ “Using powerful technologies like lasers and microdermabrasion machines, the treatments are being done by nonphysicians, everyone from facialists to massage therapists,” says Ms. Hayt. The article quotes Mary Bemis, the editor of American Spa Magazine as saying “Everyone wants a piece of the Pie. A lot of physicians saw a good amount of their business being taken away by estheticians who started doing microdermabrasion and laser hair removal. The estheticians argue that you couldn’t get that kind of one-on-one personal attention from a physician’s office. Beauty is where the money is.” A spokeswoman at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told Ms. Hayt that the FDA classifies hair-removal lasers as prescription devices, which can be sold only to physicians, dentists and other ‘licensed practitioners.’ But the states decide which licensed practitioners, including nurses and estheticians (technically, people who do facials, tweezing and the like) may buy and use the machines. The article points out that manufacturers and distributors of laser hair removal devices are supposed to verify that buyers other than physicians have medical oversight, but it is “easy to circumvent the system.” Ken Callison, the owner of Allied Health Association, which caters to the esthetic industry, told the Times reporter that for a $600 annual fee, he offers “a rent-a-medical-director program, so that nonphysicians can get a doctor to sign off on the purchase of a hair removal laser.” Further to that, said Mr. Callison, “for $150 a year, they can buy $1 million worth of malpractice insurance.” Darryl Stevens, the president of Marine Agency Insurance – a company well known to the electrology and esthetics communities – told Ms. Hayt, “We are seeing a lot of claims.” The claims are for blistering and scarring and working on people who aren’t good candidates. “We are in the top of revising our policies. The premiums are going to go up because the dollar amounts of claims are going up.” One million dollars’ worth of malpractice insurance will be far short of what is needed if Kim McMillon, a New York investment banker, wins her case [fully reported in the December 2001 issue of International Hair Route]. In an interview conducted in her lawyer’s office, Ms. McMillon told the Times reporter that midway through a laser hair removal treatment at the Greenhouse spa in Manhattan, she had to call it off because her face “felt like it was on fire.” A year later Ms. McMillon seeks $100 million in damages from Greenhouse, “for horribly disfiguring her face during a laser hair removal beauty treatment.” Dr. William Coleman, clinical professor of dermatology at Tulane University Health and Sciences Center, says “It’s not like it doesn’t happen to a physician, but it’s less likely. If something goes wrong, you get early intervention, which keeps a problem from becoming a big problem.” Cindy Barshap, the owner of Completely Bare, a Manhattan skin-care center that does pulsed-light hair removal, holds a different view: “I personally don’t think doctors should be doing hair removal” she says. “The technicians are licensed estheticians; they do this 12 hours a day. You go to a podiatrist for fungus but not for a pedicure. What doctor wants to do hair removal?”
Laser treatments a bitter lesson for some patients
	“What you see isn’t always what you get,” was the thrust of a health-news story circulating in the U.S. press during December 2001, about the possible hazards involved in cosmetic laser treatments. The article had significant impact, given that it was penned by the award-winning journalist Colette Bouchez, formally a health reporter at the New York Daily News and author of several medical health books. Ms. Bouchez reported that a bitter lesson is being learned by an increasing number of people who’ve been harmed, disfigured or scarred from what should have been relatively risk-free cosmetic and dermatologic procedures. The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) is quoted as saying: “Thousands of consumers have suffered disastrous results after enduring a variety of procedures gone wrong.” Chemical peels, Botox wrinkle injections, tattoo and wart removals, laser skin resurfacing, and laser hair removal, are among the techniques that most often invite trouble. The problems range from “severe burns, to disfiguring scars and significant skin discoloration, and more.” The ASDS says the major reason for the rash of injuries, in almost all of the cases reported, is procedure error by technicians who have no medical training. Dr. Harold Brody, president of the ASDS, told Ms. Bouchez: “Patients are being enticed into glamorous day spas, skin clinics, beauty salons, and even some unscrupulous doctors’ offices with promises of qualified medical care. What they are too often ending up with is untrained technicians and damage that can take years to repair.” In answer to the question, ‘How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys?’ Dr. Jeffrey Dover, an associate professor of dermatology at Dartmouth Medical School, offers the following rule of thumb: “Never let looks deceive you. No matter how plush a salon, no matter how sophisticated or costly the advertising, no matter if technicians carry stethoscopes and wear white coats, don’t assume anything and ask everything before accepting treatment.” “Never accept any treatment that doesn’t start with a one-on-one consultation with a board-certified dermatologist or plastic surgeon,” the doctors advise. “And make sure the technician has at least several years of experience. The training should include not only some medical schooling, but specific apprenticeships with board-certified dermatologists or plastic surgeons.” “Many spas and salons use the guise of a ‘medical director’ – often a physician who serves as an umbrella for multiple centers – who is not on the premises and may not even be a skin specialist,” says Dr. Steven Mandy, president-elect of the ASDS. “While this often provides the legal protection to meet state health department regulations, it does not serve the consumer well,” he says.
NTP proposes estrogen be added to carcinogen list
	Late in 2001, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the USA’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences announced its intention to add steroidal estrogens to its “known human carcinogens” list in the next Report on Carcinogens (2002). The NTP’s Report on Carcinogens, which is updated every two years, is a list of all substances which either are known to be a human carcinogen or “may reasonably be anticipated to be such a carcinogen.” Currently, there are 48 known human carcinogens included in the Report. Commenting on the announcement, Clay B. Frederick, PhD, Senior Research Fellow and Research Section Manager in the Toxicology Department at Rohm and Haas Company in Spring House, Pennsylvania, said that in a comprehensive review of both animal and human data, the weight of evidence suggests that estrogen use – as in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and estrogen-only replacement therapy (ERT), by postmenopausal women – is associated with a slight increase in the risk of breast cancer and a stronger increase in the risk of endometrial cancer. “However, on a personal note,” Dr. Frederick added, “I have about 2000 well educated and ‘in touch’ private patients on some form of ERT or HRT, and I can only imagine the chaos that will ensue if the current report goes into effect in 2002.” James V. Fiorica, MD, Professor and Chief of the Gynecology Oncology Program at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, says “there is inconsistent evidence detailing any relationship between the use of HRT and risk of breast cancer. More than 50 years of use and approximately 50 case-control and cohort studies have not revealed a clear answer. The absence of convincing evidence is reassuring and implies that the risk, if any, is small.” Data from prospective observational studies indicate that the short-term use of HRT (less than 5 years) seems to confer no increased risk of breast cancer. By contrast, long-term HRT use (10 to 15 years), observational studies have found a modest increase in relative risk of breast cancer. The range of relative risk varies from 1.1 to 1.8. Data from the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer provides a clear view of the absolute risk associated with HRT use and breast cancer. For every 1000 women who take HRT for five years, 2 (0.2%) are estimated to develop breast cancer. Breast cancer develops in an estimated 12 (1.2%) per 1000 women who have used HRT for 15 years. Other studies have shown that the relative risk of breast cancer associated with estrogen-progestin therapy is between 1.5 and 1.38. Two recent analyses found lower risks of breast cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality in women who used HRT after breast cancer diagnosis than in women who did not. “To further place this in perspective,” said Dr. Fiorica, “if the 15-year absolute risk of getting breast cancer is approximately 1.2% for a 50-year-old nonuser of ERT, she has a 98.8% chance of being cancer free if she does not take ERT. If taking ERT for 15 years increases the relative risk by 50%, she has a 97.6% chance of being cancer free if she does take ERT.”
IGPE’s Congress 2002 set for springtime in Chicago
	The annual Congress of the International Guild of Professional Electrologists (IGPE) is scheduled to take place at the Palmer House Hotel in Chicago, April 28-30. As far as International Hair Route has been able to determine, the program for the event will be more or less the same program that was planned for the IGPE’s September 14, 2001 Congress, which was cancelled due to the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York. The Congress will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Sunday with ‘Registration’ and ‘Opening of the Exhibit Hall.’ On the agenda for the first day are “General Business Meeting,” “Presentation Slate of Officers” and “Nominations from the Floor for Officers”, and three guest speakers; Paula Cappiela, RN, Stacey Elder, and Johanne Fortier. Ms. Cappiela will present a two-part lecture “Latex Allergies Identification – Risk & Outcome,” and “Cumulative Trauma Disorder.” Ms. Elder, a well-known lecturer and electrologist from Baltimore, Maryland, will give a presentation titled “Skincare Before & After Electrolysis – What Works, and What Doesn’t.” Completing the program for this day will be electrologist Johanne Fortier, talking about “Modalities Used in Electrology.” Election Polls open for “Guild Members Only” on Monday morning and the program starts at 8:45 a.m. with guest speaker Darryl Stevens presenting “Malpractice Insurance.” Also on the agenda for this second day is the “General Meeting and Installation of Officers.” Two additional guest speakers include Richard F. Wagner, MD, talking about “Body Dysmorphic Disorder,” and “The Regulation of Hair Removal.” Terri Chapman, RN, will address the topic “Anger Management.” The next day starts with a special 2-hour presentation on “Medical Use for Lasers,” followed by a 1-hour panel, made up of well-known electrologists who will discuss their experiences with electrolysis and laser hair removal. Preceding the closing ceremonies will be internationally-known endocrinologist Geoffrey Redmond, MD, lecturing on “Hirsutism, PCOS and the New Treatments; Oral Contraceptives, Insulin, Sensitizers and Eflornithine (Vaniqa).” The registration fee for the IGPE Congress will include two continental breakfasts, a lavish cocktail party, exhibit viewing, all lectures, and a Certificate of Completion. (CEUs are pending). For more information or a registration package call: 1-800-830-3247.
Different methods of hair removal not without risks
	The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) has issued a paper cautioning the public against the irrational use of products and methods for eliminating superfluous hair. Among the AAFP’s concerns are the great number of over-the-counter gels, creams, lotions, and aerosols, marketed as depilatories that will cause unwanted hair to fall out. The AAFP says these products contain substances which may irritate or burn, and they recommend that consumers test the depilatories first on the back of the wrist. If it doesn’t cause an irritation within a day or two, says the AAFP, it’s probably safe to use. John Bailey, Jr., PhD, director of the Office of Cosmetics and Colors at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), echoes the AAFP’s conc