Article that has started “making the rounds.” Interesting that there are no references at all: studies or medical experts. What the hell?
Haha I like the smiley-icon you have chosen for the thread Michael!
I just contacted the author and asked her to comment more about her findings.
if there’s any truth to this then its a good thing i don’t like kids because ive had electrolysis for years now
Cheaper than a tubal ligation!
It’s really funny, the phenomenon must be reversible, because I am working on the second generations of my clients in the 1980s. :o
Ha ha ha, I wish!
Thank you, Dee! That’s exactly what needs to be done!
Me, too! I’ve worked on daughters and granddaughters of early clients!!!
The article actually reminds me of the making of a new old wives tale.
Okay. Ms. Hess has so kindly responded.
Contact e-mail to Ms. Hess:
-----Original Message----- From: Dee Fahey
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:48 PM
To: facemakr@pacbell.net
Subject: Electrolysis
Thought you would like to know that an article you wrote about electrolysis and fertility was just posted on this link:
Can you offer more information about this?
Thank you,
Dee Fahey
Shelley Hess has responded and has given me her permission to post her responses:
"Dear Ms Fahey,
I don’t how it came to you. I wrote that years ago for a magazine and it was rejected because the OBGYN/ infertility specialist would not allow me to reveal the patients files due to HEPA privacy laws. I had conducted the interviews myself, and what I can tell you is that 1,692 were directly spoken to by me, and what was the same element to %92 of them was that they had had at least one years worth of electrolysis.
To date this method of hair removal is the most permanent choice out there. But I am still convinced the electrical impulse picked up by the lymphatic system at the site of the treatment has a direct effect on the hardening of the outer layer of the ovum still contained in the ovaries at the time of the treatments.
I still tell my own patients to hold off of using such methods until they are completely finished with their wanting to create more children. There are other methods, not as permanent or as thorough as electrolysis, but worth doing during their baby creating years. In a woman’s life cycle there are plenty of years in their menopause phase to not worry what happens to whatever eggs are left. Then is the perfect time to resume using electrolysis for their hair removal choice. In fact their need for hair removal on their faces will increase during this phase, and electrolysis would be a helpful tool to them then.
You of course should do what you think is best for you. Again I haven’t the faintest idea how that article got to where ever you found it. I didn’t send it there. I can’t help you more than this.
Respectfully,
Shelley Hess"
Second e-mail
-----Original Message----- From: Dee Fahey
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:28 PM
To: Shelley Hess
Subject: Re: Electrolysis
Greetings Shelley!
It was actually found by an electrologist in Santa Barbara and he posted it on the consumer hair removal site called, Hairtell. Were you able to review the link I sent you?
May I post your reply on the website or would you like to add your comments there. I think some were just curious to know if there were any studies to back up this claim, Shelley. Now, with your explanation, I think that question is answered.
Thank you so much for responding. I would be glad to post all or part of your response. Just let me know what is acceptable to you.
Sincerely,
Dee Fahey RN,CT
Electrologist in Columbus, Ohio
"Dear Ms Fahey,
I actually wasn’t able to open much on that link. It will still baffle me as to how someone in Santa Barbara got it. I don’t care if you post my response to you if you want. I no longer write for the prof. magazines as I had done in the past.
Just for your own personal knowledge I will try to bring forth more of the information that I was able to extract back then. The amount of current used in either the blend method or others is small. However, the autoimmune system utilizes the lymphatic system to maintain hemostasis for the Pericardia wall of the heart that controls the electrical impulses necessary to keep the heart beating. The moment the electrical current enters the epidermis, the lymph nodes detect the electrical current and it does it’s best to trap the excess energy into the lymph node station furthest from the Pericardia wall. That happens to be the lymph node area in the groin, which sits directly over each ovary in women.
In particular, when electrolysis is used for the removal of body hair in the groin and lower torso region, the excess current is collected at a larger volume. The amount of hair in this area is denser. And more course, and more current or longer insertion of the needles are needed. ALL of this is imperative for a good hair reduction, but it’s not so good for the ovum.
I hope this helps you understand what I learned. BTW my entire research of these 1,692 clinically diagnosed infertile women took two years to complete. I took it very seriously then. At the time I happen to have 10 clients all diagnosed with the same infertile condition, they asked me, knowing my holistic background and previous medical school attendance (I did not finish). They asked me to try to find out if there was something they could have done differently. The reason I was putting electrolysis to the question was simple…ALL ten of my clients had undergone electrolysis themselves. Being that I am NOT an electrolysis, it was the one factor that fit all of them. So it began my jumping off point so to speak…
I happen to be a personal patient of an OB-GYN , who also happened to be a specialist in this area and I went to him to begin my investigation. The rest you already know. But it was a long time ago, more than 20 yrs ago. So you can imagine my surprise of your email to me.
So that’s what happened. I still believe it’s true today as it was back then. However, with the increase in laser hair removal, all other methods seem to be less used. At least that’s how it seems in my area.
Respectfully,
Shelley "
I honestly just read through this thread in a hurry, but the first thing that popped into my mind was whether or not the patients in these studies were tested for PCOS. Is it possible that 20+ years ago women were not routinely tested for it?
If I were a young woman at the time (Hey! I was!) and concerned about extra body hair especially in the bikini area I would have just had electrolysis done on me. I would not have thought of asking my doctor about hormonal issues. In fact, I DID have a ton of hair but never once asked my doctor about it. Had I known and understood that I could have had the hair removed, I would have.
This may have been addressed in the complete report, but it just kind of popped into my head.
I’ll go back to my naval gazing now…
MaryC
I am sure that all of the women in the study drank water. By the reasoning of this “research” water may be indicated in the genesis of infertility. Oh, but wait, this just in; all the women in the study breathed air, by this reasoning, air may be a cause of infertility.
Notice, that not only has this article been published, but it keeps being dredged up. As if enough people were not already trying LASER. Dick Nixon would be proud. In his honor, I would like to ask the author, “Do you still beat your children?”
YESSSSSS James that is exactly my point in the following! (BTW, somebody in the association sent me the link … I had never seen this before.) Madonna Mia Pizzaria!
My 2 cents:
I think the post about many PCOS women and electrolysis is the key. Often seeing two events happening at the same time does not necessarily establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
The central issue is this: “The moment the electrical current enters the epidermis, the lymph nodes detect the electrical current and it does it’s best to trap the excess energy into the lymph node station furthest from the Pericardia wall.
I would like to get James Schuster’s opinion on this since he has done extensive research on electrolysis and the body. “Trapping excess energy” by the lymph nodes sounds like a fantasy. How did she come to this conclusion, that she states as FACT.
Let’s see: does the body store Radio Frequency energy in the lymph nodes? Hell, there is RF all over the place. Are we storing this energy? From our cell phones, the local radio station?
The DC? …. Humm. Okay so direct current (a miniscule amount of electron flow) passes through the body and is stored in the lymph glands? So, would we store electrons when we develop a static charge? I don’t know. Maybe we do? I suppose storing electrons seems plausible, but storing RF seems much less likely. Are lymph glands like capacitors?
We need to run this by Jim Schuster. He is not only a physician but is also an electrical engineer. Yeah, somebody … get this “thread” to our guy!
(I have noticed that in many sketchy “medical cures,” the lymph nodes are always the target. You know: drain them, massage them, give “micro-current” to them. I wonder why this is? The mythical lymph nodes.)
Speaking to James Schuster is an excellent idea. Like other posters, I have treated on many occasions three, and even four generations of the same families. No fertility issues there !!
My thoughts were exactly the same as MaryC’s. If these women had mild-to-severe PCOS, it’s likely they had other hormonal imbalances affecting their fertility. Electrolysis isn’t the cause of the infertility, it’s merely treating another symptom of the infertility.
Isn’t this just typical, sad and laughable all at the same time. Another expert who just couldn’t help themselves and as a result some poor woman/women with a hair issue will have to suffer it for fear of becoming infertile…
semper aliquid haeret:
Quite interesting in my eyes is than a 20 year old study which had been rejected for publication (which already implies the severe methodolocical weakness pointed out in this thread) is now published, but not as a science paper but just in form of “sensational news”.
From the article: “In today’s culture, hairless is the chosen look for all young adults. And there are many ways to accomplish this appearance. You can shave, tweeze, wax, laser and electrolyze the hair follicle into submission.”
I think James post on the page hit right on the mark. Was laser around 20 years ago for her to include in her “research” article?
I’m preparing this information for Jim Schuster. But a couple elements stick out.
First, you would think that anybody in “the healing arts” would know that it’s HIPAA and not HEPA (“hepa” is a filter, for God’s sake!). (Look back at her response.) My own feeling is that her alleged figure of her having interviewed 1,692 subjects is probably a lie. Such a number indicates a major medical study (with funding needed), and I don’t believe it. Most likely her paper was rejected because of “no methodology of study.”
Sorry to say this, but I have been involved in medical studies that were funded by a pharmaceutical company. (I was one subject of a local doctor studying the effects of “Botox.” I only had one injection and dropped out because I didn’t think having a toxin injected was a very good idea.) After a year of the doctor’s paid study, he had only 21 subjects for his report: twenty-one! So, you see how the number of 1,692 is not reasonable to me. (BTW, Botox works.)
The point is that such vast numbers, as indicated by this study, probably were falsified and used to bolster her bogus theory. I always get frustrated when people make unsubstantiated claims about anything (as you all have discovered). But I get infuriated when they subvert the scientific method to bolster their claims. Sadly, it’s done all the time. (Some day I may write about a “microdermabrasion” study that was also a fake!)
I know how hard I worked to get actual photos for my books (especially showing telangiectasia). The companies that copied me simply used “photoshopped” images that were total fakes (I still have them if you would like to see). I hate this crapola. Yes, even “real doctors” do it. Below is a photo I took off a “cosmetic surgeon’s” website. These are “before and after” photos. Of course “doctored” by lighting. Don’t people see this?
I’ll apologize profusely if proven wrong. However, at the moment, this person is in need of some decent public humiliation, which I shall offer at no cost. First, let’s see what Jim has to say …
Okay, Jim is having a look. We should hear back next week. (He won’t see this 'til Monday). “You cannot out-run the internet!”
You know Barbara, I so quickly disregarded this subject that I did not even scrutinize it enough to think of the fact that hardly anyone had access to LASER hair removal in 1990, and even those who did, were either in a study, or paying really high prices.