Epilar System

I realy love this site it’s been very useful to me.
I have been always very stressed about body hair since i was about 15 years,which btw i have a lot and which i hate, mainly the hair on my back and on the upper arms.It was realy bad when my girlfriend found out…but that’s a another story.
But enough of me, i was searching throug the internet and i have found something new, that appears to me similar to the Sirna Gene therapy it’s call Epilar, i have researched litle more and found only a litle info in english, since i can’t read stuf that it’s written in Denmark and that’s a shame.

Epilar Info
Epilar official

What do you guys think?
Maybe it’s a scam, but i doubt that because if that was the case it wouldn’t only be available to physicians…
I personaly think that maybe the Sirna therapy will be something like this but more efective or maybe has efective as this.
I honestly think that 10 years from now something new will
rise and it will be quick,efective, safe and available worldwide(I hope so!)
Cheers to everybody!!
Ps:Sorry about the english i don’t write very well <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

This appears to be a chemical depilatory and a topical “hair inhibitor.” I’d ask for published studies before believing their claims about hair inhibition.

Epilar USA is a joint venture between Cosmeceuticals (UK) Ltd being the international division of CosMedical Copenhagen ApS, the Danish parent company responsible for research, development and clinical testing of the product and Trademark Cosmetics of Riverside, California. The Epilar® System is manufactured, packaged and distributed by Epilar USA in association with Trademark Cosmetics.

Hair inhibitors like this usually do not have published clinical data to back up their claims. I will make an inquiry, but this looks like a product to avoid.

Those interested in Epilar can go to www. epilar. net or call 877-888-2211 to find a spa or salon near them. Epilar is available in 43 countries and over 800 spas and salons across the US including the Murad Spa in Los Angeles.

The product is a two-step gel system available in professional spas and salons and is applied immediately after waxing. Each application reduces hair growth approximately 20% and after 8-12 treatments, depending on the area of the body treated hair growth is completely inhibited.

The active ingredient is Trypsin and those wanting to find studies on Trypsin and hair growth inhibition can Google “Trypsin” AND “Hair Growth” to find clinical studies and published papers.

For transparency, I work with Epilar and can answer questions anyone might have or direct them to someone who can.

Hey Michael…nice advertisement.

Funny thing that the site calls this product a “Novelty”

In the United States the term “Novelty” legally denotes something that is just a joke, or doesn’t really do what it says, as in a parody.

Erection pills are often sold as Novelties.

Michael, you are welcome to post here, but this is skating a spam line.

Hair inhibitors like Epilar have a long history of making unsubstantiated sales claims based on testimonials, anecdotal evidence, etc.

I am going to check in with FDA about this status of their claims about “permanent hair reduction.”

At least, Epilar provides scientific research ( here) to back up its claims. And transparency about how it works.

Secondly, it’s used by professionals beauticians, for example here in France, and in many other countries. Beauticians are constantly subject to feedback from their customers, and can get sued, so if they choose to use Epilar, this is an indication of its efficiency.

I don’t think many Hair inhibitors can make the previous claims.

So, I’m not saying that these are definitive proofs of pseudo-permanent efficiency, but at least it indicates that Epilar is worth some attention.

I don’t know if I’m just having a dense moment, but i can’t find anywhere on that link that shows scientific studies concluding this. All I can see is an outline of a process that says it slows down hair growth.

Secondly, just because a professional uses something doesn’t mean that it is effective or as effective as expected. If someone is told that the hair will grow back slower, the large majority of people will think that it is growing back slower, even if it is not.
There are numerous studies that show how the midn can have a placebo effect, one that I found quite funny was when the researcher gave participants a supposed alcohol tablet (of course, it was nothing of the sort). Yet they all thought they were completley bladdered, until they were told otherwise and suddenly they miracuously “sobred up”.


Here is what we can read on this study :
“We show that topical trypsin treatment following depilation induces cell death at the follicular papilla.”

As far as I know, damaging the follicular papilla is precisely what the optical permanent depilation solutions are supposed to induce.

Secondly, I’m not talking of “a professional”, but of “a LOT of professionals”. One professional can use an inneficient product and hope he will not get annoyed by its customers. But if a lot of professionals use a product through many countries, this is undoubtedly a proof of efficiency. A company could never reach such a wide market by selling useless inneficient junk.

Also note that epilar revendicate similar results as laser and flashlamp, and that prices are just a little lower than those of flashlamp. That means awaited results are more than just “Oh, I feel my hair are a little softer around here”.
Awaited results are more like going from “This area is very hairy” to “I see no noticeable hair in this area”. And that’s precisely why inefficiency would be way more obvious, and way more scandalous considering the price.

No, that is a statement, not a scientific study. “We show” is vague, on how many people did this show? What variables where there? I welcome you to show me the study. However in the mean time, if a company is not willing to show the results of a scientific study it would make me question whether there is more to this than meets the eye.

When you say a large number of professionals use this product, it still makes no difference. A large number of professionals in the past using electric tweezers, which have no proof for clinical permanence, but again several say “in clinical studies”. Where are these clinic studies? And in actual fact the FDA does not say anywhere that the method has such permanence as electrolysis, which these electric tweezer promoters are trying to latch on to. And yes, most charged the same as electrolysis and yes it was just as scandalous.

In regards to placebo effect, I don’t think it made myself clear enough. In psychological studies, the person thought they were bladdered, this means they they didn’t just think that they were a bit tipsy, they were claiming that they were substantially intoxicated and when told they suddenly “sobred up”.
A good example of this is on the English Reality TV show Big Brother, on a previous series they recreated the study with a lady called Kinga and it had the exact same effect (it may be a reality TV show but it illustrates a point, if your going to argue that a reality TV show is not scientific either, I’ll happily dig out my psychology work and list some of the studies).

Either way, you haven’t provided any evidence yet that it actually works, apart from “everyone uses it” and “they said that they can show”, yet you haven’t given us links to any clinical studies, with results, with statistics, with information where and when it was carried out and so on.
Another interesting point is Iv’e scoured the FDA and yet I can’t find any mention of the Epilar system, seeing as that link you posted was originally written in 1997, wouldn’t you have thoughthey would have pushed there point to the FDA by now?


As I was reading, “a lot of professionals,” the first thing that popped into my mind was, Removatron, Depilatron, GHR, etc. We’re on the same page Benji!

When I was planning to go to electolysis school, my father-in-law, a licensed cosmetologist in NY, told me I was silly spending my time and money going to school. He knew a salesman who could train me to use a “better than electrolysis” device, in just a couple hours. When I asked him what he was talking about, it was electronic tweezers. Fortunately, I come from a family of electrologists, and I was already aware of these devices. I gave my father-in-law, the professional, an education on why an electric tweezer was no different than a non-electric tweezer. The power of suggestion (salesmen in many cases) is a powerful tool.

Hahahaha. Nice pirouette. That is a statement, yes, but coming, as you can see it, from a scientific study. It’s hosted by the “U.S. National Library of Medicine” and the “National Institutes of Health”. Also, the results are public, and the entire study can be found here

I suppose you’re talking about the electric tweezers that pretend to be a permanent solution. The others sell quite well, and are effective as a temporary hair removal solution.
So, who use the former now ? In France : not anyone, and especially not beauticians. And it’s probably the same in many other countries. Why ? Because they are inneficient. We could call that natural economic selection.

You will agree with me that the feeling of being bladdered is totally subjective. Whereas hair removal is not. As you can also see from the former scientific study : mouses weren’t questionned about their thought on the effectiveness of the hair growth delay. No placebo effect here. Only scientific data.

First, the world doesn’t gravitate around the FDA, nor the United States. Epilar is not an American product, but an European product. It’s only starting to make its way through USA. Therefore the lack of any Epilar reference in the FDA files is quite understandable.

Secondly, you probably misunderstood my point, or misread me. I’m not saying I have an uncontestable proof of the efficiency of the Epilar products. But I provide informations showing that it has much more chances to be efficient than any other hair growth inhibitor product, because of its scientific backup and because of its success. And that’s precisely why I want to find more reviews/studies about it.

You sound angery and annoyed that someone is questioning you about Epilar. I’m skeptical, too, about a paper that was written in 1997. This all may be true, but where is the product and why isn’t it being used on a massive worldwide basis if it works so well? It looks like Johnson & Johnson paid these scientists to do this research. Last I heard, corporations like to make profits while delivering good products that help people. Where can we buy Epilar in the United States?

Have there been European studies confirming this one? Afterall, everybody knows that the world doesn’t gravitate around the United States. Will you kindly link other studies from Europe, especially so, France, that show the efficacy and safety of trypsin to delay hair growth?

Human beings everywhere have a right to be skeptical about anything, especially easy hair removal remedies. We like to state the old Russian proverb here on hairtell, “Trust, but Verify” or if you speak Russian, “Doveryai, no proveryai”. Capisce? (That’s Italian for, “Do you get it?” or "Do you understand/comprehend?)


I’m not annoyed nor angry : you have all the rights to be skeptical, and I tend to be skeptical too. But that doesn’t prevent me from gathering information, and in this case I haven’t found much evidence that Epilar could be a scam, whereas I have found some that tend to believe it has some potential.
Also, I don’t question your right to ask for “objective” clinical studies. But it’s also one’s right to trust a product, test it and give positive feedback without asking for such studies. In my case, I’ll give it a try if I find enough positive and not too much negative feedback. Even if I can’t find the studies. For the moment I keep searching for such feedbacks.

As for the time between the initial discovery and the arrival of the product in the USA, it isn’t much surprising. In fact, this is the case of most medical products. The reasons for this delay are numerous :
-First, you have to gather funds.
-Second, you have to make required tests on humans to verify the efficiency and safety before throwing all your money into it. This phase beeing probably the longest.
-Third, you have to set up a structure to mass produce an enzyme, which is not something you pull from your hat.
-Fourth, you always start selling to a small amount of customers, then you extends if the product is successful : this also takes much time.
-Fifth, the Epilar started to sell in European Union. Some products of the European Union never get into the USA, others take quite some time to get there. And the same apply for products going from USA to European Union.

So, considering the above, 10 years is not such a surprising amount of time to go from the discovery to worl-wide commercialization.

I was explaining why the absence of Epilar references in the FDA data wasn’t surprising, nothing more. At the risk of repeating myself : I never told Epilar was 100% sure.
As stated on the Epilar website, the entity responsible for the clinical testings is Danish. I didn’t find any reference in English, and my Danish level won’t allow me to do a research in this language.

Okay. Keep us informed. Thank you, november.

november, your only posts on this forum are on this thread with regards to this product. if we’re all going to be unbiased here, do you mind disclosing whether you have any stake in the matter? it’s interesting that you pulled up a 5-month old thread after “MichaelR” who disclosed up front has been warned about being too salesy above and “never returned”.

The study has only been done on mice…am I not reading something closely enough?

I believe the “Hahahaha. Nice pirouette” bit was the reaosn why Dee was questioning whether you were angry or not, especially as your tone seemed to take a turn for the sarcastic when, as I stated in the previous post, I welcome you to show me scientific studies. And, yes, you delivered them, which does give some more validity to your arguement, however, as tbanner523 stated these tests were performed on mice. There are other occurances where things appeared to be all well and fine with mice, but turned out to be either ineffective on humans.

In regards to the placebo effect, it can be so with hair removal and in fact anything to do with the body. What about Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD)? What about the new question of whether anti depressants are simply a placebo effect, put forward by Dr Andrew McCulloch? The latter example, again is subjective, however the first would be more objective and more closely linked to hair growth. I know these are contreversial issues that I’m bringing up, but it is a point.

Also, I am aware that the FDA is not the be all and end all, but I couldn’t seem to find Epilar mentioned on the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is the British equivalent of the FDA. Now you can’t tell me it’s taken 10 years to get out of France? Also, I used to get waxed regular and go to salons and so on, never heard of Epilar (Just incase you haven’t noticed I am European) or had it used on me?

Eitherway, apart from the mice there is no other conclusive evidence and as you said, you can’t seem to find any client testimonies. But anyway, if you do decide to go ahead with this, please come back and let us know how you get on. Btw, you may not have said that Epilar works 100% but you were sure giving off that impression, it’s not always what you say but the way you say it.


I have all the informations I could need about other hair removal forms on forums speaking my mother language, which is much more practical for me.
As for Epilar System, its recent arrival in france and other countries like USA give me a hard time finding testimonials, so that is the reason I am here in the first place.

My personal “stake” in the matter is nothing more than researching for cheaper-than-laser efficient permanent solutions. And Epilar is not the only pretendant to this title, but it’s the only one I found which isn’t only sold in France.