In April, I helped a Florida woman win a $2700.00 judgment in small claims court against a transcutaneous patch hair removal practitioner. If you have been ripped of by this method, please post here, and I will send you the instructions you need to get your money back. I do not charge for this-- I just want to put these quacks out of business! The best way to hurt them is in the pocketbook, since they only care about money, not results.
Do those transdermal/transcutaneus patches remove hair, without all the irrtation of shaving, or waxing? I don’t realy care if it is permanant, just that it doesn’t give me razor burn, or leave my kitchen coated with wax.
The devices that use an electrified Q-Tip can only treat a dime-sized area every minute or two. The hand-held devices like ePen use less energy, so they make take longer.
The devices that use patches take about the same amount of time, but they can treat an area the size of the patch.
Do they remove hair? This is a tough question, since they haven’t been tested under controlled clinical conditions with peer-reviewed published medical data.
Some users find that hairs may fall out a few days or weeks later. Others have to tweeze all the hairs out after using the device. In that case, has the device actually removed hair?
More importantly, is the energy enough to cause permanent hair removal as they claim, or is it just a weak effect that’s enough to temporarily disable hairs?
Because there has been no medcial data published, and because they have not submitted data to FDA for evaluation, there is no acceptable evidence that these devices can achieve permanent hair removal. As far as temporary removal, it’s hard to say if they are causing anything more than the kind of mild disruption of hair growth that can come from chemical or energy sources. For instance, some lasers have been shown to be temporary under controlled clinical conditions, even though the energy level is enough to cause some hairs to fall out.
As far as irritation, you may have redness that lasts from an hour or so to a few days. Most heavier irritation occurs when people try to achieve permanent results by treating an area for a long time. It appears this causes redness for some, but there’s no definitive answer on whether this causes more effective treatment.
Some consumers have been pleased with these at the onset, but I’m not aware of anyone who has been pleased in the long term with their results. I like to discourage people from supporting companies that make unsubstantiated and misleading claims about permanent hair removal. It only encourages them to do more of it.
So to sum up: it may remove some hair, but you may have to supplement treatment with plucking. Some believe it makes plucking easier after you treat an area for a minute or so. Others find it slow and tedious.
You will definitely not have wax all over your kitchen, but you will have a lot of gel, used Q-Tips or patches, and paper towels in your kitchen after.
I was ripped off by the Advanced Medical Institute with transdermal hair removal. I gave them almost 3,000 dollars. I have more hair than I sarted out with and I now have ingrown hairs all over too. I would like some information on how to sue them.
[ November 07, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: puddles ]
Puddles, sorry to hear you were a victim of these guys. You’ll need to file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. If that doesn’t work, you’ll need to file a small claims suit.
Here’s a summary of the matter:
You should send BBB a copy of this letter:
"Absent FDA clearance, you have chosen to market this device, and include claims that imply FDA clearance or approval. It appears that you have made a decision independent of regulatory review that your devices are equivalent to the cleared device.
ODE has reviewed your current response and continues to disagree with your assessment that your devices are equivalent to the cleared tweezer-type epilator or that the basic technology or mechanism of action has not changed. In accordance with 21 CFR 878.5360, the energy provided at the tip of the tweezer-type epilator used to remove hair may be radio frequency, galvanic (direct current), or a combination of radio frequency and galvanic energy. As noted in K892514, “the major technological difference between the AHRS Epilator 629 and the pre-enactment device is that the AHRS device utilizes a tweezer, rather than a needle, to deliver galvanic current down the hair shaft.” This definition and clearance does not include energy delivered through electrodes, cotton-tipped probes, or by any other methods. There are no premarket notification clearances, for any indication, for so-called hands-free transcutaneous, transdermal cotton-tipped applicator probes, or continuous hair removal."
They will try to claim that it’s your fault. Don’t let the issue waver from the fact that claiming the device is permanent is a violation of federal regulations and that there is no published proof it is permanent.
You will need the following:
Receipts of payment. Dates of treatment.
Promotional literature claiming the patch used on you is permanent. Web printouts, magazine and newspaper ads, brochures, etc. Be sure you have some from the practitioner who treated you.
Do not remove any hair in the treated area between now and your court date if possible.
They will try to weasel out of paying it all back. Hold them to a complete settlement. If they start claiming they will fight this in court, they’re just trying to scare you. They know you have them dead to rights on this.
They will try to baffle the BBB and the small claims mediator with BS and throw out all kinds of irrelevant stuff. They might even try to disparage me and say all sorts of things about me and my website.
They will claim they have clearance for another device (the TE 629 electric tweezer). The FDA letter says this is irrelevant and that their claims about the patch are illegal.
They may try to pull out a report written my Dr. Mark Chandler and/or Dr. Paul DesRuisseaux. Both these men sell the devices and have designed a report that is supposed to confuse court mediators. The shoddy report is not published and has no follow-up results. They followed the subjects for zero days after the final treatment. FDA requires significant follow-up to allow a claim of permanent hair removal. They may claim that this report has been submitted to FDA, but FDA has not evaluated any formal submission from Rejuvenu and has not cleared the transcutaneous patch for any indication, let alone permanent hair removal.
The simple fact is this. They say their transcutaneous patch is permanent. FDA says this claim is illegal. And you have the actual letter from FDA.
Keep emphasizing to the mediator that these people have faced many similar lawsuits and are very adept at clouding the issue with irrelevant information. Their product is in violation of federal regulations, and you have been misled by their promotional materials. You deserve a full refund and a little extra for your time and trouble.
Please contact me if you have any questions, and I will be happy to elaborate. The only thing I ask in return is that you take notes during the procedure and let me know how they try to get out of paying you. This will let me help others better, since these people are constantly retooling their lawsuit strategy.
I’m someone who got taken for a ride at the Professional Academy for Hair Removal in Bloomington/Normal, IL. I went to Cathy McLaughlin for 1 1/2 years and when I finally quit going she had gotten me for over $2,000. Is there any way that I can recoup any of that money? She does not accept anything but cash and does not give receipts. That should have been a RED flag, huh? But she must have trusted me because several times she let me write a check if I made it out to her personally.
As I’ve seen in other’s testimonies here, my hair growth is worse now than when I started going. In addition, Cathy actually had me terrified that I had cancer. What a “certified” quack!!
Your site is amazing and very informative. But I have soooo many questions, that I need answers for.