Laser/Electrolysis misinformation in new issue of Lucky magazine

Hair Removal Methods Professional Electrolysis
#1

There’s a rundown of hair removal pros and cons in the July Lucky, page 136. In regards to laser, they state that it’s “as close to permanent as it gets,” “all but painless,” and “you do it and you’re done, pretty much forever.” About electrolysis, they say “it can take awhile–us to two years to do your lip and chin” and that “the results are only semipermanent . . . you might get regrowth anyway,” and “over a long time tweezing would help get rid of those hairs anyway.”

One of you CPEs should write in and set them straight!

Edit: it’s worth noting that the people I quoted who gave the information are all spa owners, not CPEs and certainly not dermatologists.

#2

We professionals are use to this treatment. It happens all the time.

It means more to these people when normal folks like you call them on the carpet for their outright lies and distortions. They know they are telling a bald faced damn lie. They got paid to do so. If enough regular people call their credibility in question for saying such an easily disprovable statement with no fact checking, they may think twice before they take the money and print again.

Oprah’s “O” magazine did a similar hatchet job this spring after having had FIVE long interviews with the Executive Director of The American Electrology Association. They printed all her quotes in such a way as to say she must be lying, and concluded the electrolysis section with a paragraph quoting a practitioner of Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation giving his take on what you should think about electrolysis. They don’t care what those who know have to say about it. They don’t care that I have never had a woman’s upper lip that took me more than a year to clear. I have clients who have posted on here that I finished them in 9 months for such areas.

They don’t care that some electrologists are good enough to provide services that are “Pretty close to painless” and always permanent with the co-operation of the client.

What they will care about is if people who read their rag tell them that they want a retraction or they will cancel subscriptions, and never trust a single thing they say again, from cleansers to the hot new fashion colors, since they obviously just print what ever any one pays them to say.

Give it a try:
Lucky Magazine
4, Times Square, 8th Floor
New York - 10036, United States of America
(212)-2862656

“O” The Oprah Magazine
1700 Broadway, 38th floor
New York, New York 10019
212 903-5366

#3

Thanks deenah for this information. One of my daughters has been receiving Lucky Mag as a gift, so it will give me much pleasure to cancel it. She never looked at it anyway.

I have contacted Lucky Mag and will wait for a reply. Do you think I may have insulted them too much by saying they are no better than The New York Times, Newsweek or CBS News for reporting false information? Oh, well, if I did, I shall not loose any sleep.

I also contacted the American Electrology Association asking them what action they are willing to take against ‘poorly researched’ information (meaning,bold-face lies).

This is nothing new that Lucky Mag Rag did. This happens a lot nationally and locally in all kinds of media. The electrology folks are not a rich lobby that can pay others to say good words about electrolysis. Even when a reporter is told factual information,it never gets printed that way. In the end, the consumer suffers when information is not truthfully displayed. Is it any wonder that a website like hairtell and hairfacts has flourished? This free, uncensored exchange of hair removal information from consumers is beautiful because MONEY is not the motivation.

Thanks again for letting us know about this, deenah.

Dee

#4

I was going to re-subscribe to Oprah but think I’ll give it a miss. I am always suspicious of these magazines for women. I did some modelling for a female mag in Asia some years back and the editors were always scrounging around for some “sensational” story. Load of codswallop. Thought Oprah was a bit better though. I guess I’m gullible.

I would love to write about my own experiences but I would be embarrassed to reveal that I had a hairy upper lip!

#5

I must say that I am also disappointed in “O”. I was looking for something that would be uplifting to women and helpful. What they put out is more of the same garbage. Hey girls, read here to find out what will be hot this summer!" (buy clothes from this fashion design house) “Ten tricks to making your man forget other women!” (buy this book) and “New makeup secrets your friends don’t know” (New bottles repackage old makeup line advertised on page 346)

What all these articles have in common is a hook, and a hidden product endorsement. It is like all the Rap Artists mentioning liquor by brand name in their songs. They got paid to do so.

If electrologists put up the money to do a show like The Swan, we could get some badly needed publicity AND prove to the world that we really can do what we say we can if given the chance.

For now, we will see more of these thinly veiled product placement ads for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, both in print, and visual media.