(let me speak as the scientist i am/have been/whatever having published in peer reviewed journals)
Görgü’s study describes exactly what You see, at least if You as an electrologist do not try to reach full clearance in intense blocked session as it is usually the case.
Please have a close look what he is studying: clearance after 6 months of treatment. This means 3 “full” clearances with photoepilation versus 6 months electrolysis in a given schedule. With average efficiency of electrolysis this is a reasonable and realistic outcome.
Anyway, the study is tendentious in more than one way, foremost:
the time window covered is too narrow to draw valid conclusions. None of the treatments is finished, and after another 6 months the relation would be a lot different. A 2nd consequnece of the narrow time window is that nothing can be said about regrowth - time is simply to short to observe regrowth in the photoepilation settings, but most hair which might have been treated incompletely by electrology will be visible again.
A comparison of 3 “full” clearances of both methods, e.g. achieved by James’ approach would probably yield very different results. If these 3 clearances would be analysed at sufficiently long time later, the results would definitely look very different and probably favour electrolysis.
What can we learn from this?
o The validity of scientific results depends on questions being properly posed.
o From a customer’s point of view, where applicable, a few sessions of photoepilation performed correctly can drastically reduce the effort for the customer (in my eyes rather the exception than the rule, at least here in Germany).
o The study also suggests that the break even between photoepilation and electrolysis occurs pretty soon, after 3, at maximum 4 sessions of photoepilation electrolysis is probably more cost efficient.
o We as electrologists have to improve our methodology in order to remain in business.