Part II: Laurier

Hair Removal Methods Professional Electrolysis
#1

A few weeks ago, I made an error. I was talking about the “Ferrie” needle and, actually, there never was a Ferrie needle — what I was talking about was the Laurier needle. Indeed, I got my facts sort of right, but the name wrong. Laurier invented the IB probe: Insulated Bulbous needle.

Mike Roy, son of the inventor, contacted me to “set me straight.” And we have had some delightful conversations. I thought the Laurier IB was “history,” but I’m happy to report they are still making needles. And then I got an idea.

We often talk about research, scientific studies, objective fact, etc., and it never happens — NEVER! It’s just too easy to offer opinion and way to difficult to mount a scientific study. Well, I want to do one, based on the little-known IB probe! I think this study will be relatively easy since I would like to compare the results of the IB probe with whatever (other) probe the therapist is using.

The IB probe was designed for thermolysis — and we have LOTS of people doing that these days. Since I’m a “blender” I won’t be doing the testing. So, how do we do this?

First, we develop our own protocol. And that’s where we should start today. We also need to nominate those who will be willing to do the experimentation. I will give you my ideas in another post. But start thinking about this and if you would like to participate. All ideas are welcome: this is a group effort. Mike Roy is happy to supply needles.

Ultimately, I’m looking to discover if a group of electrologists can successfully carry on such an experiment themselves. I think we can. Shall we? Start posting your ideas in this thread and I will compile the information.

#2

I’d be happy to participate, Mike, and help in anyway you ask. I had heard that Laurier probes are fabulous, but have never had the chance to use one. Will the probes be compatible with my Apilus Platinum?

As you say, “Sock it to me!”

Forgot to say that one of my cousin’s, 15 times removed, is a scientist, so I have it in my genes to participate in an experiment.

#3

Interesting.

I would like to participate in this study, too. I never used insulated bulbous needle.

I work fundamentally at very superficial follicles. How does it influence the bulbous top in the treatment of these follicles?

#4

Hey Jossie, Nice to talk to you (we never get a chance to talk, do we? Maybe we could chat by email some day?)

Part of the study (I think) it to list our pre-treatment ideas about the insulated needle. For example: “I believe such a needle may ‘miss’ a hair in telogen.” Or “This needle might not work if my insertion is not perfect.”

There are a hundred other “pre-ideas” that need to be talked about and written down, before the study. Then, the study will try to address these points with evidence. Make sense?

#5

Oh, this would be fantastic. Are you ready to being mortified by the translator on line?. If I was telling you the “comical” situations that I have lived through the fault of this devilish translator. :blush:

Some of my “pre-ideas”:

Michael, I have read in your book that the bulb in the needles does not modify HF in the follicle, on the contrary, the insulation concentrates major energy in the free tip of the needle.

1.- How does it affect this?

2.- Is it allowed that the needle should have one longer useful life?

3.- Is it necessary to diminish the intensity of the current, if we want to reach the same level of injury?

4.- Major, minor or equal reaction immediately after the session.

5.- How it concerns in the size of the scabs, in areas where they take place inevitably?

6.- Major or minor regrowth with the isolation?

6.- There exists some difference between needles insulated without bulb, and needles insulated with bulb?

#6

I worked for a blend facility more than 20 years ago, for Marion Ellner in NY, where we used Laurier probes exclusively. The Laurier probe was ideal for blend as it stimulated more of the galvanic activity at the base of the follicle.

Then, about a decade ago, Teresa Petricca sent me a gift of Laurier IB probes. She felt they were superior for flash techniques. By that time, I had my own office and did not feel comfortable using probes that were not individually packaged.
I did not understand how the architecture of the Laurier Bulbous Probe would be ideal for flash and I will review my James Schuster videos as he did extensive studies of different needle types with each modality.

#7

My question is: Are these probes pre-sterilized? Do they package individually now?

#8

I guess the individual packaging is more secure in handling needles. However, I must point out that there are some insulin syringes packaged in bags of 10 units.

(This product complies with European Regulation 93/42/CEE concerning medical devices)

http://www.totclinic.com/b2c/index.php?page=pp_producto.php&md=0&ref=14103V

#9

Needless to say, I would be willing to participate as well.

Of course, some would say that our study is uncertified, and they don’t trust the source of the information, but who cares.

#10

I would also participate.

Have any of you seen the Schuster videos that I am referring to where he tests the probes with the different modalities?

#11

Arlene: Schuster’s studies were “bench tests,” not in human subjects. Using an analog can only get you so far. (Egg white and another gel medium he used to show the effects of DC.)

James: We are never going to get a “certified” study, but let’s see what we can come up with. Our study will be “our” study and if “they” don’t like it … (well, they won’t anyway — unless it makes their product look “better.” It’s the way it is!)

Barbara: The needles are not individually packaged. I have spoken with Roy about this and he says the company is preparing to do this — a little late perhaps. I don’t want to argue about which method of pre-sterilization is best. That’s not the point of “our study.”

What I do know, absolutely, is that not having needles individually packaged is, for American electrologists, not acceptable. And, this is primarily for “sales.” Clients will not accept this and I don’t know of any electyrologist that will regularly use “non-individual-packaged” needles. For our test, you may pre-sterilize the Laurier needle in your autoclave. (It’s about insurance, liability and the safety of the patient.)

Picture it: You are in court and the client has accused you of giving her hepatitis. You tell the court that you don’t use individually-packaged needles, but that you do sterilize them yourself. “Have a nice day!” I’m not even sure that your insurance company will “back you up.” Again, I don’t want to argue about sterilization.

If you don’t mind me “starting the ball rolling” what I’m looking for, right now are preconceived ideas (prejudices if you will). My prejudices are as following:

  1. Concentrating the current at only the base of the follicle may damage the papilla, but what about the stem cells in the bulge in the upper follicle? The “papilla only” theory is not accepted any more by any method.

  2. If you insert below a telogen hair, will you completely miss the target area?

Point: the IB needle concentrates the current specifically, but do we what this?

Notice that my ideas are questions — they are not FACTS! If the IB works in these situations, well, there’s the answer — and then we can theorize about why it works. Still. We all need to first discuss our pre-test notions so the test is not prejudged.

So far: James, Jossie, Barbara and Dee are our “testers.” did I miss anybody? (Mike Roy says that I can do the blend part — so, maybe I will too?) I think that’s maybe enough?

#12

Michael: When insulated probes are used in thermolysis, the electrologist often pulses once in what the dermal papilla area and then again, higher up in the bulge area.

In my above post, I indicated that I would participate. Research contingent on observation… no wonder it means so little.

#13

Yes Arlene, and the “up down” works BEAUTIFULLY! I had Bette Devito do her (& Susan Anderer’s ?) technique on my arm years ago and not one hair grew back. She “branded me!” This is probably standard stuff by now. Maybe “single placement” vs. “up-down” could be tested too? Maybe that’s too much right now?

Sorry I forgot to include you … you’re “ON!”

Jossie, James, Dee, Barbara, Arlene (me?) The whole Mötley Crüe! (Beate: “talk about wrong umlauts!”)

#14

Yes, Suzanne Anderer taught me her SIMPLE technique, as she referred to it, back in 2006, probably about the same time Bette worked on you?

SIMPLE is an acronym for: Sequential Inverted Micro Pulsed Led Energy. She had been working with Jim’s equipment (Gentronics).

#15

Every AEA convention I ever attended, I always had the same thought: Why am I listening to this speaker talking about “whatever,” when everything I want to know about electrolysis is sitting right here in the audience!

People assume that since I wrote a couple books that my mind is FROZEN! Not even close to the truth. I’m STILL perfecting my technique! I listen to everybody!

AEA, over the years, has promoted the “top down” theory of education. I believe in the “bottom up” idea of education. Conventions offer NO actual format for listening to our colleagues. (If you have the opportunity, some time, attend a Plastic Surgery Convention. It’s a “free for all” of ideas. Nobody is “sanctioned!”)

Specifically, at a recent AEA convention, the “Obermeisters” announced that “unofficial dialogue is not sanctioned.” And specifically, their announcement was used to “shut up” Susan! (I got a complaint from a colleague from Australia about this sorry event.) I was “sanctioned” too at a couple AEA conventions. They basically told me to SHUT UP and not talk about my “procedures!”

You know, I even LISTEN to people I don’t like! Maybe it’s a “guy thing.” When we were choosing-up our team for baseball, you would pick the best hitter — NOT just the guy who was a friend. There’s a lesson here.

I believe in the anarchy of ideas. Let me repeat that: The ANARCHY OF IDEAS. Once you “know the truth,” you are finished!

#16

I remember, when your book first came out, I was among the first to order it. I raved to my colleagues about it. Being in NY, they said, “But its about blend”. I said that it contained info. on blend but it was useful for all electrologists. You should have titled your book differently to broaden your market to the Easterners.

About 20 years ago, I was asking my colleagues why I saw unbelievable results with MNG. I found that I could complete a beard in just 9 months and this was startling to me. Only one old timer MNG lady from Manhattan (now retired) winked at me and said that I should just keep my mouth shut and continue doing what I am doing because my words would just fall on deaf ears.

The electrolysis community was hailing the benefits of flash and customers wanted it and it was actually easier for me than doing my MGN hand dance. When clients saw these 16 leads hanging above them, they squealed and when they realized that the appointments would be very long, I was committing myself to a life of not being able to pay my bills.

I still have the MNG in the corner, decorating my office but the word out is Platinum Apilus and that is what I use. The sorrow of it all is that it is being hailed here as the “IT machine” when I have seen superior work with other machines and I would hate to see those other companies fold. I still think of that Fischer with 2 pedals that gave me complete control to treat each follicle individually as if each deserved its own separate setting.

#17

Q. I understand SIMPLE (Sequential Inverted Micro-Pulsed Led Energy). But what does the “LED” stand for. “LED” means: Light Emitting Diode? Tell me Susan doesn’t have an LED at the end of her probe!

#18

So what do You think about conventions structured like ours: www.dvee.de ? (A formally required part followed by two workshops, and of course open for guests).

Back to the original part: i had also been contacted by Laurier but was unsure how to respond. Now if there is a study - would a contribution of a newcomer (which still means imperfections in the technique) also be considered useful?

Beate

#19

Jossie, James, Dee, Barbara, Arlene, Beate (me?). Did I forget anyone? I’m keeping notes.

#20

hahehe! No, LED does not mean Susan has light emitting diode at the end of her probe.

Using newer technology found in some epilators today makes this SIMPLE technique possible. The LED part of this means that each pulse follows a previous pulse of current and builds completely enough so as to affect all the dermal tissue, so as to congeal the tissue using alternating current. Those who were taught that only anagen hairs can be permanently eliminated can be assured that this method eliminates any hair in any stage of growth with mico pulses of alternating current at high intensity and rapid timing. I did this years ago with the same epilator, the Gentronics MC-160, that you have decorating a corner in your office, Arlene. I, too, did multi-needle galvanic until my instincts clicked in that the clients were not liking it very much even though it resulted in less to no regrowth because the entire length of the follicle was treated. The sodium hydroxide that was formed with direct current and the natural salt water in the follicle, bathed that follicle up and down resulting in complete destruction. So cool, yet so slow. Many didn’t like the sensation or the Frankenstein wire set up with 16 probes cooking 16 of their follicles at a time.

Using the Gentronics MC-160 witht he SIMPLE technique was very nice. With Sequential Inverted Micro-Pulsed Led Energy, thermolysis treats the entire length of the follicle using microflash thermolysis. A series of pulses set for a very, very, very,very, very, very short time, moving the needle/probe slowly from the top to the bottom of the follicle gives a high permanency rate when done correctly for any stage of growth, leaving the epidermis unchanged.

The “IT” epilator can do the same thing and get the same results as when many of us were doing MNG with the 16 wires dangling over the clients face AND the electrologist has total control over the epilator. Under the heading of THERMOLYSIS, on the Apilus Platinum , I can push a button and switch into a modality called “SYNCHRO”. I can use the preset or I can fiddle with the intensity and timing to customize the setting for the client. In under a second, I lift a glistening or even a non-glistening hair out of the follicle with no traction felt. Using this modality, makes me sad because I lose a new best friend within a year, give or take. Do you happen to use Synchro very much, Arlene?

I will always accept new technology that works. Even though I loved my Smith-Corona type writer with self-correcting ribbon from the 70’s and 80’s, I could never go back to using my old Smith-Corona type writer with self-correcting ribbon because I have something much easier and versatile to use called my laptop computer. If other companies want to research and develop something better than the “IT” then let them compete. If electrologists do not want the Apilus Platinum, they don’t have to use the Apilus Platinum because they are free to do what they want. At the end of the day, we all destroy hair follicles anyway and the consumer can decide who they want to go to for their hair removal needs. That is has the free market works pretty much.

Anyone who wants to buy my Smith Corona with a self-correcting ribbon can PM me. I’m serious.