I have noticed a significant reduction in the side effects with the Laurier probe.
On one of my arms the treatment started with using the Laurier probe, and at the end we tried with a normal needle.
The next day you could easily see which area was treated with Laurier, and which was not. Less scabs and later less hyperpigmentation.
Another example is the treatment of the very thick terminal hairs on my neck and beard with Laurier. Now its been over 2 weeks since the second clearance and now I have almost no hyperpigmentation.
I am happy to demonstrate this with photos later.
I consider myself very privileged to have the choice between Laurier or a normal (more traditional) needle.
Can i use this needle with the uni probe lite? I’m looking for a bulbous insulated probe to use with this machine.
anyone please let me know. thank you.
Yes, Thank You I did contact Mike The way i can use this needle with the uni probe lite is purchasing the Complete Needle Holder: Standard with the bnc connector type. then i can use the LBP.
Honestly, I think you’re going to make a good choice, kenia.
I’ve been testing several insulated probes, and I am increasingly disappointed. The latest I’ve tested lost the insulating layer in the third insertion. 3, only 3 with 200 e.l! and I began to see bright spots in the area should be covered with insulation. A few minutes later I was working with a bare probe, when I had paid for an insulated probe. This without adding the risk of infection for the client if the teflon part remains in the follicle. My God, luckily I tested in my poor son. I will return the box of needles and demand the money back. And I’m warning my Spanish colleagues. The sad thing is that these probes are made in Spain.
I took a picture of the state in which the probe was after the test. In A, the probe before use. In B, the state of the probe after the test. You can see the lack of insulation on the probe B.
This is one of the cases treated with the IBP Laurier.
Before. October 2011
4 months later. The area has not been touched during this time. Maybe just cut? I do not remember.
It would seem we’ve reached a milestone here. This thread has been viewed over a quarter of a million times.
A while back I had Deb make up sample packs that were sent to several state association meetings. To thank the non-posting readers here I have 30 to give out. If you are a professional and would like to evaluate the IBP, drop me a note through the web page with an address.
If you are a client and would like your electrologist to try the IBP, do as Caith did and discuss it with your pro. ( may I stress diplomacy ) If he or she is interested, have them drop me a note and I will be glad to send them samples for you. I do not need or want to know who you are but it would be helpful for your electrologist to know who they are for when they get there.
I find it odd when a professional spends many thousands of dollars for the finest epilator but uses a needle because it’s on sale. Is that not a bit like buying an expensive Italian sports car and then saving some money by refusing to buy hi-test for it ?
Some of my Spanish colleagues are very interested in trying the IBP. I talked so much about how easy my job in sensitive areas like the face, neck, hands and feet that they are really curious. Does the offer will include them?
The more I work with this probe, the more amazed I am.
Please let me apologize ahead of time to our overseas readers that my answers come through a translation program ( that was not written by an electrologist ).
If the gentle reader, are able to forgive my abuse of the language of Shakespeare, why my colleagues would not forgive your mistakes with the language of Cervantes?
Just in case someone forgets to give you thanks. Thank you on behalf of all who will benefit from your generosity, Mike.
I can tell you I felt some apprehension before asking Margaret about evaluating the Laurier IBP last year. She’s been practicing for many years and knows far more from experience than I could ever learn or understand reading threads here. When she was receptive to my request, I offered to purchase the first dozen probes for her evaluation. Because Margaret was so gracious to consider my personal request, I thought the least I could do was cover the initial expense of the probes.
A great professional must meet the demands of the clients, if based on valid arguments. Your suggestion was legitimate Caith, therefore, Margaret knew how to listen. Margaret is a great professional.
Laurier/Mike, I am curious about the insulation used on the IBP. It it correct that it is a silicone based insulation?
I saw one site listed that it was silicone, and after some consideration I find that would explain why the IBP is better at insulating and longer lasting compared to teflon insulated probes.
It seems to me the ideal probe would have a silicone layer topped by a teflon layer, thus you get the best of both worlds…
The insulation is a proprietary compound developed by my father many years ago. It was developed specifically to block the passage of RF energy. Teflon alone does not. Please see my explanation of the term “insulation” earlier in the thread.
You ask a question other manufacturers have been asking for decades…
Actually teflon does block RF energy, in fact it is one of the best insulators known for HF electromagnetic radiation. The problem is that teflon is a very poor insulator against thermal energy, which is why it is used in nonstick cookware as it allows practically all the heat to travel from the burner to the food.
Thus, although the RF energy is technically blocked by teflon and only delivered to the area surrounding the uninsulated tip of the probe, the resulting thermal energy generated is conducted back up the probe and is then free to pass through the teflon. Hence why teflon appears to be ‘RF transparent’, when in actuality it is highly ‘RF opaque’ but ‘thermal transparent’
Silicones, on the other hand, are good insulators for both HF electromagnetic and thermal energy. Thus they perform better than teflon for this purpose even though technically speaking they are not as good at pure RF insulation. Silicone derivatives would also prove more durable in this use case due to the fact that they do not suffer from ‘creep’ as thin coatings of teflon do. Teflon tendency to creep is directly related to its fantastic non-stick properties however, whereas silicones on the other hand tend to be sticky, especially when heated ; )
That is why I suggest a probe with silicone and teflon both, combining the thermal insulation of silicone with the non-stick properties of teflon… best of both worlds =)
FWIW, I am an EE with specialization in electromagnetics, antennas and solid state physics…
Your theories are indeed interesting, Incorrect though, when applied to a highly polished surgical stainless steel antenna that must have a finished diameter of two thousandths of an inch. It also must not protrude beyond the finshed tapered profile of the Probe, and withstand constant radical flexing during use.
As I said this is a question that has been asked for 42 years.
There is one thing about it that I am at liberty to tell you…
Catholics celebrate tomorrow the day of Saint Joseph (In Spain, Father’s Day, too). So I thought that this is a good opportunity to update this thread with the results of the test done with the Laurier. 6 months after the second clearance, the area of the patch remains completely bald.
April 2011. Before first clearance:
September 2011. Before second clearance:
March 2012. Today. There will be no third clearance;-)
I also wanted to thank publicly one of my Spanish colleagues by the flowers she sent on my holy day. She is grateful because I sent her half dozens of needles Laurier. Thus Mr. Joseph Laurier, both we have good reason to be grateful to this incredible collective of electrologists. Gracias querida Isabel de Alicante.
