Ouch!
Firstly, I have done thermolysis for over 40 years so feel very qualified to comment
We know all modalities work, have never questioned that. I asked questions of you as electrologists, surely you must have asked yourself similar questions over the years? Or not?
We all have videos and photos - that is called marketing from either a sales or educational marketing point of view and it is a great window for us all to use BUT it is not clinical trials/evidence
Don’t you want information to be properly validated then we can pass it on to future electrologists? I do.
Again I ask you, be respectful of others and in return you as a professional will be respected
wow, permanence,
Well first, I will say welcome to the forums. We welcome new points of view here and I encourage you to contact me personally. You can reach me at 613-807-5005 or by email at info@electrolysisbyseana.com. You can also message one of the other moderators, Dee Fahey, Arlene Batz or Andrea directly on this site.
The “empirical evidence” you seek is actually established. You’ve spoken to one of the people already who have disproven your "galvanic is better " theory, consistently, for over 35 years. Josepha’s work is considered a specialty and among the best int he world and she has a consistent track record of over 35 years of results that 100% conclusively disprove your theory on modality. We are able to remove all hair, in any stage of growth, with any of the 3 modalities, in 3 full clearances and achieve complete permanent flawless results consistently by following the protocols she uses.
I’ll take 35 years of consistent results over a random opinion, any day of the week.
I’m going to recommend a less argumentative approach. There are some top notch professionals here who are more than willing to discuss modalities, treatment strategies, and a host of other topics with you and you may even learn a few things.So stick around, and by all means lets hash it all out .
I will say though there has been a recurring theme on this site for all of the years it has been here, and that is that “facts outweigh opinions” . You’re correct that CLINICAL STUDIES ARE VERY RARELY performed with regard to electrology, but that does NOT mean the clinical evidence doesn’t exist. IT does, and lots of it. The emprical evidence is results based, and therefore not refutable.
I’d like to bring the tone of this conversation closer to a discussion of the material, rather than confrontational.
Welcome to hairtell.
Seana
2 Likes
As perfectly explained Josefa, your statements are false. Based on scientific evidence and practice, I have to say you also that thermolysis and electrolysis or blend give the same results, and they work regardless the growth phase.
Can you give us scientific evidence explaining that blend is superior than thermolysis ? Why do you say electrolysis is successful only on the active phase of growth ?
2 Likes
Dear permanence,
This forum is community of professionals and consumers trying to help electrolysis clients on their journeys and trying to raise the profile of this amazing treatment to the level it truly deserves. We are all chipping in time and sharing expertise to achieve that. If anything has been contributing to the negative image of electrolysis, that’s infighting of electrologists trying to stand out from the crowd by shouting that their method is the best and bad-mouthing every other method with a helping of desinformation to strengthen their case. So please don’t do it.
I am keen to hear your viewpoint and the evidence you have for it, but laid in a different manner than the " me,me,me,me" we’ve seen so far.
1 Like
Jeri, I leave your pearls of wisdom with you
Ok, I do not need a clinical trial to be certain that when I add galvanic to the thermolysis my needle produces hydrogen bubbles that sometimes overflow the follicle, which logically, could never happen when we work only with thermolysis.
Therefore, when we use blend, the galvanic plays its role, or otherwise we would not be seeing bubbles. Do not you think?
I also do not need a clinical trial to deduce that if one year after carrying out a full clearance in an untouched area (80% telogen), the percentage of regrowth is between 10-20% meaning that most of the telogen hairs were destroyed.
However, you are right in one thing, consumers are not stupid, many of those who participate here have had the opportunity to verify for themselves that telogen is as effective as anagen regardless of the modality used. You can continue to deny the facts, and thus insult the intelligence of consumers and thousands of electrologists around the world, but that will not make you right.
2 Likes
Hi Josefa
We are coming from 2 different platforms. One wanting proof and one based on experience. Over my years as an electrologist, I have seen so much misinformation. I have learnt to trust only that information that can be validated. We have seen the tweezer methods, we have seen the marketing for laser that has been stretched far from the truth and we have all heard peoples theories. I have been to trade shows globally and heard the greatest yarns. So I now ask myself, after seeing the responses I have had, judgements made and pearls of wisdom thrown around, does this group of professional electrologists, truly believe they are above credibility, that what they say in this forum gives them credibility? or do they not understand what is required to be credible, Time will tell
All methods work as I continually have stated, however I have invested heavily in research myself and it is ongoing, but it must be validated externally, only then can I claim it as fact. I believe if you or I want to pass on knowledge as fact, and it appears to me that you are a leader to many on this site, then we must validate it otherwise it comes back to an opinion. Yes, I know it may cost you $10,000+ roughly to validate your claims, and believe me that is cheap, could be more could be less, you may even be eligible for some form of government grant, check it out, at the time i looked into it, it was $10,000, but if you are convinced you are right, and you want credibility for your work, then you spend the money. Respectfully, Why should I trust your word? I am prepared to listen to your word, to hear what you have to say, Know the basis on which you have your say, but I am not prepared to accept it until I have had it investigated, and it has some science behind it to support it which you would need to supply taking ownership of the claim.
I agree you do not need validation if it is just your opinion. I agree that the hydrogen bubbles are there, but that is not my question, only science can prove if they are effective. You are all defending blend yet none of you it appears to me, that make your living out of blend are prepared to invest in the research needed that I believe was never done, to show that adding galvanic makes a difference to the results, especially now when you are getting almost 100% clearance with thermolysis alone. Why?
From what you have said, and reviewing your videos, I have no doubt you are an excellent electrologist in the method you have chosen.
I guess I am disappointed that you don’t feel the need to quantify your research. It could make such a difference to the industry if it was genuine and I respectfully say that. What is required is: an independent assessor (Medical validator) so many cases for each area say 80-100 in total - but you would be advised by the person setting up the study, documentation from day 1 etc. A lot of work, and massive paper trail, but you could leave the industry in the future with some amazing research, Make enquiries through the universities as a starting point if you have not already done so
Yesterday I had decided to hire, at my own expense, an independent medical researcher, for when a hair can be treated successfully etc. and was about to ask you for your documentation so I could present the final outcome to you all, giving the public also information on the latest research. I am beginning to think this documentation does not exist. And that is OK, however it is not OK if you want to make claims.
Your last sentence did not serve you well, I don’t deny facts, legitimate proven facts, I am not trying to be right or wrong. What I am trying to do is search for truth.
If i can help you to get your documentation to be recognised, please ask. You may have something in what you have discovered that you can paten, like I have done.
I hope you can read this response in a positive way, the way in which it has been intended. To understand my platform is only to seek truth. I personally thank you for the contribution you are making to the industry
Hi Permanence
Do you know why Josefa has got a lot of support around the world? Sorry if you don’t know her cause I don’t know her personally neither. But one thing I know Josefa M. Reina is one of the greatest contributor & educator to many of us. And she done it free of charge but will definitely cost her something & time to make materials available to be seen publicly. Josefa has proved herself to many of us over years.
Please check her youtube channel out => https://www.youtube.com/user/DEDSPAIN
And one thing I have noticed, many have replied to you but you haven’t considered it.
It’s been over 3 yrs since I started this career & there r many things I still have to keep learning every day.
permanence,
You constantly speak for clinical validation.
Can you explain us how this validation works?
What are the parameters to be tested,what will be test protocol, what is the goal and the outcome of that validation etc.?
Please explain if you know.
Quite a few clinical studies have been conducted on the efficacy of electrolysis, thermolysis, and blend methods of electroepilation. Too bad all of the studies are not accessible from a single location. Some can be found, but it takes a lot of digging …
In my course in Dectro school I watched a few sec Dr. Schuster’s video on thermolysis inside of the follicle. it was very interesting to see how the follicle reacted to the TH pulses. Unfortunately I could not find that video anywhere. All real clinical studies should be published in PubMed or
other specialized sites and we have to pay to get access.
Contact your regulatory body for the country you are in. They will supply you with all your requirements.
Let’s see what we can pull together. I will engage a medical research specialist as they have greater access to them - if you have any references to any would appreciate - thank you for your positive in put.
Yes you will need to pay for research - however think of it as an investment into your future. It is worth it
I have a copy of the Schuster’s video, no doubt there are copyright issues. What about the Kligman MD studies commissioned (if I am correct by Lucy Peters) in the use of flash thermolysis with insulated probes? I know Kree did some studies back in the 1950s comparing flash thermolysis with multiple-needle galvanic. The reason for the study was to determine which method if any would be the most efficient to use in their electrology salons. We all know how that turned out. Related studies span the decades. There is one in particular I would like to locate: “The Efficacy of Electroepilation Treatments” by Kay Lasker. I went through her training program in 1985. Kay never got the credit she deserved.
I also have the schuster videos so am ok there
I forgot about the work kligman did. I think he had a vested interest in the tweezers then based on further research, exposed them?? If it is the same person - real integrity. Will add him to the list to be researched.
Have not seen any of Krees work but will look for it. Kay Lasker opened the doors of learning to many. I so agree Kay was not shown the appreciation she deserved for her contribution to the industry. Her generosity towards sharing and researching knowledge was unlimited. Thank you again for the names, if you think of any more please let me know. Am currently just scoping out the brief for the researcher.
I have been to permanence - super pro-galvanic - you do have a thermolysis machine because I had asked to use it - I was told that I would get 90% regrowth…there is more that I can say about this place but as it is a public forum I will unfortunately have to bite my tongue on this one
I agree that there 100% needs to be more studies on thermolysis and blend, but getting independent electrologists to fund these studies is a bit much to ask? if everyone grouped together to support each other then yes that makes sense and would be easier…but I believe that word of mouth from happy customers and photographic evidence should be proof enough of what a modality used in the right hands can do
Yes, the notion that independent electrologists should fund clinical studies is completely ridiculous. If an organisation, such as the AEA in the US, were willing to fund this, they might be able to achieve this using membership fees. This begs the question whether members would positively receive this proposal.
Australia no longer has an electrology association, and the industry leaders, at least in my city, are consistently booked, and some have to refer clients away. The clients are already there in numbers. No study is currently needed to convince consumers that electrolysis, thermolysis or blend deliver results. Why would an electrologist, especially in Australia, be willing to fund a study when the business is already consistently there?
Working for purpose is very different to working for money. Only then will you understand the value of spending your own money to improve the way we do things, Kay Lasker was an example of this.
To help you understand the why, here is an example of research I did a few years ago.
Topic positive electrode for blend and multi looking at different reactions, causes etc.
This has taught me not to ask the client to hold an electrode with a sponge anymore. If I had not spent my own money, I would be still handing them an electrode with a sponge not knowing the better options and the reasons why not to do it.
The outcome of what may seem simple, took a year or so of research , involving many - far from simple but the benefits to the clients and treatment, outweigh the personal expense
Hope this gives you a better understanding of why a few of us put back, without financial gain, into our work.
I’m saying that some people don’t have the money to spend on research like you do, people need to live and stay afloat, and in this day and age spending out of pocket to research something that they already know works is ridiculous.
1 Like