Transdermal Study


Empirical Evidence and Published Clinical Findings Following Medial Testing: A study was conducted by William W. Rolland, an instructor in electrical engineering at Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst. NC. This study was performed to determine to what extent current is made to flow within the dermal papilla when one of the electrodes is a tweezers which grasps the hair shaft. In this study the negative electrode was the tweezers from the (Transdermal System) device which grasped the hair shaft which had bean coated with a conductive solution. The positive electrode was a needle inserted along the shaft of a hair into the dermal papilla. The shaft of the needle was insulated so that contact was made only at the base of the hair, within the dermal papilla. Results from several trials demonstrated that the average current produced in the dermal papilla was 470µa. Mr. Rolland concluded that a conductive path exists along the hair shaft and through the dermal papilla and that the (Transdermal System) device is capable of producing a current of approximately 470µa along this path.*

The pH levels achieved by both non-invasive (Transdermal) and needle electrolysis were 11.2 and 11.4 respectfully. This pH was well above the normal for human skin of 5.0 to 5.5. From these measurements it is reasonable to conclude that electrolysis (conversion of sodium chloride to sodium hydroxide at near equal levels in both the non-invasive and needle epilators).*

Both of the devices (needle and Transdermal epilators, in direct comparison during clinical testing) achieved equivalent results in removing hair and both complied with the definition set forth by the International Guild of Professional Electrologists, Inc. as being effective, since they both removed permanently at least 40 percent of the hairs on one treatment in this study.*


*Fitzpatrick, Thomas B. et al: Dermatology in General Medicine, Third Edition. New York, McGraw Hill, Inc. 1987.
*Hinkel Arthur Ralph, Lind Righard W. Electrolysis, Thermolysis and the Blend: The Principals and Practice of Permanent Hair Removal. Los Angeles, Ca, Arrorway, 1968
*Independent clinical study verifying this effect published by William W. Roland at Sandhills Community College, Pinehurst NC. This study is considered general access public domain, henceforth does not carry copyright protection.
*One hundred µa of electricity flowing for one second will produce one molecular unit of NaOH.
*This device is universally used to accurately measure chemical composition both quantitatively and qualitatively.
*Cosmetic and Medical Electrolysis and Temporary Hair Removal, R.N. Richards, G.E. Meharg, page 81
*Modern Electrology, Fino Gior,


470µa is 470 microamps which 10 E-6 Amps. How does this compare to conventional needle electrolysis. And what are the voltage levels respectively for transdermal and conventional needle electrolysis?



I debunk the Rolland report here:

The PDF is a long document, but I explain in detail why Rolland contains unreliable data.


All of you have probably noticed the large number of devices available for removing hair. They maintain there is no infection, no redness, no pain, no swelling, and no side effects of any kind. This is the problem.

We all learned that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, therefore, if there is no reaction it is because there was NO ACTION. They can not remove hair permanently no matter how much scientific mumbo jumbo they throw at you. It is ALL FALSE SCIENCE and it is easy to sell to a group of people who have anxiety about excessive hair in a society that does not want this hair.