I received the follwing letter from Harvey Grove, CPE, and wanted to open a newer topic about a type of electrolysis he promotes, in which treated hairs are left in, which purportedly allows for faster treatment.

The notion of leaving hairs in has been questioned by several other electrologists, who feel that this may cause a high incidence of side effects.

As requested by Harvey, I am sharing a letter he sent and a previous post he made regarding the procedure.

 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">  Hi Andrea.....

I have not seen any reference to ULTRA-lysis on your site (perhaps I missed it). Needless to say I am disappointed because you, moreso than electrologists, are aware of the process being a SLIGHT modification of “short wave” but only in some hand motions not the settings of the epilator or the insertions of the probe into the follicle. I do NOT make anything on this process, therefore, there is no personal gain. I turned it over to anyone who wants to use it (as a matter of ethics) at a meeting of the Massachusetts Assoc. of Electrologists (there were over 100 members there and everthing was recorded) as I believe it to be UNETHICAL TO WITHHOLD ANYTHING THAT CAN HELP A PATIENT. The name is registered so that there will be some uniformity as to what this process entails and the name will mean the same wherever you go as opposed to the assorted names for electrolysis, short wave, high frequency, surgical diathermy, electrocoagulation, thermolysis, flash method, manual method, etc. Patients are so confused that it makes it difficult to communicate what we are doing to them. Standardization is a good idea for all these processes.

I believe you are as concerned about the cost of treatments too and this is a sure way to reduce costs and time of treatments. If you are not concerned I am disappointed. I thought you, of all people, would be eager to help.

Harvey Grove, LE, CPE
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>The following is from a 2002 post by Harvey Grove, CPE.

  &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt; Hi....

I figured out a modification of the thermolysis method that cuts time in half or less. I had the name registered as ULTRA-lysis. The process is patentable and this is underway. It is particularly useful for large surfaces like the back, arms, chest, legs, etc. At present I am not recommending it for the upper or lower lip as the large number of folicles treated in so small an area in only a half hour might cause too much trauma in a localized area, thereby. resulting in unacceptable swelling that is visible to the naked eye. If it was covered by clothing, perhaps, it would be OK. I use ONLY short wave.
This technique was figured out by me as a result of my long experience as a US Navy Medical Corpsman with training at the US Navy Hospital Corpsman School and hospital O.R. experience ( I graduated in the upper 10% of the class and received an automatic promotion). In addition, I worked for one of the major drug companies (the makers of Claritin and other products for skin and also hormones) for 25 years. My job was to call on docs at the 3 Boston medical schools and sell them the idea of using my products. I won many prizes for this during the 25 years I did this but more importantly I made friends with some of the foremost docs in the country at Harvard, Tufts, and Boston U. Med schools. I also learned much about the human body in health and disease as well as the drugs used to treat many illnesses. I do not diagnose or treat them but I have a different perception of them than the average person and particularly the electrologists who THINK they know it all (a little knowledge is very dangerous)…
I checked my idea out with the chiefs of Dermatology at Mass. Genl. Hosp. (Harvard), New England Med Ctr. (Tufts), and Boston U. Hosp. All agreed it was very good and one even said,“I thought that was what you guys were doing.”
At present the probe is inserted and a setting is determined by the EXPERIENCED electrologist. The switch is closed and the patients feel the heat. THIS IS THE ONLY PRODUCTIVE PART OF THE TREATMENT. IT IS HERE THE ROOT IS COOKED. ANYTHING ELSE IS REALLY NON-PRODUCTIVE. THE ACT OF GRASPING THE HAIR AND RELEASING IT IS A WASTE OF TIME. JUST GO ON TO THE NEXT HAIR AND THE TREATED HAIR WILL FALL OUT BY ITSELF OR BY CHAFING OF CLOTHING OR A TOWEl AS ALL OTHER TELOGEN HAIR FALL OUT. It makes no difference if it is velus or terminal hair because they all go through the same stages.
The mere act of changing hands from probe to forceps is eliminated. There is no worry about dropping a forceps and stabbing the patient (I am sure it happens) or stopping to resterilize a forceps. Many patients start a large area, like the back, or legs but quit because of time and economic issues. For transgendered patients I would do the face and move all around so that there is no line showing where the hair was removed. It looks like the hair is just fading away. They want to see results fast but it would look weird if you start at the nape of the neck and work down. There is always an ARTIFICIAL LINE ACROSS THE BACK WHERE WORK WAS DONE. IF THE PATIENT CHANGES HIS/HER MIND…THEY ARE STUCK WITH THIS LINE OF DEMARKATION BETWEEN AREAS WORKED ON AND THOSE THAT WERE NOT TOUCHED AS YET.
There are no articles in medical texts that explore the percentage of anagens, catagens, or telogens in any single area. Any numbers quoted are GUESSTIMATES and then these numbers are repeated in future articles. The reason for this is there is NO MONEY TO STUDY THIS AND DOCTORS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THIS AS ALL HAIRS GO THROUGH THIS AND IT IS NOT A DISEASE. THE PRESENCE OF HAIR MAY BE IMPORTANT BUT THAT IS ALL.
Since there is no change from the actual use of the epilator, needle, or settings there is no intervention by FDA when using ULTRA-lysis. There are a few modifications out there that involve shaving a few days before visiting the electrologist. All hairs are shaved FLUSH with the surface, however, when the patient visits the office all catagens are STILL flush with the surface while the ANAGENS ARE ABOVE THE SURFACE. The laser people learned this and now sell their treatments a few weeks apart so they are treating ONLY ANAGENS (hopefuly) and it still leaves a lot to be desired.
In large areas there are many catagens and if I use a forceps to test each one, they are not as susceptible to treatment as anagens. Therefore, I have to do them over and they still will not release easily (another waste of time). The best thing to do is go on to the next hair after only one insertion. If it is a catagen it will soon fall out by itself. For new patients and new areas they feel more tugging because catagens may abound and do not respond as readily as anagens.
There are many more benefits but I do not have time now. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>

[ April 14, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Andrea ]

This method seems to make a lot of sense but raises one obvious question: how the hell do you know a hair’s been treated in that sitting unless it’s removed immediately afterwards? Could the cost benefits be wiped out by inadvertant repetition? (By the way I’ve never seen electrolysis being done so if the treated hairs take on a new appearance that makes it obvious that they have been done, please ignore me). If this ULTRA-lysis is the real deal and it hasn’t crossed anyone’s mind until now that they might be wasting half of their clients’ time, it would seem we are all being ripped off by the electrolysis industry as well as the charlatans flogging miracle creams and electric tweezers etc etc etc. It’s all more than enough to make anyone hurl.

So how does one exactly keep track of the hairs that have been treated and the ones that have not. I am do it yourselfing and I can barely keep track of more than five hairs at a time now, never mind if they aren’t getting pulled out after treatment.
Please someone enlighten us?!


My electrolysis gets some of this methods time benefits by treating 5 to 8 hairs at a time and them going back in to remove them with tweezers. I personaly perfer to have the hairs removed so that I only look spotty and not spotty and hairy. The hairs may fall out in a few days but my concern would be if the area will heal as fast as it does when they are removed during treatment.


[ April 15, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Balius ]

It seems to me that method may be OK. If the hair has been zapped successfully won’t it fall out by itself? If an electrologist isn’t sure they got a good zap on a particular hair, do they immediately hit it again? That I don’t know.

With laser, the hairs are not removed immediately unless a treated hair flies out of the follicle, and that does not generally cause problems. But unlike electrolysis, no probes are inserted below the surface of the skin so there is less opportunity for infection. Maybe there is more opportunity for a dead hair left in the skin to cause infection with electrolysis compared to laser.


There is very little to show that a hair has been treated when electrolysis is done. In fact, galvanic and blend have a better chance of giving you something to look for in that there will be some reddening and maybe a little white froth sticking out of the follicle. In thermolysis, there is nothing to mark a follicle as having been treated unless the settings are so high that one is blanching the skin, (Not good) or your client is one who gets that little mosqueto bite look on every follicle for a short time after treatment (not unusual, but not universal either).

It is my opinion, and the opinion of many others that this method is not worth the trouble. Clients want to leave the appointment with bare skin to look at, and touch. This method leaves the very hair they came in to have removed still in place. If only one out of ten hair follicles became infected by being left in place this way, the person would have tens of putsules developing in a matter of days as if Acne were ravaging the treatment area.
Is the methode fast? Sure is! Even moderately competent electrologists would be able to remove 1,000 hairs per hour in Ultra-lysis, but hundreds of white angry pustules would be a high price to pay for clearing a back to total bareness in one sitting.

I respect Harvey, and think he is a wonderful man, and a great electrologist, but this treatment protocol is not for everyone. It is of much more value to the average client working with the average electrologist for the practitioner to treat 5 to 10 hairs and epilate them all at once than to have them left inside the skin and risk complications. At least the electrologist can keep track of the hair treatment pattern used when spreading the skin and pivoting to insert on a select number of hairs in the small area between the fingers where the spread skin is stretched out. Even then, we often have to resort to test pulling a hair or two to be sure that it was actually treated if we go over five hairs before epilation.

After all, it is the flip that takes the most time in the “one-handed technique”. Epilation is only a minimal addition to the proceedure. What we need is for someone to invent a probe holder that epilates a hair as you withdraw. Now that would eliminate the flip intirely, and everyone would be doing modified ULTRA-lysis! The electrologist would only be doing insertions, and the probe holder would handle the epilations automatically!
We can dream can’t we? :grin:

Finally I find something written about ULTRA-lysis, and by the inventer himself. Must say I am disappointed at best. Sorry Harvey.

It seems that (as in the last post) that the single handed method is the problem. It is the flip that Harvey claims is the time waster. I would agree on that point. Why not use the two handed method as Jane Riddle teaches. Probe is inserted, current is applied, hair is tested with tweezers in other hand, and removed as it releases (without resistance), and a short after count (in blend technique) then on to the next hair. No flip time wasted, and no fancy name for the technique, just two handed efficiency.

Everyone has an opinion that belongs only to themself. Until you try the process on yourself to get an answer it will remain an opinion. There are many posts on the internet that have no value but there are followers of that person who posts a ridiculous statement with absolutely no basis in fact.

James Walker mentioned doing an entire back in one sitting. I believe he knows better because many hairs are removed by a towel or natural shedding, therefore, these will regrow. As for one sitting…some backs are furrier than a bear and that could not be done in one sitting either.

Due to the fact most hairs on the back are in catagen… the use of a tweezers will cause some “tugging” discomfort to the patient, therefore, it is more desirable to avoid this and continue on to the next follicle. More time will be saved doing this than going back to due a single hair a second time. As long as your settings and insertions are correct the hair will have been killed. A less skilled electrologist will NEVER get good results. The real problem is we ALL THINK WE ARE HOT-SHOTS and we all did not graduate at or near the top of our class.

Each electrologist works in a slightly different manner and each thinks his/hers is the best way to do it. If there is a chance to improve on this I feel it is my obligation to try it, therefore, I try it on myself and then had the ability to discuss this with Dermatology Department heads at 3 FAMOUS medical schools. Most electrologists do not have this access to experts for help. I have it and I use it to help my patients.

Most of the criticism seems to be about the fear of infection. This is a reasonable concern, however, the biggest problem related to infection is the “dirty” hands of the patient. In 25 years of practice I have NOT heard about a single incidence of infection. There probably was some of this but it is not significant statistically when you consider how many follicles have been “invaded” and how many hairs were left behind after being treated. I distinctly pointed out that ULTRA-lysis is for large areas like the back or legs and suggested it as a way to get patients to “trade up” and do additional areas because they want to do it but the expense or time required or both discourage them.

I also made a point of discussing the fact that ULTRA-lysis should NOT BE USED ON SMALL AREAS LIKE UPPER LIPS AND THE ENTIRE FACE because very many insertions can be made in one treatment period and the total trauma could make the skin quite red. Patients do not care to be noticed as a result of some unusual appearance, therefore, I do not use ULTRA-lysis on the face or neck unless the patient is going straight home and the redness will dissipate by the next morning.

Areas that are covered with clothing are prime areas for treatment. I think electrologists may be fearful of ULTRA-lysis because you have to have great insertions and adequate settings. I find a good setting and then increase it slightly because the treated area will be hidden by clothing, consequently, any edema end erythema is hidden. Patients are willing to tolerate this as long as you explain the process, deliver results and save them some expense.

As an example… I charge $40 per half hour. During this time (about 1800 seconds) a good electrologist using short wave AND A FORCEPS can remove about 1 hair every 3 seconds or 600 hairs. Also a 30 minute treatment requires prepping the patient, cleaning her up after treatment, and doing post treatment clean up (records, make next appointment, etc.). This takes about 7 minutes in total which leaves 1620 seconds for treatment. At 3 seconds per hair that is 540 hairs if there is no repeat treatment of a follicle. My feeling about this is…If I can remove 540 hairs for $40 using SLOW MOTION electrology, I am entitled to $60 per half hour for removing about 1000 hairs using ULTRA-lysis. The patient saves money and time and I am able to increase my income at the same time. The way I see it both parties WIN. If other electrologists want to argue this without testing it on themselves…they are ignoring the facts and inventing reasons why they should not try it. The reasoning used appears to be sound except they have NO PROOF UNTIL THEY TRY IT. I remember stories about the world being FLAT and the one about the sun circling the earth instead of the earth circling the sun. Eventually the truth came out and we now know the truth. Try ULTRA-lysis you may like it.

Electrologists have told patients many stories including the need to treat each hair 3,4, or 5 times to reach permanency. I do not know if these electrologists believe what they say or if they are covering up for poor electrology but that is not my responsibility. I present ULTRA-lysis as another alternative to breath new life into a profession that is confused, stagnant, and being attacked by lasers. We can now offer something NEW and IMPROVED.

I thought I made it CLEAR from the beginning but to repeat… ULTRA-lysis is for large areas like the back or legs. I have been in this profession long enough to understand patients want to see results YESTERDAY but do the procedure themself with inadequate machines and no training. They have picked up some info but this is not the same as being trained and licensed and Board Certified (which I am).

If you want CUT-RATE treatments you can do some areas yourself or have a friend do it for you (if you believe they know what they are doing). Scarring is always a possibility and training and skill determines the outcome. Patients can NOT work BACKWARDS in a mirror to do one side of the face or some areas that are out of reach like way under at the bottom of the bikini line or your back, underarms and other areas.

When working on the back a good electrologist will NOT work in a straight line from the nape down. The correct way is to do it is by jumping around and having the hair appear to FADE AWAY by becoming less dense after each treatment. NO TWO HAIRS THAT ARE CLOSER THAN 3 mm should be treated at any time as this is more apt to cause scarring. By jumping around there will be no areas that are bald. It takes longer for patients to see results, however, I start by using the standard treatment and then explain ULTRA-lysis to patients so it becomjes their choice. This is called “informed consent”. If they agree treatments are changed to ULTRA-lysis.

I will not answer any more questions on this subject as it is now overdone. The questions posed here and the theories presented here have no merit until you try it yourself to prove me wrong or to agree with me. I make nothing on the whole idea but I find I have to explain over again this process to some people who think they have a “professional machine” and no training at all.

Thank you and goodbye.

Any method that wastes time is expensiove for the patient. Most of the “complaints” have been about the POSSIBILITY of the hair causing an infection. This is reasonable to consider, however, until you try it…it is ONLY CONJECTURE.

Ultra-lysis is ONLY recommended for large surfaces. Patients want to see bare skin but it is extremely rare for this to occur on any surface as removing too many hairs in close proximity to one another can result in OVERTREATMENT.

On large surfaces like the back there is much latitude to jump around and have the hair “seem to FADE AWAY” as opposed to having a sharp line of demakation between treated and untreated areas (this is poor electrolysis in my opinion). The principles followed on the upper and lower lips are NOT THE SAME when removing hair from the large areas.

Please refrain from “shouting” in your posts (using words in all capital letters). It is annoying and unnecessary. You wrote in a recent post that “I will not answer any more questions on this subject as it is now overdone. The questions posed here and the theories presented here have no merit until you try it yourself to prove me wrong or to agree with me.” Asking questions is what this board is all about. Your seemingly hostile reaction to people’s legitimate questions damages your credibility. Saying that our questions and theories “have no merit until you try it yourself” is not only unscientific, but possibly dangerous. This is akin to Dr. Jekyll offering his friends a “special cocktail” that he insists they must try before they can dare question whether or not he is a monster. The essense of the scientific method is questioning. Testing is done in a controlled environment for safety and only after extensive research. Please understand that if you are posting a “new idea” in electrolysis, many of us will be interested in listening to and considering your theory. But many of us have the sense to question and evaluate the idea. This, in my opinion, is the great value of this board.

I have spent almost my entire life in the biological sciences excluding the years I spent in grades K-12 and there was some biology and science in those years. I have been an electrologist for over 25 years after I retired as a sales rep for one of the major phermaceutical companies in the world. My job was to know and discuss the products AND competitive products with doctors at three of the most famous medical schools in the world (HARVARD, TUFTS, and BOSTON UNIVERSITY). I do NOT diagnose orTREAT any diseases, however, my perception of them is based on significantly more training and experience than seen in any electrologist. I am an invited speaker to doctors at all three of these schools and hospitals with documentation to prove it.

One of the biggest problems I have encountered in electrology AND the general public is the FACT they do NOT know what “SCIENCE” MEANS. They are willing to accept so much fakery (as seen on TV such as “increase breast size 2 cups”, “lose 20 pounds in one week” and all the fake hair removal products) because they have no understanding of the difference between SCIENCE and ENDORSEMENTS (which are usually paid for). I know I can’t change the world but when experienced electrologists, untrained, poorly trained and or non-electrologists “self trained” people on this site make positive comments about something they know NOTHING ABOUT… I have to reply.

SCIENCE DEMANDS PROOF TO ALL QUESTIONS presented or IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. There is nothing wrong with asking the questions when you do not know, however, if the question is based on some erroneous idea you have… it is worthless to try to explain. If the science is good…IT MUST BE DUPLICATED OVER AGAIN BY OTHERS WHO WILL GET THE SAME ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

If 1+1=2, then everyone who does the experiment must get the same answer. If someone gets 1+1 = 3 this means either 1+1 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 or that the ones who get 1+1= 3 MAY BE RIGHT and the others might be wrong or they are ALL WRONG. Results have to be duplicated ALL the time. So there is nothing wrong with asking a question. The science is the RESULTS when done CORRECTLY. WE ARE USING SCIENCE TO PRACTICE AN ART. That it is why we call it the “practice of electrology”. We use PROVEN methods, however, NOT ALL pactitioners are equal, therefore, the results are NOT UNIFORM. Patients are not uniform so that adds another problem. Training is not uniform and on and on. This is only part of the reason we do not enjoy the position in our community as professionals. So few belong to their organization, even less are licensed, and less than that are Board Certiified (either because they know they will flunk the exam or just do not care).

As for capitalization…it is a way of adding emphasis as I am not a computer “geek” and do not know any other way to do this on this site. If you are hurt…it was not my intention and I am sorry. I still think the content is more important than the CAPs and most people do not know the definition of “science” yet they use the word .


Harvey Grove,

Your knowlege and experience is very impressive. Why don’t you join this forum and help people here with you professional advice? I’m sure everyone will agree that your help is much needed here. It not would not only releive some burden from James, but it is also good to have two opinions in everything :blush: )

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>If 1+1=2, then everyone who does the experiment must get the same answer. If someone gets 1+1 = 3 this means either 1+1 DOES NOT EQUAL 2 or that the ones who get 1+1= 3 MAY BE RIGHT and the others might be wrong or they are ALL WRONG.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Or it just means they didn’t use logic.

Reason excludes 1+1=3, just as Reason excludes Square circles. :smile:

It is interesting to read the comments from electrologists who have not even tried the ULTRA-lysis process. Their rationalizations sound good to them but have no basis in fact.

Excluding the face of a man and the scalp of both genders most hairs are treated while in the catagen stage when treatments commence in virtually all electrology offices. This means there will be significant “tugging” of hairs because our machines (short wave) operate on the basis of how much moisture the treated hairs contain below the surface.

IF you run a test on yourself and turn up the timing to maximum and the intensity also and put it on your DRY fingernail you will find NOTHING HAPPENS because there is no water in your nails. If the areas to be treated are shaved about 4 days before treatment it is very easy to select only the anagens in the area as they will have grown during the 4 days. This means the electrologist can treat the most vulnerable hairs and this will speed up treatment because anagen hairs have more moisture in them as they are growing. Patients have to be EDUCATED about this or they will be complaining about the length of time it takes to get results because when you treat catagens it is doubtful if the treatment will be successful.

When you ADD ULTRA-lysis technique to the procedure you will only be treating anagens and you will have no need to waste time removing any hairs with a forceps. As I explained in my lecture… by eliminating unproductive movements of the hands you will speed up treatments and increase the number of treated hairs by 2-3 times. I specifically explained in my lecture and in published explanations on the web,This procedure is more suitable for large areas like the back, pubic areas, arms, legs, underarms, and abdomen because there is so much hair that the patient can not see BALD spots that they expect. They should not be treated in that manner in any event as the treated areas should have the hair FADE AWAY except if you want to do this on SMALL areas like the upper and lower lips, and eyebrows.

ANY 2 hairs that are as close or closer than 3mm should NEVER be treated. Treat one and go to another location about 1/2 inch away. The reason for this is due to the fact the heat pattern below the surface is wider and deeper than the width of the probe. This means if 2 hairs were treated as close or closer than 3 mm the heat patterns of each would overlap and this results in overtreatment of those 2 follicles. If there is scarring below the surface this tissue can contract and pull down the surface causing pitting scars in many cases.

In the case of ULTRA-lysis I treat ONLY the anagens and that means there is much movement across the area to be treated. I jump from one anagen to another and do NOT waste time removing them with a tweezers. The concern of many of those who wrote in above this seem to make sense to them but until you check it out it is merely conjecture. I asked famous dermatologists and then tried it on myself. Hairs are not removed with a tweezers, however, at the end of treatment I take a paper towel and wipe the treated area in the direction of the grain. This friction is enough to remove many of the treated hairs and you will see it on the towel. Those that you miss will fall out with normal friction of a bath towel or clothing.

There is nothing more to add, consequently, I have no more to say. Electrologists who are experienced and choose to try ULTRA-lysis will find it is effective on large areas. I have NOT tried it on SMALL AREAS, therefore, I can not comment on this. Those who are not trained well or those who are self-trained (I can’t imagine anyone using a surgical instrument on themself without training) will not get the same results just as they do not get the results on ordinary electrolysis if they are not well trained. High speed ULTRA-lysis is the ULTIMATE in PERMANENT HAIR REMIOVAL. LESS TIME…LESS COST…and a LOT LESS HAIR.

The procedure was tested on one limb (arm or leg) of twenty patients with SLOW MOTION electrolysis on the opposite limb. After 2 months of treatment patients were asked which method they preferred. ALL PATIENTS CHOSE ULTRA-lysis. You will have to make your own choice about which treatment you want to use. I suggest using it on your own leg or arm to get a feel for the process. DO NOT INCREASE THE SPEED OF YOUR HANDS OR YOU WILL LOSE THE SYNCHRONIZATION BETWEEN PEDAL AND INSERTIONS WHICH IS CRITICAL.