Information sources It's very hard to separate the facts from the
quacks, so I recommend relying on published, peer-reviewed medical
literature for the most reliable information. I've listed a handful
of websites which have compiled reliable information, and I've
also listed some of the worst offenders for spreading misinformation.
The "A" List
The following websites provide what I consider
the best and most accurate information.
General information
 National Institute of Health (PubMed):
Published medical articles on hair removal.
US Food and Drug Administration: The primary
federal regulator of hair removal products. Specifically:
Electric tweezer reclassification
Laser Facts
Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow (older overview
from 1996-- some information is outdated)
Federal Trade Commission. It has limited
hair removal information.
American Association of Family Physicians:
This trade group has published a brief but balanced handout
on managing excessive hair (hirsutism).
Laser/IPL
Shore Laser Center: Practitioner Albert
Poet, M.D. has an excellent laser overview.
Laser
Hair Removal Guide: a good overview by a California physician.
Waccamaw
Dermatology: a balanced overview by a clinic offering laser
hair removal.
e-Laser
Hair Removal has started a nice site with some good consumer
tips.
laserhairremovalreview.com.
Sales site run by IPL/flashlamps Dr. Harvey Jay, who advocates
IPL/flash lamps
Electrolysis
American Electrology Association: This
trade group has an excellent electrolysis overview.
International Hair Route: this trade magazine first-rate
information, with a focus on electrolysis
electrolysisreferral.com:
A site with a good FAQ and directory, though the forum should
be avoided.
|
Hair loss?
For those of you going the other direction, here's a couple
of great sites about hair loss:
BaldRUs.com: A baldness-acceptance site.
Regrowth.com: Focuses on options for those who do
not wish to accept their baldness.
|
Non-recommended hair removal information sources
Internet Bulletin Boards
Because it's so hard to verify the identity or truthfulness of
those posting to internet forums, I do not recommend relying on
these for accurate information. Among the worst are:
Electrolysis Referral Directory Forum
Most posts are anonymous, and misinformation sometimes goes
unchallenged.
Kitty's Consumer Beware!
This is by far the most insidious of the hair removal quack
sites. The owner uses the alias “Katherine `Kitty' Cook”
and designed it to look like a consumer activist's site, right
down to the site name. In reality, “Kitty” used
to sell GHR electric tweezers and still hosts
the GHR promotional sites. [1] In 1997, the FDA found GHR
materials “Kitty” hosted to be in violation of federal
regulations. [2] The most obvious proof of quackery is that
“Kitty” allows GHR to promote itself with disputed studies
brazenly stolen word-for-word. [3]
However, the very worst part of this site is the “Beware Board.” It's a censored
forum where fact and quackery blend into an inseparable mess.
A handful of “moderators” (mostly her web hosting
clients) oversee the forums. Unsuspecting consumers assume
it's a reliable source of information, but that's not always
the case.
Examples of quackery
Claims by “Kitty” that the GHR electric tweezer
she used to sell “worked for me.”
Claims by “Kitty” that a test of a topical “hair
inhibitor” is working for her.
The “discovery” that a mixture of dandruff shampoo
and mouthwash will inhibit hair growth.
The “discovery” that taking papain and bromelain
dietary supplements will inhibit hair growth.
The observation that deodorant is linked to hair growth
inhibition.
Glowing reports from practitioners and salespeople about
their overwhelmingly great results.
For much more on this quack site, check out my Kitty's Consumer Beware!
analysis
Kalo
"Hair Inhibitor" Forum
This forum helps make Kalo's unproven health claims seem
more plausible. The real question to ask is where are the
people who are done and happy? You will not find a single
consumer who is one year after final Kalo application who
has had the permanent hair removal they claim.
Signs of a quack hair removal product
Too good to be true: Permanent hair removal methods
requiring no skill and causing no pain or side effects simply
do not exist at this time.
No published clinical data
“Before and after” pictures: These usually
do not include enough data to determine your own results.
Marketing ploys: “Exclusive” methods
only available at special outlets and coined words like “transdermolysis”
and “lasertrolysis.”
Testimonials: "Satisfied customers"
with no contact information to verify their testimonials.
High prices: Some promoters set a high price,
because it makes some consumers assume it must work if it costs
so much.
Guaranteed 100% results: No method can unconditionally
guarantee satisfactory hair removal in all consumers.
Manufacturer sites that contain misinformation
Coeptis: Sells transdermal hair removal,
as well as cancer and AIDS "cures."
International Hair Removal Systems (IHRS):
Sells transcutaneous hair removal on this slick-looking site.
See also the affiliated HairLabs and Harmonix quack sites.
Removatron: Compare this electric tweezer
quack's version of his company's history with the Federal Trade Commission's version.
Guaranty Hair Removal (GHR): This electric
tweezer quack displays “clinical data” that a competitor
also claims to have written!
Ultra Hair Away: dozens of sites, but
no proof this topical "hair inhibitor" by Victoria
Bodyworks works.
Kalo: Another doubtful topical "hair
inhibitor" by Nisim, with a bulletin board.
Global Electrolysis Supply: They sell
a brand of almost every quack hair removal product from a mail
drop box.
IGIA: The king of hair removal quackery,
including the Touch n' Go electric tweezer and Epil-stop "hair
inhibitor."
Lucy Peters: Claims this electrolysis
technique is "immediately permanent."
I will add more as time permits. If you have a suggestion, please
send it via my feedback form.
References
1. Please see my Consumer Beware site analysis.
2. Letter from FDA Compliance Officer Steven Budabin dated
15 January 1997. Available online.
3. Compare GHR "studies" on Kitty's Consumer Beware
with 1990 FDA submission data from GHR competitor
AHRS.
|
