Ontario Canada guidlines on infection control, sterilization proceedures and requirements for electrolysis:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/docs/pssp_2008.pdf

http://hairzapper.com/thermolysis/


This entire page is a huge wake up call and well documented with substantial empirical evidence. I want to thank susan the author for presenting the information in such a complete and well documented manner. This link, is a must read.

You know what... I would put more of the blame for some of the poor results in the horror pics shown by Ms. Laird on the low quality magnification and lighting which people over compensate for with higher treatment energies (misapplied due to poor insertions due to lack of good vision on where the follicle opening is). Good insertions with appropiate treatment energies don't cause horror stories like these. Of course, it goes to show why I tell home users never to start their amateur career with thermolysis work. The potential devastation is to great.

http://www.hairtell.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/109770.html#Post109770

A discussion by Michael bono on the physiology of the root sheath, relative to insertions and extractions. As always, bravo Michael for enlightening us a little further.

That hairzapper link is terrifying.

So, you get "terrified" when you tweeze a hair? Now, that’s some “low threshold” angst for sure! I'd better not explain what (actually) happens when you squeeze a pimple or a black head! That could send you into therapy. He he he!

Thank you smartie pants, but the pictures of the scarring, etc..is what I was talking about regarding the link.

Seana,

I asked Andrea or James if they could make this important thread a sticky in the DIY forum.

I agree that general chit chat should be kept to a minimum here.

Good job researching. It must have taken you a long time to gather all this information.

Dee

I just looked back at the website sited: Hairzapper. I’m surprised (and not happy) with Seana’s positive comment; but then this comes from her lack of experience and knowing. And, that’s the danger of the internet. As the saying goes: “Don’t believe everything you read … or see.”

I’m surprised there is no Hairtell condemnation of this site; so let me offer a couple comments.

First, the author is intelligent and presents seemingly “well documented empirical” data. Not so fast.

All of us make the same basic mistake this California electrologist has made: basing conclusions on personal experience. “I ‘seen’ it so I believe it!”

For example, a European is confronted by a fat loud American and concludes that ALL Americans are fat and loud. (Lots of us are, but not all.) A few radical Muslims want to kill people and we conclude that ALL Muslims (all one-billion of them) want to kill people?

I have dozens of photos of scars from laser. Do I then denounce the entire industry as “causing horrible scars?”

The (common) error the author makes is going from a specific to a general. We all do this, but it’s NOT the scientific method! “Empirical” means the scientific method, not “Yellow Journalism sensationalism” as this website provides.

Like the author, I attended Hinkel’s school too (although she was not clear on that). Art introduced me to several patients that had permanent damage from DC-galvanic treatments! Oh, and from thermolysis and blend too. And, that’s the point.

Only ONE of Dee Dee patients, for example, with perfect skin after using her “thermolysis” technique would completely destroy this author’s position. But, is she looking? Has she seen this?

For this website to have real credibility, the author needs to specify the number of patients seen with skin damage, and which exact machine/method was used, AND the actual electrologist involved. (It’s likely that these bad cases were all from ONE bad operator). Science is all about NUMBERS! NOT opinion based on a few observations.

It’s worth repeating: Science is all about NUMBERS! NOT opinion based on a few observations.

Furthermore, this article is silly in that it completely denounces the vast majority of electrologists (since nearly all of us use “thermolysis”). It “just ain’t so!”

I have no doubt this person is doing good work. She seems dedicated. But she cannot condemn the entire world while sitting in her “tiny” world. But that’s exactly what she has done.

Instead of denouncing the “world of electrologists,” she should write a book or manual fully explaining her technique and offer it to the “world of electrology.” The author DOES have excellent explanations (I liked a lot of her site) … but she’s focusing on BAD treatment using thermolysis … not the actual modality itself. (Besides the OLD “Flash Themolysis” is long gone!)

For more than 40 years I have been assaulted with the “my method is better than your method” shit (and it is SHIT!) … and, in the final analysis, that’s what this website is all about.

I did some poking around and found the appropriate "condemnation" by my colleagues. Ditto!