Question:
I would like to introduce myself, I am a MTF TS in RLT and on hormones
in my 40's...
I have tried regular electrolysis, thermoelectrolysis (I think it is
called that) and laser
hair removal. When I first tried the laser hair removal, they required
me to grow my
facial hair out to a quarter of an inch. Then they waxed and tweezed the
remaining
hair, which was painful, but not as painful as electro. Since then they
have refined
the method where one grows the hair out to 1 to 2 mm...they apply a
carbon based
lotion and do two treatments. The results I have achieved so far are
good and
it is much less painful than regular electrolysis. Has anyone else tried
this method.
For further info their website is at: http://www.beautythruhealth.com .
My regrowth has
been about the same as regular electro. I would like to hear from others
who have tried
this new method.
Answer:
-I've been getting treated by the epi light. The results are very good
though it does require multiple treatments over a few months to get
there...
One difference though is they don't require hair growth they actually shave
the area if the hair is over 1/8 inch.
It is painful though and has taken me as much as 5 days for my skin to
recover. -Yours is the second report I've seen from someone treated with
Thermolase's so-called SoftLight 2.0 method. Recently I heard
from a genetic female who paid $2,500 CDN for a series of up
to five treatments to remove her facial hair. Thus far, she
has had only one treatment, after which she claims to have
"noticed absolutely no hair loss whatsoever."
She claims that when she pointed this out to the technician,
she was told that subsequent treatments would remove the hair.
She reported that her treatment session involved three separate
laser irradiations, the second of which was quite painful:
"At this point I did feel quite a bit of discomfort. When the
laser was on my cheeks, I could feel pain shooting up to my
molars. The nurse had to stop a few times. It felt like I was
being pounded on the side of my face."
She is no longer optimistic about the outcome of the multiple
treatments, but I suspect she will continue with them, since
she has paid for them.
I have seen zero evidence proving that SoftLight 2.0 results
will last longer than SoftLight 1.0 results.
Here is what I have learned about SoftLight 2.0 through my
ongoing investigation:
I first learned that a change in the method was planned, from
this passage in a brokerage firm's analysis of Thermolase's
stock:
"We believe the company is working hard to bring its retreatment
rate down. Currently the cycle is approximately 12 weeks. TLZ
thinks it has identified the means to reduce this cycle to once
or twice per year. Such improvement should boost revenues as the
client base grows and appreciates the need for fewer treatments.
As well, once or twice per year presents a recurring revenue
stream."
That was issued on 20 May 97, by Lehman Bros., a large U.S.
brokerage and investment banking firm, which has a close business
relationship with Thermolase. Notice that they were not claiming
that the new method would result in permanent hair loss, but
instead would reduce the frequency of re-treatment. In fact, they
extol the virtues of the recurring revenue stream.
Thermolase first mentioned the new method in a press release on
28 July, calling it SoftLight 2.0:
"We are excited about the prospects for SoftLight(SM) 2.0, which
will be introduced shortly, and, based on our research to date,
we believe it will increase the efficacy of our process," said
John Hansen, president and chief executive officer of ThermoLase.
"We expect SoftLight 2.0 to generate improvements in operations
that should reduce the company's operating losses beginning in
the first quarter of 1998, leading to our goal of achieving
profitability during fiscal 1998."
Hansen was pretty unequivocal that SoftLight 2.0 would soon be
released, and seemed to express no doubts about its benefits,
however vague he might have been.
But just three days later, in their quarterly filing to the SEC
(U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) they said this:
"The Company continues to pursue an extensive research and
development program to improve the efficacy and duration of its
hair-removal treatment. The Company is currently testing a
modification to its procedure, called SoftLight 2.0, that has had
positive laboratory results. Although the laboratory results are
encouraging, the results are preliminary and there can be no
assurance that SoftLight 2.0 will be successful in improving the
hair-removal process. If the initial laboratory results relating
to SoftLight 2.0 are confirmed, the Company anticipates
implementing the procedure in early fiscal 1998. The Company
believes that improvements in the hair-removal procedure,
including the successful implementation of SoftLight 2.0, are
critical elements in its ability to improve the profitability of
its business."
So to the SEC, they were not nearly so confident of the benefits of
SoftLight 2.0. And notice that the method was still being tested,
and would be introduced early in fiscal 1998 only if the laboratory
tests were confirmed. For your information, their fiscal year
begins on 1 October. But the exact same statement appears in a
share registration filed with the SEC on 27 August 97. So as late
as one month before the start of the quarter, they supposedly
still were not certain that the process works.
Then on 22 Sep, in a press-release announcing the opening of their
Chicago Spa Thira, there was this brief reference to the new method:
"We're pleased to bring the full range of Spa Thira services,
including our improved SoftLight 2.0 process, to consumers in
this important market."
So, miracle of miracles!, they were now using it on patients, and
so I guess we are expected to believe that they resolved their
uncertainties in less than 4 weeks, and by late September, the
process worked well enough to begin using it on the public.
I suspect that they planned to introduce the process all along, as
they stated in the 28 July press-release.
Also, note that they have not announced any move to file for
FDA clearance to make any greater claims than they could make for
the original process. FDA allowed them to claim only a hair
reduction for up to 3 months. So they do not even have permission
to claim the 6 to 12 months hair reduction claimed by Lehman Bros
back in May.
So I see NO reason at all to believe that SoftLight 2.0 will be
significantly more effective than SoftLight 1.0.
