Robert,
No doubt this site is inactive because Thermolase clearly has failed.
I believe it has the worst laser hair removal technology of a bad
lot. The Q1 10Q admits that the SoftLight 2.0 modification has not
been successful:
"In September 1997, the Company introduced a modification to its
hair-removal treatment, called SoftLight 2.0. Although clinical
laboratory results were encouraging, the Company has determined that
further modification is warranted, and accordingly continues to adjust
its treatment protocol. The Company plans to continue research and
development as it seeks to improve the efficacy and duration of its
hair-removal treatment, and believes that such improvements are
critical elements in its ability to improve the profitability of its
business."
In my previous post here, I related the experiences of two women who
were treated using SoftLight 2.0, and reported little or no hair
removal immediately post-treatment. It seems that the SoftLight
simply has too low a fluence for even "laser shaving".
The 10Q also discloses that the SoftLight skin-rejuvention product
has run into problems obtaining FDA clearance:
"In March 1997, the Company filed with the FDA a 510(k) application
seeking clearance to market cosmetic skin resurfacing services using
its SoftLight Rejuvenation(TM) Laser, including wrinkle and skin-
texture treatment. This technology, which uses the same laser as the
Company's hair-removal system, is designed to improve the skin's
appearance and texture. Following discussions with the FDA in
December 1997, the Company has decided to submit additional data and
to focus on claims related to skin texture rather than wrinkle
treatment, in order to expedite clearance of the application."
In other words, it is high-tech exfoliant, not a wrinkle treatment,
just as I reported here months ago.
The 10Q also reveals that treatment revenues declined for the second
straight quarter.
So much for Thermolase. It needs more than minor tinkering to survive.
As for Palomar, I have seen zero evidence that it produces materially
better results than SoftLight. Unlike SoftLight, Epilaser DOES have a
high enough fluence to perform "laser shaving" - there is a dramatic
reduction in hair immediately post treatment. However, the 13 subject
pilot study performed by Harvard in Sep'94 revealed a very rapid
regrowth rate, averaging >50 percent after 3 months, and 75 percent
after 6 months, with 5 of 13 subjects having 100 percent regrowth by
6 months. This seems to be typical for all of the laser hair removal
devices.
As for Epitique, I have strong doubts about their suggestions of
long-term results:
epitique.com
They state:
"In the pilot studies done at Harvard, over two-thirds of the people
had minimal to no regrowth at one year after two treatments at fairly
high energy. Most physicians are not using quite as high an energy
setting as in the pilot studies, but are finding good results after
several treatments."
I have not seen any published results of such a study. I have read an
account of some recent work at Harvard, but it seemed clear that the
results were not significantly different from those of the 1994 study.
Multiple treatments at one month intervals were tried, and failed. Now
they want to try spacing the treatments according to the onset of
regrowth. I believe they are grasping at straws.
In fact, the researcher even suggested that they planned to explore
fluences up to 100 J/cm^2. I do not believe that says much for
Epilaser, which has a maximum fluence of 40 J/cm^2. Ironically,
while researchers play with high fluences, Coherent is recommending
that Epilaser be operated at no more than about half of its peak
fluence.
As far as I am concerned, the laser hair removal industry has zero
credibility. If it hopes to survive, then it must market its
treatment outcomes fairly: 2 to 3 months of hair reduction; and drop
the price significantly.
Ted Molczan
molczan@fox.nstn.ca |
