Talk:Laser hair removal

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2019 and 31 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MoniqueHinds (article contribs).

Laser hair removal

The citation needed under "regulation" could perhaps be this page? I can't make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markj87uk (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! This is Andrea James. I was adding some information on laser hair removal from a site I own called hairfacts.com. I own the copyright to this information as it appears on both hairfacts and on QuackWatch, which was flagged as the possible infringement. As you will note, I am the author of the material listed on QuackWatch. If you have any questions, you may reach me at andrea@hairfacts.com

Hi, this is Brad Lustick. I added a link to our site called idealimage.com which is owned and operated by Ideal Image Corp. for whom I am employed and have the express permission to do so. We are headquartered in Tampa, Florida. Please feel free to direct any question to me at brad.lustick@idealimage.com 70.255.4.58 06:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I added new information about "shaving bumps" & pilonidal cysts and "tightened up" the article with facts.Philiphughesmd 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody add information regarding number of sessions required for satisfactory results? Thanks! -- Anonymous 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My laser clinic performs various laser skin procedures including laser hair removal. However after several years of practicing laser hair removal I have discontinued treatment with most of my laser hair removal systems. I have not seen real efficacy in removing unwanted hair. Usually the hairs are "shocked" into dormancy for a period of months to years. Regrowth is much slower than with traditional methods. Still in terms of the cost and the hassle of never ending treatments, I recommend my patients stick to a regimen of shaving, waxing, or plucking. A very small number of my patients have had good clearance with the laser. However even these patients are stuck manually epilating the sparse hairs that just will not respond to laser. I would also like to add that my practice's results are not uncommon from what colleagues have told me. I believe there is real ethical issue for this treatment which I would like to see addressed--but I suppose that is why this section is disputed.

My practice, South Coast MedSpa, has filmed several laser hair removal treatments and posted them on our website at southcoastmedspa.com/LaserHairRemovalVideos.html. I believe these videos are educational and informative and we should be able to post an external link to them despite Dawn bard's objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southcoastmedspa (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) That's just providing free advertising for your clinic, videos can be found on youtube for different laser types if someone wants to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.215.226 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of section Mechanism_of_action

Lacking any description on why the section Laser hair removal#Mechanism of action is disputed, I removed the template. --Tunheim 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

The article you cite actually lifted all that content from my site hairfacts.com, which I donated here as my first article to Wikipedia in 2004. Jokestress 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that! Can you clarify the terms here so we can remove the {{copyvio}}? Is it PD or somesuch? What a shame that other author lifted your stuff and put their name to it! Not good ... - Alison^☺ 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Original has been here since 2001 and is based on info I have had on the earliest iteration of tsroadmap since 1998. The ezinearticles.com domain was not even created then. As I mention above, I hereby release all the text for Wikipedia with a GFDL. Jokestress 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and sorry for the hassle. I'll put a comment into the article to ensure this doesn't recur. Thanks! :) - Alison^☺ 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Permanency?

The article should address whether this procedure lasts a lifetime or will need redone at intervals. Chris 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a game of semantics. Permanent? The word has essentially been twisted to mean temporary when referring to laser hair removal.

From the FDA website: "Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs re-growing after a treatment regime, which may include several sessions. The number of hairs regrowing must be stable over time greater than the duration of the complete growth cycle of hair follicles, which varies from four to twelve months according to body location. Permanent hair reduction does not necessarily imply the elimination of all hairs in the treatment area." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.18.239 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. I think that the use of the word "permanent" is a horrible idea when the issue at hand is temporary (like laser hair removal). Regardless of what the FDA "defines" permanency as, laser hair removal means that, after enough sessions, the treated area will be hair-free for up to a year. Laser hair removal does not mean that someone will not have hair over the treated areas one or two years following the last session. This issue should be explained every time a there is declaration of laser hair removal's permanency If there are any studies as to the percent reduction people are experiencing years down the road, they should be posted. As far as I know, laser hair removal is completely temporary.--89.246.214.123 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the FDA doesn't get to redefine the meaning of the word 'permanent', except to define what it means when it uses the word. If the follicles treated can be expected to grow hairs again, or if new follicles that grow hair can be expected to appear, then this should be in the article, and it shouldn't use the word permanent to mean anything other than what it means in standard English. No government (save perhaps a totalitarian one; see Newspeak) can redefine a word by fiat. --Elvey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

From a medical perspective though, the use of the term permanent is not that misleading, and the same problem exists with electrolysis. Basically, if new hairs form after treatment that doesn't say anything about the treatment itself. For example, if a man has facial hair reduction and it's effective he will have a clean face, but if his testosterone levels are in the male range then he will get facial hair again after a period of time, due to the formation of new hairs. --Cornince (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "new follicles" not "new hairs"? --Elvey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cost of machine

Perhaps average costs of a machine can be given. The Rio Salon Laser Scanning Hair Remover costs around 200£ and is usable at home. see http://www.riobeauty.com/LAHR.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.183.119 (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I was thinking about a section about costs, or rather how hard it is to pin down - something like - It's very hard to put an exact number on how much laser hair removal will cost. This is because the cost of laser hair removal varies quite a lot depending on which part of the country you're in, how skilled the practitioner is and even the time of year. However a very general list of costs can be found at <link removed> laser hair removal costs. This I must state is a very general list though as ive seen lower or higher prices charged. It seems to be good for avarages though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazornus (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

new removals

Hi there, I added some important changes to the page recently but someone removed all three changes. The first change is: the article contains a link to http://visol.com/en/products/Xemos.html as a reference which needs to be removed as visol "suspended sales on all products until further notice". Second: FDA released a consumer update about "Removing Hair Safely". It is a trusted authority resource, should be mentioned as an external link as it has very useful information. Third: The risks part of the page currently only contains very brief (my opinion: not so useful) information about one of the most commonly asked questions and concerns regarding laser hair removal: what are the possible risks / side effects. I added a few lines that I think summarizes much better this subject and as the most detailed information I've came across was on a site called www.ilovelaser.com I added a reference as well (the section definitely needs more work, but I think it is already a way better start than before). I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with laser hair removal because of my job. I would appreciate it if the person who did these reverse changes could respond to this post. In general, I think it would be appreciated if new members would be helped in a way that if some changes / edits are not accepted by much more experienced editors, it would be great if we could receive a few lines as well... The risks part of the page definitely needs an update as currently it is completely unhelpful to readers; the other two changes are pretty straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved your post to the bottom, where new comments go. I removed your text as it reads like spam. If you can rewrite it in an encyclopedic way, proper capitalization, no ampersands... it can stay. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE explain before removing... The first change is: the article contains a link to http://visol.com/en/products/Xemos.html as a reference which needs to be removed as visol "suspended sales on all products until further notice". Second: FDA released a consumer update about "Removing Hair Safely". It is a trusted authority resource, should be mentioned as an external link as it has very useful information. Third: The risks part of the page currently only contains very brief (my opinion: not so useful) information about one of the most commonly asked questions and concerns regarding laser hair removal: what are the possible risks / side effects. I added a few lines that I think summarizes much better this subject and as the most detailed information I've came across was on a site called www.ilovelaser.com I added a reference as well (the section definitely needs more work, but I think it is already a way better start than before). I am a new Wikipedia editor, but I have a lot of experience with laser hair removal because of my job. I would appreciate it if the person who did these reverse changes could respond to this post. In general, I think it would be appreciated if new members would be helped in a way that if some changes / edits are not accepted by much more experienced editors, it would be great if we could receive a few lines as well... The risks part of the page definitely needs an update as currently it is completely unhelpful to readers; the other two changes are pretty straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More Specific on "Long Term"??

Just about everyone reading this article has a question that goes unanswered, and that is: "Exactly how long will the effects of laser hair removal last?" This is not answered. Can anyone shed light on this? I know results vary, but people want to know what is typical (medians, averages, standard deviations, etc.) and that is a very important pieces of information to have in this article if it is known and available. The article is very vague when stating "long term"... that could mean 2 months, 2 years, or 2 decades for all I know. 99.65.198.152 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)jj—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.198.152 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It lasts forever once a hair is treated it will never grow back. Your body may produce new hair due to horomones but it's not the hair that was treated coming back, it's NEW growth which would occur whether you had laser done or not. Had you not, then you'd just have even more hair. It's like an 18 year old doing laser on his chest. When he's 28 he'll probably have more hair there since the body is still producing hair. Whether he did laser at 18 or not has nothing to do with that hair at 28. The difference is that there will be less at 28.

Side Effects & Risks link replaced and deleted

You can stop your linkspamming anytime. Multiple editors have reverted you, get the hint. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the talkpage of the article, not individual users. Next reversion against consensus gets you reported, understand? The article, not my talkpage, not other users' talkpages. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the kind reminder. My life is not all about editing WP, so had no idea about where to send, what message... understand??? First of all I suggest, that before you threaten anyone with reporting, how about you try communicating with other contributors like you would do at i.e. a workplace, and not like a in a barn. Here is my previous Re:

Please review article history more in-depth before calling edit linkspamming. The link in question points to a trusted health site and has been part of the article for a significant time; it is the original resource of the Side Effects & Risks section of the article where I took the information from. Please see long time history for further details. The link has been removed on 18:48, 13 February 2010 by an anonym user (119.152.117.99), and been replaced several times by a linkspammer Tomson84 (all this user does is generates external links to a spam site called laserhairremovaltreatment.org). Please see my previous contributions to the article before calling my work linkspamming. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you.

The link in question points to a page where the first few sentences of the Side Effects & Risks section are summarized from. I would appreciate it if I could receive a respond to this post; I am trying to learn Wikipedia here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(I saw this dispute listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion but my post isn't one.) I think Adamos68 might find it helpful to read the Wikipedia:External links guideline. – Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the guide to me; I've already read this article and I didn't (and still don't) have a feeling that my contribution is violating WP guidelines... Will read again. Now, obviously I know that this doesn't mean that I am correct; I understand that there are way more experienced contributors out there, so I am very interested to see other editor opinions. (FYI: for brief explanation of link in question please see 3rd paragraph of new removals section above. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamos68 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion We are, I take it from the above and from the page history, referring to this link. While the link is to a site with a promotional tone, it is not advertising any particular clinic or business, so it doesn't seem to me to be spam. If you're actually in dispute about some other link, please clarify!

Incidentally, the standard here is not WP:External links, since that specifically does not apply to inline citations (see third paragraph), which is what is being discussed here. The standard would instead be WP:CITESPAM. Also, Adamos, could you please sign your comments on this page (or any Talk pages, for that matter) by typing ~~~~ at the end. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out. I agree with your point of view that the link is pointing to a site with a promotional tone, however still it is not a spam site, nor a clinic, etc. I also believe that it is a page containing valuable information related to the Risks and Side Effects section of the article - that's why I added it several months ago when creating this section of the article. I never spammed WP and I still do not consider my contribution any kind of spam. As I said before, if other editors decide that it is actually against WP rules, I will definitely not be against consensus. Adamos68 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

IPL hair removal

Are the following sentances (abstracted 31MAR10, 2145hrs) an attempt to associate IPL with LASER hair removal methods ? ...

• Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) epilators, though technically not a laser, use xenon flash lamps that emit full spectrum light. Laser and light-based methods, sometimes called phototricholysis or photoepilation, are now most commonly referred to collectively as "laser hair removal".

...if so, it is misleading and incorrect, especially given that Intense Pulsed Light has its own article. Also, most citation/refs are made to Lasers. They are completely different technologies, although aiming at the same target. Intense Pulsed Light could be added to the 'See Also' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.125.70 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laser hair removal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009040452/http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm to http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)