An electric tweezer scam that branched out into “transdermal electrolysis” with an electrified Q-Tip. An earlier version of this company was owned by Ruth Ellen Morris and is discussed on the 
original AHRS page. It is currently owned by Sharon Spencer.
American Hair Removal Sytstem should be avoided by all consumers.
Company contact information
Domain listed through anonymizer via Yahoo and Melbourne IT
Website designer
Other business listed to Lonny Hunt:
Deck The House
302 Candlewyck Dr, Kalamazoo, MI 49001
269-344-8200The Claims Forum and Medi-Claims
P.O. Box 189 Mattawan, MI 49071
Available devices
Notes
Although this device has been cleared by FDA, there is considerable controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the device. For details, see my electric tweezer petition to FDA.
—-
This company was at one point in operation under Ruth Ellen Morris.
On 1/14/02 8:25 PM, Walter Simmons at douglen@duplinnet.com wrote:
I gather from your web site that you truly feel you are helping the greater public and for that I commend you. However, there are many facts that are either untrue or falsely reported on your part. One in question is the American Hair Removal system. True it was originated by Lee Cole (a very dubious character indeed as we have had personal contact with him in the past) but he did not change his company name several times for deceitful reasons as you have reported. Mr. Cole lost his company in a court battle with another partner of which you have failed to recognize in your report. This partner is still manufacturing the American Hair Removal system with a good bit of success. Mr. Cole, knowing the success of the equipment, attempted to reproduce it under a different name. Again he was sued and lost. Not one to give up on a good thing, he began his design of the similar Phaser equipment which has no FDA input what so ever.
We have been state educated and trained in the electrolysis field for many years ( something I suggest you do in order to get technical facts correct instead of reading research as I see from your report). We resent being called scam artists as our main concern is to our client’s well being and the results for which they pay good money to achieve. As You, we were very skeptical of the transdermal system having used the needle system for years. Unlike your account we decided that the only way to responsibly disclaim the equipment was to purchase one and prove it unworthy. To our total surprise two years later, the results were as good, and in some cases better than the old needle technique. Sorry to rain on your parade, but we can back up our efforts with many happy and satisfied clients’ testimony.
I will dispute most of your reported quack claims. First, it is called in the industry by true professionals, permaninant hair reduction. It is physically impossible to achieve 100% hair removal with any method. Second, transdermal is virtually painless. As each person’s tolerance level is different, so will each person feel different levels of current with the treatment but by all means not pain. Third, we operate a clinic and have an abundance of proof from successful results achieved. Forth, nowhere will you find the company claim the hair can conduct energy. You have falsely reported that the hair is a poor conductor of electricity. This is incorrect. Hair is a non-conductor of electricity. Also, the treatment is extremely more involved than smearing gel on the skin and zapping it with a swab. Something you would know if you did a true objective study on the subject. Even with the needle technique, it is not the current that kills the root but the lye created by the skin as a result of the galvanic current placement. And again plucking is painful and not even temporary as the hair immediately begins a re-growth cycle. (From your web site, it sounds as if Lee Cole ticked you off too). Last, the equipment sold as home use is a scam. It takes much more power to effectively kill a hair root than is safe to sell to the general public. Not everyone will get the same results as you correctly stated because of a number of causes from smoking to hormones.
All I would ask is that you do a deeper study on the technique and history by maybe contacting Ruth Ellen Morris ( the owner of American Hair Removal System, Inc.) and getting a more in-depth perspective. That is if you truly are a consumer activist and not a scam writer with a grudge. I too am a writer but do not ask for free donations to promote my agenda whether right or wrong. If I feel strongly enough to peruse a cause, I pay my own way to create the appearance a sincerity.
Below is my response:
Hi Mr. Simmons–
Thanks for taking the time to contact me. As you note, I am working to educate people about the various types of hair removal out there. I was not aware of the court cases involving ownership of AHRS. I am extremely interested in setting the record straight about American Hair Removal Systems’ history. I have found that for legal reasons, it is best for all parties involved to correspond in writing when dealing with matters even tangentially related to Lee Cole.
I would like to add your corrected information as soon as possible. Obviously, I need to verify everything. Can you tell me the dates, locations, and numbers of the court cases which Ms. Morris won against Mr. Cole?
I would also be interested in the name and location of the clinic where this procedure is being performed, and the contact information for satisfied consumers. I know it can be difficult to find consumers willing to discuss their hair removal experiences publicly, but if you have any information, I’d love to have it.My information about hair conductivity addresses claims made by Mr. Cole in his FDA submission. I am not aware of recent AHRS promotional material by Ms. Morris. To be honest, until I got your letter, I thought AHRS was no longer operational. I would be happy to discuss hair conductivity in greater length, based on studies I’ve read by Feughelman, et al.
The term “permanent hair removal” has a vexing history, as you note. Both electrolysis equipment and the original AHRS electric tweezer were cleared to make claims of “permanent hair removal,” which is why I discuss the term. The current Rejuvenu site uses the term “permanent hair removal,” even though FDA has told them not to. As I note in my section on the use of the word permanent, the term as used in the industry is often different than the way consumers might use it. I agree that permanent hair reduction is a better term.
I very much look forward to a continuing correspondence on this matter. Like you, I am very interested in setting the record straight about Ms. Morris and her company. Please forward this to Ms. Morris and have her contact me. I prefer email, but I can provide a ground mail address as well. Again, I appreciate your help!
Andrea James
Contact information
Available devices
Notes
Although this device has been cleared by FDA, there is considerable controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the device. For details, see my electric tweezer petition to FDA.