Another great article in the Daily Fail

[syncage]

I found the research... it has been published in a peer review journal but honestly it is some of the most shoddy 'research' I have ever seen..

Their 'findings' are based on 5 (yes a whole five!) women who presented with nail complaints - it wasn't a random sample these were people who came to the university as they had problems!!

The removal process was described as "soaking in acetone for 10-15 mins" or "the polish was manually peeled off"

Well neither of these are the correct procedure for shellac so it's no wonder some damage was observed...

and they even say they have no idea if the changes observed in the nails were down to the gel polish or the removal process.

link here... it's a short read!
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/damage-from-gel-polish-article.pdf

 

[NancySyd]

So, the article is saying that laboratory experiments have been carried out and that there is actual scientific evidence of nail thinning following shellac application/removal. I know we are all in the industry and would love for Shellac and similar products to cause no damage to the nails as we are told by the manufacturers, but we cant pick and choose which bits of evidence we want to believe in, and if certain scientists are claiming they have actual PROOF that these treatments thin the nails then I for one would like more information about that particular bit of research rather than just fobbing it off as rubbish because its not convenient to me for that to be true.

There are so many variables here. It depends how the product was applied, and how it was removed for a start. If it was done wrong then of course there will be thinning, but I would certainly like to know more about the research.

Dont get me wrong I love CND/S2 and I love Shellac, but of course the manufacturers/distributors of a product are going to tell you its an amazing product, that's their job. And as far as personal testimonials are concerned regarding customers having stronger healthier nails after shellac treatments, that's not something you can know for sure. You cannot tell with the naked eye and without relevant medical qualifications what the actual state of the nail is, it might seem stronger and healthier to you but that might not be the case. Think about how many times we say "You have to use the right lamp to cure. If you use the wrong lamp your product may look really good and may look fully cured but it might not be". Same applies with the health of the nail, it may look fine, but you cant tell whats going on underneath the surface of it.

I'm not saying Shellac causes damage, I really hope this research is flawed, all I'm saying is that its naive to reject a claim to proof of something without questioning it just because its inconvenient for us if something does turn out to be true.

'chelle,

I agree that we have to live or die by the science. But it has to be good science - double blind, repeatable, research. That's why we put our faith in people like Doug Schoon and Jim McConnell even though they work within the industry, they have a reputation for integrity and they seek independent investigation for their research.

I've worked at a university long enough to know that not all "research" is good research. I can spot bad research a mile away, and this did not sound right to me. So, I looked up the research and here is the abstract below. In this case, there were no laboratory experiments, just measurements before and after. Remember that the hysteria about UV nail lamps causing skin cancer? In that case the sample size was two, this one isn't much better. Take a look - five subjects, 5, and it appears that one of them is the PI - conflict of interest much?! Furthermore, the damage was caused by "removal with acetone and manual peeling." So some of the subjects were soaking in acetone and peeling their gel manicure off! We already know and make clear that improper application, maintenance and/or removal can cause damage; we know that bad techs can do damage regardless of the products used. So it does not appear that this "research" adds any new knowledge to the field - other than a vague warning to dermatologists to advise their patients of the "potential damages" of gel polish "particularly those patients with existing nail pathologies." Well, duh. This isn't good research; it's barely anecdotal. While this may call for additional research with proper research methodology, it is not something that should be the basis for decision-making.

This changes nothing. Properly applied, maintained and removed gel polishes do not damage the nails.

Nail damage from gel polish manicure. [J Cosmet Dermatol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/damage-from-gel-polish-article.pdf

 

[NancySyd]

I found the research... it has been published in a peer review journal but honestly it is some of the most shoddy 'research' I have ever seen..

Their 'findings' are based on 5 (yes a whole five!) women who presented with nail complaints - it wasn't a random sample these were people who came to the university as they had problems!!

The removal process was described as "soaking in acetone for 10-15 mins" or "the polish was manually peeled off"

Well neither of these are the correct procedure for shellac so it's no wonder some damage was observed...

and they even say they have no idea if the changes observed in the nails were down to the gel polish or the removal process.

link here... it's a short read!
http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/damage-from-gel-polish-article.pdf

You beat me to it!!

 

[shortshadylady]

Can a link to this alleged 'research' be posted in the comments section of the Daily Fail or is that not permitted do we know?

 

['chelle]

'chelle,

I agree that we have to live or die by the science. But it has to be good science - double blind, repeatable, research. That's why we put our faith in people like Doug Schoon and Jim McConnell even though they work within the industry, they have a reputation for integrity and they seek independent investigation for their research.

I've worked at a university long enough to know that not all "research" is good research. I can spot bad research a mile away, and this did not sound right to me. So, I looked up the research and here is the abstract below. In this case, there were no laboratory experiments, just measurements before and after. Remember that the hysteria about UV nail lamps causing skin cancer? In that case the sample size was two, this one isn't much better. Take a look - five subjects, 5, and it appears that one of them is the PI - conflict of interest much?! Furthermore, the damage was caused by "removal with acetone and manual peeling." So some of the subjects were soaking in acetone and peeling their gal manicure off! We already know and make clear that improper application, maintenance and/or removal can cause damage; we know that bad techs can do damage regardless of the products used. So it does not appear that this "research" adds any new knowledge to the field - other than a vague warning to dermatologists to advise their patients of the "potential damages" of gel polish "particularly those patients with existing nail pathologies." Well, duh. This isn't good research; it's barely anecdotal. While this may call for additional research with proper research methodology, it is not something that should be the basis for decision-making.

This changes nothing. Properly applied, maintained and removed gel polishes do not damage the nails.

Nail damage from gel polish manicure. [J Cosmet Dermatol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/damage-from-gel-polish-article.pdf

Well that explains it!! I agree that it looks like really poorly carried out research when you go into more detail with it, I wasnt suggesting that we just take their word for it that the research was viable, only that we shouldnt dismiss the claims without getting some more information about the research. To be honest now that I've seen the details I dont know how they've got the nerve to call it research!!

 

[lila22]

Can a link to this alleged 'research' be posted in the comments section of the Daily Fail or is that not permitted do we know?

You could it will probs be taken off though x

 

[Jocie]

I just replied saying my clients have never seen there nails in better condition.
The people who have had no training are giving it a bad name!
Anyway the proof is in the pudding and my clients are over the moon with the condition of there nails so no complaints there! X

I completely agree, the amount of people who come in saying
"my nails have never been this long and healthy!"

Its crazy because I never ever would have thought until I started putting it,on myself that it was true! Its the people who "peel, drill, and soak the whole hand in acetone" that give these wonderful products a bad name. Its the exact same with people who over file or rip off gel nails then say "those fake nails wrecked my nails. People are ignorante.

 

[sleepingbeauty]

Someone has just posted this following comment, I am guessing it a wind up!

i manicure my own nails with shellac on a regular basis and you can remove them without acetone. Take a metal nail file with a pointy end and starting at the base of the shellac (near the cuticle) gently pick at the edge until you can push the nail file between the shellac and your nail and peel off. Takes me around 20 minutes to remove the shellac and my nails underneath are in fantastic condition, much better than before i began using the shellac. Shellac is real easy to do yourself and everything you need is available on internet auction sites quite cheaply. Ive given myself hundreds of pounds worth of shellac nails for a few pounds and never had a split nail or a chip in my polish since
- me, here and there, United Kingdom, 10/9/2012 10:50

​

Sad thing is I actually believe this to be a genuine comment & not a wind up.... Shocking but true !