Dr. Feller,

I still don't understand some of the posts that you make!

You claim that I'm lying when I post scientific studies backing up my claims, however, "none" of your opinions are backed with scientific studies. And then in parts of your thread you state, "But where in the world are the LLLT proponents to educate me?"

For example you previously posted this comment in this thread, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen." This statement is obviously false and I've tried to explain the process through studies and not by opinion but your only answer to this process is that it's "junk science." Here's just one such example to show a basic flowchart of lllt in general to help with your understanding http://www.laserdarmani.com/news.php


And once again, there is no need to, "get a physicist to come on here" as all this information is readily available through the studies that are posted on the internet.

For example, in this thread you said, "No, it wouldn't matter if you could deliver laser light directly to the follicles even if you could. We are NOT plants!" I really don't know where to start with this statement as there are over 1500 studies showing that photo bio-stimulation does take place. I posted links with over 600 studies on the other forum we discussed earlier.

You've also implied that you can't get laser light to your hair follicles to get this photo bio-stimulation to take place and I disagree. I'll just site another link for you to read to help with your understanding,
"The light gets weaker and weaker the further from the surface it penetrates. There is, however, a limit at which the light intensity is so low that no biological effect of the light can be registered. This limit, where the effect ceases, is called the greatest active depth. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this depth is also contingent on tissue type, pigmentation, and dirt on the skin. It is worth noting that laser light can even penetrate bone (as well as it can penetrate muscle tissue). Fat tissue is more transparent than muscle tissue.
For example: a HeNe laser with a power output of 3.5 mW has a greatest active depth of 6-8 mm depending on the type of tissue involved. A HeNe laser with an output of 7 mW has a greatest active depth of 8-10 mm. A GaAlAs probe of some strength has a penetration of 35 mm with a 55 mm lateral spread. A GaAs laser has a greatest active depth of between 20 and 30 mm (sometimes down to 40-50 mm), depending on its peak pulse output (around a thousand times greater than its average power output). If you are working in direct contact with the skin, and press the probe against the skin, then the greatest active depth will be achieved."http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm#How%20deep%20into%20the%20tissue%20can

But whenever anyone posts anything that contradicts your statement you comment, "The physics in the videos is 100% solid and need no "backing up"" or " "I have already said that my video demonstration is beyond interpretation and that it speaks for itself."

As for your statement you've made in the past that where it appears you refute all these scientific studies by stating that this can't possibly take place and, "If you want to convince me that LLLT is for real ... simply show me consistent photos of cosmetically signfiicant benefits derived from LLLT."

However, another forum member showed you dozens and dozens of pictures that are, "cosmetically significant benefits" including my own, and just on that one thread there are 8 people that have given their testimonials that they happy with their results! I'm not sure why all our testimonials and pictures are discounted. If those testimonials and/or pictures aren't enough, I would recommend that you walk into the closest laser clinic by you, and ask the customers how they feel they have benefited. If you don't want to go down to the laser clinic then feel free to read this survey of 375 people.

"http://www.sunetics.com/default.aspx?ctxt=clinicalstudies
The 2005 Clinical Client Survey of 375 people participating in the Sunetics Laser Hair Therapy program showed that:
78% had an appearance of Thicker hair
76% had an appearance of Fuller Hair
64% had an appearance of Shinier Hair
86% had an appearance of Healthier Hair
85% Perceived that their hair looked better
84% were Pleased with the program"



As for your comments earlier in the thread on HLH I can assure you I am 100% "grass roots" as you describe. If you read my other posts about 6 months ago, you'll notice where I was asking all sorts of questions on how to build my own laser device. So you'll clearly see that I am "grass roots."

If you're wondering why I support lllt I would like to remind you that I 100% believe in helping other people in their battle to fight hair loss or than just telling people to get a hair transplant. I've found a product that works for me that happens to have a "very" high success rate where dozens and dozens of people on another forum are also happy with the results too!

All I say is that anyone can build their own laser hood/helmet for around $250 that has the potential to rival clinical laser devices, IMO, which people have been spending thousands and thousands of dollars per year on.

And again, I wanted to say it again as I feel it is very important to say; in the past I have used a laser comb and I received disappointing results when compared next to my 201 laser device. The reason for it, in my opinion, is because you need the proper 3 - 6 joules for the proper photo bio-stimulation to take place. With a laser comb that has a handful of laser diodes, you'll be brushing your hair for a "very" long time to get that 3 - 6 joules.

Thank You,

jdp710

It's interesting to see such passionate, heated and in depth discussion here about LLLT. While I definitely do agree with Dr. Feller for the most part that LLLT for hair regrowth is a bunch of BS, I don't quite understand such a progressive and proactive stance against it. As far as I've seen LLLT for hair regrowth has never caused any one physical harm or damage. It's not like laser hair removal or skin rejuvination treatments which can and do cause trauma if done wrong or treated by inexperience operators.

I do think that the ball is definitely in the LLLT Industry's court to show some serious scientific studies to prove the effectiveness of LLLT (to date they have NOT). I also don't like the claims that they make about hair regrowth, but in the end it's really more of a buyer beware type of topic. Unless I see evidence of damage caused by LLLT then the only thing being hurt is the gullable persons pocket book.

I do like Dr. Fellers tenacity about calling BS about the LLLT industry, but I think that the talented HT surgeons such as Dr. Feller and many others on here would be doing hair loss sufferers looking for a solution a much greater service by proactively and aggresively trying to weed out the bad HT surgeons out there in the HT industry who do cause harm and damage to peoples lives (same goes for the cosmetic surgery industry in general). After all these are the Dr's seeing and repairing damage by unqualified, unexperienced or untalented ht surgeons. Is it taboo for the good HT doctors to go point out their peers who are crappy HT doctors.

Just my 2 cents!

Dear JDP

Thank you for joining the discussion.
I am delighted to see some one with such a deep insight into lasers and still on the same side of the fence as I am.
I am sure with the passage of time science will prove US right, I believe in it.

Dear Flyby

I appreciate your stance that LLLT should be given some chance.
I always thought "innocent till proven guilty"

So I think if that holds true then the other side should come back with a clinical study showing that LLLT did not improve or delayed the hair loss.

We must understand one thing, "If LLLT by it self even reduce the hair loss and patients come back with a comment that I have seen reduction in my hair loss is as good as a positive effect."

So we are not looking only towards the hair growth but also towards the reduction in hair loss.

Just like with hair removal we started with "hair Removal' option to now what we call " Hair Reduction"

Lets be open about the LLLT and wait rather than rejecting it all together.

I feel that Dr Feller is over reacting to LLLT. I respect his point of view but I would give a chance to this baby to grow before condeming it to death.

__________________
---

I am a medical advisor to Lexington International and Hairmax. What ever I say is my personal opinion.

Dr. Mohmand is recommended on the Hair Transplant Network

Dr Mohmand,
Your reference to infrared hair growth quackary does not support your position that red lasers work. In fact, the Infrared hair growth camp is the mortal enemy of the Red Laser camp.
I know you want us to believe they are more or less the same thing. But let's see what the Infrared camp thinks of the Red Laser camp in their own words, shall we:

This is from the Versacchi corporation. Makers of Hairbeam Infrared brush:
Not convinced? Well, here is a video from Hairbeam that trounces Red laser therapy in favor of their Infrared form of quackary:
Video: Red lasers trashed by the Infrared camp

The most interesting page on the Hairbeam website is the "Before and After Pic" menu selection. I've included the link here:

Hairbeam Infrared brush "Before and After Pic" menu selection

Don't worry folks. There's nothing wrong with your computer or browser. There ARE NO PHOTOS in the before/after page. Quite a bit of slick text explaining why they don't have photos, but no photos to be sure. They must really think their customers are idiots.

__________________
Feller Medical, PC
Great Neck, NY

Dr. Alan Feller is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

Providing Hair Transplants and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Treatments

Well I'll certainly say that since jdp710 joined the discussion, the debate got more interesting.

JDP,

Welcome to our discussion forum and thank you for sharing information and cited studies that support laser therapy. I'd encourage you also to add compelling before/after photos of laser therapy patients on this forum as well for further discussion. Members of another forum are also welcome to join and share their stories, testimonies, etc.

The discussion on this forum to date regarding laser therapy has been very one sided. It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story to give members and guests a more balanced discussion in order to help members draw educated conclusions.

Best wishes,

Bill

__________________
Managing Publisher of the Hair Transplant Network, the Hair Loss Learning Center, the Hair Loss Q&A Blog and the Hair Loss Forum and Social Community

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Subscribe to our Newsletters | How We Recommend Physicians

-----

To learn about how I restored my hair, view my my hair loss website.

Remember, true beauty radiates from within, not from the skin.

I am not a medical professional and my words should not be taken as medical advice. All opinions and views shared are my own.

I posted this on the other forum that discounts Dr. Feller's science. I figure some of you would be interested as well so I'll post the information here as well. Here's the link to the other forum. http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?cati...id=81568&STARTPAGE=1



Dr. Feller,

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT? You are saying LLLT doesn't work because one company says that 940 nm light is more effective than 650 nm light. While the other company says they that, no, 650 nm light is more effective than 940 nm light.

I've already explained this to you before that it's common practice for one maker to use 940 nm light over 650 nm light. If you look at this, you'll see that 3 out of the 7 common commercially available clinical laser devices use 940 nm light
http://www.konftec.com/html/Compare/...comparison.htm

DR. FELLER, THEY BOTH CREATE A PHOTOBIOSTIMULATION/PHOTOBIOLODULATION EFFECT!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE EFFICACY OF LLLT?!?!

And Dr. Feller, I keep asking questions but you never answer them directly. Instead, you keep changing the subject to something unrelated. Let's please keep this discussion of LLLT efficacy on track!

Dr. Feller,

You posted this earlier, "HairBeam uses 5 infra-red LED lasers plus 2 LED's. Infra-red can't be seen by the human eye . but it's far more energetic than the visible red light lasers other's may use. In fact ordinary visible red-light lasers don't do much good at all in stimulating hair growth." and said this on your other thread you created and then said in response to "Your reference to infrared hair growth quackary does not support your position that red lasers work."

Please read this study and please tell me why neither infrared or near infrared laser light does not work?!?!

Visible red wavelengths (~620-690 nanometers) - shallow penetration - superficial tissue treatment, eg. wound healing, superficial APs, acne, etc.;

Infra-red wavelengths (~760-1260 nanometers) - deeper penetration - deeper tissue treatment, eg. musculoskeletal injuries, sports therapy, deeper APs and myofascial TPs, also wound healing,etc;
http://www.spectramedics.com/llltinfo.htm

"The 670 and 692 visible lasers caused a higher improvment in cell proliferation that the infrared lasers. ... It also confirms that visible red is the best wavelength for suferficial wound healing."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_MHGinqgAYYJ:www.l...&ct=clnk&cd=12 &gl=us

And I'll go ahead and make a second post for you to get back on track of the debate!

You said, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen."

And I've responded with multiple studies showing this opinion to be wrong. It's called photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation! Here's another study to disprove your "opinion."

"The present study supports the hypothesis that one mechanism for the photobiostimulation effect after irradiation at 660 nm is the reaction of light with hemoglobin, resulting in oxygen radical production." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

Also you said, " As my video clearly demonstrates, the moment the laser strikes the skin it instantly looses it's laser properties and from that point on acts like regular monochromatic light coming from a standard LED."

This statement again is false. Please read this:

"Q: Does the coherence of the laser light disappear when entering the tissue?

A: No. The length of coherence, though, is shortened. Through interference between laser rays in the tissue, very small "islands" of more intense light, called speckles occur. These speckles will be created as deep as the light reaches in the tissue and within a speckle volume, the light is partially polarized. It is easy to show that speckles are formed rather deep down in tissue and the existence of real speckles prove that the light is coherent." http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm


And I've posted this before but I'll post it again as YOU STILL NEVER ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!
"You've also implied that you can't get laser light to your hair follicles and I disagree. I'll just site another link for you to read to help with your understanding,
"The light gets weaker and weaker the further from the surface it penetrates. There is, however, a limit at which the light intensity is so low that no biological effect of the light can be registered. This limit, where the effect ceases, is called the greatest active depth. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this depth is also contingent on tissue type, pigmentation, and dirt on the skin. It is worth noting that laser light can even penetrate bone (as well as it can penetrate muscle tissue). Fat tissue is more transparent than muscle tissue.
For example: a HeNe laser with a power output of 3.5 mW has a greatest active depth of 6-8 mm depending on the type of tissue involved. A HeNe laser with an output of 7 mW has a greatest active depth of 8-10 mm. A GaAlAs probe of some strength has a penetration of 35 mm with a 55 mm lateral spread. A GaAs laser has a greatest active depth of between 20 and 30 mm (sometimes down to 40-50 mm), depending on its peak pulse output (around a thousand times greater than its average power output). If you are working in direct contact with the skin, and press the probe against the skin, then the greatest active depth will be achieved."http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm#How%20deep%20into%20the%20tissue%20can

Dr. Feller please explain why you still believe your prior statements are still valid!?!?

Hello Bill ,

Thank you for allowing me to be here. I went ahead and posted this on the other forum but I figure it would also help in the understanding of LLLT

"As far as any controversy surrounding lllt please keep in mind that in the beginning there were laser clinics that charged thousands of dollars a year that showed significant improvement for hair loss. Then companies decided, hey, lets see if we can get in on the action and laser combs were created in the thinking that, "well, maybe less diodes will bring the cost down for the average person to afford it while still giving results." Unfortunately, that's where lllt for hair loss took a nose dive!!! Their thinking proved wrong and laser combs started to earn the reputation as a scam, in my opinion. The reason why laser combs don't work for the vast majority (in my opinion speaking as a former laser comb user) is because you need around 3 - 6 joules for a bio-stimulatory effect to dramatically affect hair loss. With laser combs, you'll be brushing your hair for a very long time to get that 3 - 6 joules. So fast forward to today. You still have laser clinics that are charging thousands of dollars a year with laser customers noticing an 78% improvement in the thickness of their hair ... see sunetics survey earlier in the thread. But now, due to China and the lower cost of laser diodes you can now get laser diodes "very" cheap. You can now build a device for $250 that rivals clinical lasers. The only problem is the average consumer still sees lllt as a scam, IMO, due to the laser brushes that hit the market. The average person on these boards just has not realized that they can build there own clinical laser device for just a few hundred bucks! And then you have people like Dr. Feller who are stuck in the old ways of laser brushes who just don't understand lllt and make claims that lllt doesn't work, WHEN THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED IT THEMSELVES! And again, don't take my word for how well lllt works. Go to a laser clinic. Talk to the customers. Even ask how it compares to rogaine/propecia."

And to help bring this forum up to speed, these are the commonly used laser clinical devices that have been getting very good results that I referred to in the above paragraph. http://www.konftec.com/html/Compare/...comparison.htm

And I know I've said it before but I believe it's very important for me to say again. I don't work for a hair loss company or laser device company. I will in no way benefit if someone uses or buys lasers.

The reason why it's important for me to state that is because Dr. Feller accusations that I'm not "grass roots." You see, I got my start into building my own laser device that has the equivalent of 201 diodes because I've heard positive comments on the internet about LLLT. I'm not talking about laser combs as they are too underpowered in my opinion to 3 - 6 joules which is the power commonly cited to get the best results. I will post the calculation in another post so that I don't muddy the waters of this post. And if anyone is curious, yes, I have tried a laser brush before with little results when compared to my homemade laser device that I built.

As for posting pictures on the internet I don't work for a laser clinic so I don't have access to other people's photographs. All I can do is post my own photographs. One very important thing to keep in mind with LLLT is the ability to thicken your existing hairs and stop hair loss. I'm not saying everyone is going to get results, but what I am saying is that, in my opinion, when getting the proper joules and wavelength, you'll have a very good chance of it. I also base this opinion from talking to dozens of other forum members on a completely unrelated forum than the one I cited earlier
and these other people have built or bought their own laser device or used a clinical laser device in the past several of which I have seen their own before and after photos.

I should also say that pictures will have an incredibly hard time capturing this thickness without someone like Dr. Feller crying foul on every single photo that has been posted before. If you go to the thread where this debate is also occuring you'll see before and after pictures which are from laser clinics.

But again, don't take my word for it. And don't even take other people's words for it either. What I say is just go to your local laser clinic and talk to the customers. I'm sure they will be able to show you their before pictures too.

Here is a website to help anyone that wants information on how to build their own. www. overmachogrande.com

Here is the calculation I talked about earlier to get the necessary joules. It is very long. And again, from studies that have been cited before you need roughly 3 - 6 joules which is what the laser clinics shoot for.
-----------------------------------------------

"Calculating Laser and Treatment Parameters

Laser diodes are generally operated at or below the laser diode manufacturer's recommended maximum optical output power rating of, say, 100mW, to ensure maximum stability and long diode life. It is this rating which is usually used to state the output power of a laser therapy unit. It is necessary, for accurate dosage control, to know the actual optical output power emitted from the laser probe at the aperture. Check with the manufacturer or use an output power meter suitable for the wavelength of the laser in question.

Laser Therapy devices are generally specified in terms of the average output power (milliwatts) of the laser diode, and the wavelength (nanometres) of light they emit. This is necessary information, but not enough with which to accurately define the parameters of the laser system. To do this, one must also know the area of the laser beam (cm2) at the treatment surface (usually the tip of the handpiece when in contact with the skin).

If the output power (mW) and beam area (cm2) are known, it is a reasonably straight-forward exercise to calculate the remaining parameters which allow the precise dosage measurement and delivery.

The output power of a laser, measured in milliwatts, refers to the number of photons emitted at the particular wavelength of the laser diode.

Power Density measures the potential thermal effect of those photons at the treatment area. It is a function of Laser Output Power and Beam area, and is calculated as:

1) Power Density (W/cm2) = Laser Output Power (W)
Beam area (cm2)



Beam area can be calculated by either:

2) Beam Area (cm2) = Diameter(cm)2 x 0.7854

or: Beam Area (cm2) = Pi x Radius(cm)2



The total photonic energy delivered into the tissue by a laser diode operating at a particular output power over a certain period is measured in Joules, and is calculated as follows:

3) Energy (Joules) = Laser Output Power (Watts) x Time (Secs)



It is important to know the distribution of the total energy over the treatment area, in order to accurately measure dosage. This distribution is measured as Energy Density (Joules/cm2). "For a given wavelength of light, energy density is the most important factor in determining the tissue reaction"(Baxter, 1994). Energy Density is a function of Power Density and Time in seconds, and is calculated as:

4) Energy Density (Joule/cm2) = Laser Output Power (Watts) x Time (Secs)
Beam Area (cm2)

OR: Energy Density (Joule/cm2) = Power Density (W/cm2) x Time (Secs)



To calculate the treatment time for a particular dosage, you will need to know either the Energy Density (J/cm2) or Energy (J), as well as the Output Power (mW), and Beam Area (cm2). First, calculate the Output Power Density (mW/cm2) as per Equation 1, then:

5) Treatment Time (Seconds) = Energy Density (Joules/cm2)
Output Power Density (W/cm2)

or: Treatment Time (Seconds) = Energy (Joules)
Laser Output Power (Watts)



Finally:

Laser Output Power (Watts) = Laser Output Power (mW)
1000 "
http://www.spectramedics.com/llltinfo.htm

JDP,
I know you are trying, but you're just not getting it.

LLLT skeptics don't blindly accept your the false premise you use to support your flawed theories. Sorry, but we won't let you rig the debate by accepting "photobiostimulation" as a given.

LLLT skeptics reject the junk-science of "photobiosimulation". We are not plants! Why is that so hard for a lay public to understand?

Even if for argument sake we LLLT skeptics accepted "photobiostimulation" as valid, the benefits demonstrated in terms of better and quicker healing and "energizing" cells does not lend itself to affecting male pattern genetic balding. This was an incredible over-reach on the part of the LLLT industry and I and other skeptics are not buying it.

MPB is a function of genetic programming, NOT loss of energy or some mystical "internal trauma" that the magical energy from a laser is going to fix.
The cells in the follicle begin to kill themselves through the process of apoptosis which is programmed within the cell and is executed when DHT triggers a receptor on the cell.

There is no room here for photobiostimulation in this well established mechanism.

All LLLT advocates have are anicdotal evidence and a whole lot of marketing hype.

There are over 1,900 views on the thread on HLH and STILL the rest of you LLLT advocates fail to make your case in demonstrable photo presentations-the standard of proof to any rational patient or customer.

__________________
Feller Medical, PC
Great Neck, NY

Dr. Alan Feller is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

Providing Hair Transplants and Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Treatments

Dr. Feller,

I have clearly shown that laser light doesn't not lose it's properties once it strikes your skin!!!

I have also clearly shown that laser light will reach your hair follicles!!!

This clearly refutes your "video" that this cannot take place.

Dr. Feller, go back and reread what I have posted. Tell me why you still stand by your decision with this overwhelming
evidence!?!?

And again Dr. Feller you said, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen."

And I've responded with multiple studies showing this opinion to be wrong. It's called photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation! Here's another study to disprove your "opinion." On my my next thread I will show just a small sample of the 1500 studies on photobiostimulation and quite a lot of the studies are double blind too!

"The present study supports the hypothesis that one mechanism for the photobiostimulation effect after irradiation at 660 nm is the reaction of light with hemoglobin, resulting in oxygen radical production." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

And once again, I have posted MY photo's and you still dismiss them on the other thread saying "no photos from posters who ACTUALLY received LLLT benefits THEMSELVES." Please explain why you have said this?


AND AGAIN, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS?!?!