Coalition Surgeons

Bill - Managing Publisher · #81 **Top** 09-26-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

I wonder if the advocates of LLLT are cognizent of this thread; and, if so, I wonder what their reactions are, in addition to their lack of participation.

Our forum community is largely found on the web and has high credibility, thus extremely influential. This in itself is why legal action has been brought against its Publisher for continually fighting for the rights of the hair loss patient.

I would suspect that a number of laser therapy advocates are aware of this thread. If anything, I'd like to see them get involved and offer the photo evidence this community is demanding.

Best wishes,

Bill

Dr M Humayun Mohmand · #82 **Top** 09-27-2008, 01:03 AM

Dear Dr Feller

I agre with you.
1) The study really did not have a control group.
2) It did not address the mode of action of LLLT.
3) Yes there is no statistical difference between the three groups
4) the tatooing may have case the inflamation etc

Th paper does not carry as much weght as you would like it to be, I agree

FACTS

1) Its a small study showing that laser can or might work, so more input and work needs to be done rather than stopping the work at all.

2) The three groups had no statistical difference between the growth, means all three gruops had same amount of growth or imprvement if we want to put that way. One group is shurely being treated by LLLT only, so its at par with Minoxidil group and Minoxidil and LLLT group. This clearly show that if Minxidil can be prescribed so can LLLT. Minoxidil cost is 25US$ per month x 12 = 300 US$, Laser comb can be bought for 200 to 700 US$ and can be used by two to three people in a family, so really cheap in long term.

We are not clear about the mechanasim of action but we are getting close to the out come. sooner or later we will understand the action as well.

All we need is a bigger study like it has been done to clear the silicone breast implant and showing that its not dangerous at all. 1000 patients were recruted over the 10 years period.

so we cant discard the science we just haveto reshape it.

what do you say?

My Dear Indian Balding friend, I appreciate your comment and giving me some credit, I dont want to convince people all I want is that one should not have a mental block try to see the positive aspect of what ever you do. Dont discard it out right.

Dear captain, I think your general knowledge is very limited, if you just visit some of your neighmouring country and see or hear the stories of original native Americans you would read a lot of Woodoo and may be there is a truth in it.

some people think that my having a hair shaved or massaged they can prevent hair loss we know it can not but then some one do believe, try to respect peoples believe but you can disagree thats your right and your believe. DOnt try to redicule people.

bverotti · #83 **Top** 09-27-2008, 01:43 AM

My personal opinion on this:
LLLT will not do anyhting for hair. All laser could do is warm up the underlying tissue. Now if heat would be the solution ... why are men in Africa also balding ??

I know high energy lasers are good for HAIR REMOVAL. Why ? The light produced is of high enough energy to heat up the follicles to 70C ... enough to 'melt' them.

I personally see LLLT for hair stimulation on the same level of many shampoo's that promis us the limit.

BArt

hairthere · #84 **Top** 09-27-2008, 04:45 AM

Dr Mohmand,
you're basically admitting the success your patients are having with the laser could be a placebo effect. and you're making money off this. highly unethical, imo. and i had to laugh when you tried to justify the cost by having a whole family sharing the laser device.

Dr. Alan Feller · #85 **Top** 09-27-2008, 06:51 AM

Dr. Mohmand,
My goal is not to "change minds" either. After all, everyone on this thread agrees that LLLT simply does not work.

Don't you see what's happening on this thread and how your reputation and credibility are being diminished by the day because of this thread and others like it?

What is fueling this thread is your refusal to even reconsider your position in light of the heavy evidence you have been presented against LLLT.

You based your entire justification for supporting and selling LLLT on two papers. Dr. Muricy and Dr. Mendoza's. NOW, it turns out that Dr. Muricy's "paper" was not a complete study paper at all. It was a two page abstract that was inconclusive for anything-the least of which was providing evidence or even data points that could even remotely explain or prove the existence of photobiostimulation. In fact, the opening paragraph offered photobiostimulation as a "given" and moved on disingenuously from there. It was a sloppy abstract, and from what I can tell, a poor and useless study.

You wrote:
------------------
Th paper does not carry as much weght as you would like it to be, I agree
------------------
No my dear Dr. Mohmand, the paper does not carry as much weight as YOU would like it to, not I. Were you not the doctor who kept referring to it as conclusive evidence that LLLT works? In fact, were you not the one who offered it up to Bill to publish on this thread in support of your untenable position?

You now agree that Dr. Muricy's study is very weak and proves nothing, so does this now encourage you to reconsider your position on LLLT?

I will review your points from your last post in the order you offered them:

1. If you really mean that "more input and work needs" to be done, then why don't you stop selling LLLT to your patients AT LEAST until that extra work is done? And since you will not perform such studies yourself and neither will the LLLT industry, what are you in fact waiting for?

2. You make a false and unscientific assumption that just because the "LLLT only" group supposedly demonstrated the same improvement as the minoxidil group that it MUST have positively affected the follicles. It is far more reasonable, however, to believe that normal erratic physiological growth and rest phases of hair accounted for any changes across BOTH groups. This is especially so if you will take a moment to realize that no "treatment" would be successful 100% of the time within their own treatment groups. And when the groups contain ONLY 8 participants each, you have a statstically useless study.

Since the study conveniently omitted control groups for both the minoxidil group and the LLLT group, your conclusion must be rejected. Don't you see that Dr. Mohmand?

I believe it has always been the unwritten goal of the LLLT industry to claim that it's results were as good as that of minoxidil and then to hide behind minoxidil's track record. That's the REAL reason why Dr. Muricey performed her study the way she did and the real objective she was after. In fact, the "control group" in her study was the minoxidil group because she was trying to covertly compare LLLT to minoxidil-not prove that LLLT actually works in the first place. But without stating as such, this "conclusion" could be viewed as an "incidental", yet fortunate "finding". A bit transparent to me.

The LLLT industry knows there are no demonstrable before/after photos and no verifiable success stories like there are for minoxidil, so they designed their studies and strategies around trying to show that LLLT is COMPARABLE to minoxidil. There are of course more major problems in attempting to this, but they go beyond the scope of this post.

You wrote:
------------------
We are not clear about the mechanasim of action but we are getting close to the out come. sooner or later we will understand the action as well.
------------------
What in the world are you talking about? On what basis can you say we are "getting close"??? This is a disingenuous statement. The only way you can claim that LLLT is getting close to proving itself is through scientific evaluation. But the only scientific study you can point to is an anemic paper that in and of itself offered no conclusions. So how exactly can you claim your side is getting close? Honestly Dr. Mohmand, your statements boggle the mind. But not as much as your next one. That one takes the prize:

You wrote:
------------------
so we cant discard the science we just have to reshape it.
what do you say?
------------------
Science is science. It is true or it is not true. Any "reshaping" is fraud designed to create an outcome that could not happen naturally. This is the very definition of junk science.
How can any doctor or scientist say we can't discard bad and unproven science? That's a medieval worldview harkening back to broom riding witches, wizards with dunce caps, and alchemists.

So what's it going to be Dr. Mohmand. Are you going to reconsider your position now that the foundation you have based your LLLT practice on has completely crumbled, or are you going to continue to "reshape" science to fit your agenda?

Dr. Bauman, Dr. Charles, nor Dr. Williams are going to chime in to help you. No LLLT doctor or proponent will. Do you really want to stay in the ranks of doctors who sell a threapy to patients who don't have the professinal courage to back their claims up? That's a list of shame, do you really want to remain on it? I don't want you to. I don't want any medical doctor on that list, and that's why I go to such trouble to present the evidence and blow away the junk science. It's ok if you made a mistake, you can fix it.

I appeal to you, Dr. Mohmand, to see the error of your ways. There is no shame in it as you are not the only doctor to get sucked into this junk science frenzy. Look to Dr. Bauman, Dr. Charles, Dr. Williams, and many others. You have the opportunity to join the good guys and get on the right side of the issue. You can make amends by questioning our LLLT colleagues and teaching the truth to those who are honorable enough to listen.

Dr. Alan Feller · #86 **Top** 09-27-2008, 07:53 PM

Dr. Mohmand,

Dr. Mohmand listed on Hairmax site as member of medical advisory team

Why didn't you tell us that you are on the Medical Advisory Board of Hairmax laser combs?
You deliberately witheld that important information.

How in the world can you be on anyone's medical advisory team? You are clueless about lasers, physics, and the scientific method.

Dr M Humayun Mohmand · #87 **Top** 09-29-2008, 01:46 AM

Dr Feller
This is for your information.

even if I am clue less I know what laser is. It is never ment to cross the scalp.....I guess you have confused between laser and ionising radiations like X-Rays etc

Please read and dont tell me ISHRS is wrong as well.

ISHRS Press Release

Low-Level Laser Therapy is Now a Do-It-Yourself Hair Loss Treatment

NEW YORK (October 16, 2003)- While lasers are best known as high-energy beams of coherent light that can cut through a variety of materials including human tissue, low-energy laser light has been found to be capable of modulating beneficial biologic effects in human, animal and plant cells. The biomodulating effects of low-level laser light on human cells has been adapted to medical uses such as enhanced wound healing and treatment of some types of pain, and to cosmetic uses associated with effects on human skin.

Low-level laser light has also been found to have biomodulating effects on human hair and hair follicles. The effectiveness of low-level laser light in hair restoration was described today by Martin Unger, MD, Toronto, Canada, in a presentation at the 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS). The ISHRS is meeting October 15-19, 2003, at the Marriott Marquis Hotel, New York City.

Clinical studies have shown that low-level laser light is effective both cosmetically and physiologically in hair restoration, Dr. Unger said. The cosmetic effects include improvements in hair sheen and strength, characteristics that enhance the perception of "fullness" in overall hair appearance. Physiologic effects on hair follicles observed in both men and women include (1) prevention of hair loss, and (2) stimulation of hair regrowth in areas of hair loss. Dr. Unger, a physician hair restoration specialist, is medical director of a firm that makes a hand-held low-level laser therapy device for home use in hair restoration (HairMAX LaserComb, Lexington International, Boca Raton, FL). The device is accepted as a Medical Device in Canada, and advertising is allowed to make therapeutic claims that it (1) increases strength of scalp hair in men and women, (2) prevents scalp hair loss in men and women, and (3) causes regrowth of scalp hair in men and women. In the United States it is accepted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as a Cosmetic Laser Product. Approval by the FDA as a Medical Device is pending while appropriate clinical trials are completed. The device is also sold in other countries outside North America.

Low-level laser medical therapy is currently approved by the FDA for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome and for relief of discomfort, Dr. Unger said.

The device described by Dr. Unger is a hand-held, wand-like instrument with laser-light ports arranged across its surface like the teeth of a comb. Laser light in the visible red light spectrum is generated in a laser diode. The energy level is far below that of laser beams that cut or burn tissue. Rather, the low-level red laser light has a very low absorption rate in human tissue. Low-level laser therapy for hair restoration is also delivered in a hood-like device that fits over a patient's head much like a hair dryer in a beauty salon.

The mechanism of action of low-level laser light on human cells is not completely understood. The interaction of laser light with cells has the basic feature of modulating cell behavior without causing significant temperature increase inside the cells; higher-energy lasers used to treat some types of cancer destroy cancer cells by heating them from the inside. A resulting photochemical reaction inside cells treated with low-level laser light may alter physical and chemical properties of molecules important to cellular activities.

Two of the most significant effects of low-level laser light in wound healing and in pain control, Dr. Unger said, are improved arterial and venous blood flow and decreased inflammation. The effects of low-level laser light associated with its effects of hair and hair follicles are not known with precision.

In clinical trials, 97% of patients have had some benefit in improvement of hair characteristics, stabilization of hair loss, or hair regrowth, Dr. Unger said. Hair regrowth is defined by Dr. Unger and colleagues as an increase of hair count of 11% or more from baseline count.

In the most recently conducted FDA clinical trials of the device, patients studied were men and women with thinning hair in the scalp area. The patients received two low-level laser light treatments per week over a six-month period. Results have shown:

100% of men had stabilization of hair loss in frontal and vertex (top of the head) areas;
84.6% of men had hair regrowth (11% of more from baseline) in the frontal area;
82.8% of men had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the vertex area;
87.5% of women had stabilization of hair loss in the frontal area;
100% of women had stabilization of hair loss in the vertex area;
75% of women had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the frontal area; and,
96.4% of women had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the vertex area.
No side effects of low-level laser therapy have been observed, Dr. Unger said. There have been no reports of eye damage from exposure to low-level laser light.

Patients with medical conditions such as a history of skin cancer, persistent scalp infections, and photosensitivity to laser light were excluded from the study.

The ISHRS is the world's largest not-for-profit professional organization in the field of hair restoration surgery, with 512 physician members in 45 countries. The organization was founded in 1992 to promote the enhancement of the specialty of hair restoration surgery through education, information-sharing, and observance of ethical standards.

Dr. Alan Feller · #88 **Top** 09-29-2008, 04:53 AM

Dr. Mohmand,
Are you capable of any analysis or thought beyond what OTHER doctors present to the public?

And you clearly have no idea what ionizing radiation is. I built several homemade X-RAY machines from scratch in the 1990s. That's what got me into a very competative radiology residency program in New York, so I think I know a bit about ionizing radiation and how it affects human tissue. The fact that you bring up ionizing radiation out of the blue confirms yet again that you just don't know what you're talking about.

Honestly, that ISHRS presentation was made 5 years ago by a man linked to the LLLT industry. Yet in all that time even Dr. Unger has not provided ANY before/after photos demonstrating even a detectable cosmetic improvement. Doesn't that tell you anything Dr. Mohmand? Why don't you call him and ask him to join this debate?

Furthermore it does not address the fact that the laser collapes to standard light after first striking the skin, a fatal fact overlooked by the junk scientists supporting LLLT.

Dr. Mohmand, you have lost the debate and not only failed to make the case for LLLT but you have succeeded in weakening its position even more. Why don't you notify your colleagues at Lexington Hairmax to come onto this thread and blow me and other LLLT opponents out of the water? Why do you think they don't come on here to defend themselves and back you up?

I have had enough of going around in circles with you Dr. Mohmand. You have much to learn and don't know what you don't know.

Dr M Humayun Mohmand · #89 **Top** 09-29-2008, 07:12 AM

OK fair enough

Do you think ISHRS that press release is wrong as well?

If you are saying that then OK.

I will basically stop here, I will probably keep your video in mind but will also keep my own view, which is basd on doctors like yourself.

hairthere · #90 **Top** 09-29-2008, 07:56 AM

How can you be a medical advisor on a product that you're not sure even works and which you don't really even understand the principals of? this is just mind boggling....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Coalition Surgeons

Do Hair Transplants Work?

Get Your Treatments