Dr. Alan Feller

I have started to google "photobiostimulation" (sounds like an invented word from a low budget 1950s science ficiton film doesn't?) and have come up with the aricles that LLLT proponents have been "citing" to support their wrong headed belief that lasers can actually grow hair or affect hair cells in any meaningful way. To begin with, all of the "papers" I've read were anicdotal, NOT scientific studies. Like this bit of quackary that's being passed off as a supporting source for LLLT. Not surprisingly, the business who ownes the website that cited this "paper" is heavily into LLLT manufacture: http://www.erchonia.com/downloads/Dermatology%20Times%20Dedo.pdf It sure SEEMS impresive and legitimate. That is, if you are a layman or naive doctor who knows nothing about laser physics and what happens when they hit the skin. Did anybody else notice that there were no controlled studies with which to compare the "results" to? Does this author want us to believe that good healing can NOT be achieved without the use of lasers? He could have at least published pictures of other patients who've undergone similar surgery in order to let us see a comparison, but he didn't. Some study, huh? Probably one of the best junk science examples was the claim that LLLT works by causing "resonance" of chromophores within the cells. The hair LLLT proponents seized on this junk science and applied it to their own agenda. Somebody better tell these disingenuous professionals that hair does not fall out because follicle cells are tired, old, or just not "tuned" right. The follicle cells are just acting out a genetic program to kill themselves. It's called apoptosis and it' nothing mystical. It's the same process that allows baby teeth to fall out. So using LLLT own line of reasoning, illuminating these cells with laser light is not going to do anything but make the cell act out it's programming that much more efficently-which is to kill the follicle.

Thank you Bill.

Did this woman really benefit from LLLT? If so, why won't the doctor who presented it show the areas that were treated instead of covering over it with surounding hair? http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/LLLT/doctor1/part1.wmv

Dr. Mohmand, Honestly, don't you think resorting to promotional brochures by the marketing department of doctors SELLING LLLT is a bit desperate? Well, you're not alone. The entire LLLT industry has always defaulted to deceptive pictures without including any information as to the medical and surgical treatments thier customers have received or are receiving. They throuw the photos out to fool the public, plain and simple. How sad. You couldn't prove LLLT through science, rational thought, cited studies, nor your own experience with it. Instead, you are now grasping at marketing photos from doctors you don't even know just to keep alive your "belief" the LLLT works. At this point I can't believe a licensed medical doctor is so naive or ignorant. I am now coming to believe that you are just interested in making a buck off of your uninformed patients because no rational professional could possibly dismiss obvious facts and then make up false ones as you do to justify selling a clinically unproven treatment. Dr. Mohmand, there is no bias on this forum as you contend, only rational analysis of the information that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you are on the wrong side of the debate. If there is ANY bias here, it is on your part because it is YOU who are selling LLLT for money. The rest of us don't stand to make a dime one way or the other. Do yourself a favor and stop selling and supporting this quackary. It belittles not just yourself, but the science of medicine as well. Take some time to re-assess your position and show us all that you are an intellectually honest and honerable doctor.

Click the link for a video I made and narrated of the results presented on an LLLT doctor's website. You make the call if you think this doctor made the case for LLLT and whether or not the woman actualy received any benefit from her use of LLLT. This presentation is typical of all LLLT before/after photos in my experience. http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/LLLT/doctor1/Part1.wmv

Each and every one of those photos is deceptive by the mere fact that the neither the surgical nor medical treatment record is offered. Also, the typical deceptive photography practices are well represented in that before photos are taken using angles and lighting to maximize baldness and after photos are used to minimize them. Then theres the use of wetting the hair to make it look just about anyway you want it to depending on how you style it. Where are YOUR pictures Dr. Mohmand? Hitching yourself to American doctors is usually a good idea, and something I know plays well in the third world. But perhaps you are beginning to learn that you've hitched yourself to the wrong type.

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.

Lorenzo, Thanks for joining the discussion. But in actuality you did express your opinion and you acted on it by not buying a laser comb. You decided wisely. But what's going on here is not a debate. It is a smack-down against ignorance, quackary and greed. I say smackdown because the other side won't even get into the ring, with the exception of Dr. Mohmand who has not been able to support one thing he has written nor has he been able to counter one thing I have demonstrated in a very straight forward video. We still await Dr. Mohmand's response to the last post I and others made regarding the rather anemic paper he cited as justification for selling LLLT to the lay public. We still await the input of ANY laser advocates.

While I wait for Dr. Mohmands considered reply to my critique of the LLLT abstract I thought I might look up photobiostimulation in google. Here is an LLLT explaination from a quack doctor in California who also clearly has no concept of how lasers actually work. I have never read a page so filled with shameless quackary http://www.drkaslow.com/html/low_level_lasers__lllt_.html Of course NO photos were provided. As per usual, all we can expect from the LLLT camp is talk and little more. Plenty of junk science as well.

It's interesting to see a term I invented only a few years ago become standard jargon. Henry, I coined the term "postage stamp" FUE years ago so it's safe to say I perform it. A small area in the donor area needs to be shaved but can be covered by your surrounding hair. The recipient area also has to be shaved but, as it's name implies, the area is usually about the area of a postage stamp. Average time is 2 hours. H@W do not preform it. Bernstein might. Dr. Lindsey of Northern Virginia also performs them. Check him out at http://www.hairtransplantnetwork.com/Consult-a-Physician/Doctors.asp?DrID=259 Good luck

That certainly clears up that confusion. Thank you.

Dr. Mohmand, I am confused. You lost your Coaltion membership because you don't use microscopes. You acknowledged this. Yet, when I read the homepage of your website it plainly reads: "We cut all our grafts under a microscope..." Can you explain this inconsistency? Thank you.

Jimmy, Thanks for the feedback. Always love to read about my patients growing their hair back. Hairthere, I have to agree with you, the study falls way short in so many ways. Not to mention that it is only an abstract, not a full study paper. Dr. Mohmand, Thank you for posting this paper through Bill. I think your willingness to do it shows that you are indeed acting in good faith. However, this abstract falls drastically short in so many ways that it can't possibly be relied upon as the justification for LLLT to the extent that you do. I will just include a quick list of problems off the top of my head here, but will support each item with quotes from the paper after I finish my surgery tomorrow: 1. There is no control group mentioned. 2. The study objective as written by Dr. Muricy herself was to elucidate the mechanism of action of LLLT, however, the study never even addressed this objective. 3. Instead, it seems that the study was solely designed to compare the efficacy of LLLT to Minioxidil, NOT to prove it's actual efficacy nor mechanism of action. 4. The paper itself demonstrated no statistical difference between either of the three groups which means that the positive changes recorded were probably from normal physiological cycling of hair growth. 5. The tatooing may have cause the few histiologic changes Dr. Muricy did record and may have interfered with the study. For example, a stab into the skin with a needle to inject a tatoo will cause microscaring from the stab and irritation from the dye. This, in turn, will INCREASE vascularity and cause other local tissue changes in response to the trauma. There is much more I will add, but I don't have the time today, but I promise I will present a full written explanation as to why I think this paper carries no weight and failed to achieve it's own stated objectives. I just want to leave this observation with Dr. Mohmand to think about: Dr. Muricy wrote in the first paragraph of her abstract: ________ The hypothesis behind the method of action of the LLLT is that the LASER light would increase vascularization and increase celllar metabolism. __________ BUT as we know from my video, none of the light that makes it to the follicles is LASER in nature anymore. Does this not present a serious conflict in your mind? It should. Clearly Dr. Muricy doesn't understand either that laser light collapes to standard light before reaching the follicles. She performed her study based on a false assumption. More to come.

For those that are not familiar with the terminology: Loupes (often mistakenly spelled as "Loops") are nothing more than magnifiers of different types worn over the eyes. They are usually supported by an eyeglass frame or headband. I have to agree with Dr. M that a clinic does not have to use microscopes to perform top quality results. If a technician is adept at using loupes and is meticulous, they will cut grafts every bit as good as a microscope user. I learned this when I was transitioning my clinic from loupes to microscopes in 2000-2001. After all, grafts are not microscopic structures. With that said, however, I use microscopes exclusively and do not allow the use of loupes and I will tell you why. It is much easier to train a new technician to cut high quality grafts using a microscope as compared to loops. Because you can see better under the scope and it is stationary it is easier for the trainee to develop the coordination to become an excellent cutter. The use of loupes, on the other hand, takes FAR more time and effort. Another advantage of microscopes is that they are less punishing on the back and neck. With Mantis scopes (the only ones worth using in my opinion) the technician can sit straight up and not have to lean over. When performing many surgeries per week this ergonomic design makes the difference between a stiff neck and sore back. Another advantage is quality control. I rig up my scopes with video cameras and digitally record how the technician disects the donor area. This is possible because the microscope is stationary, where as attaching a camera to a techs headband while using loupes is impractical. I know this because I tried it years ago. Just knowing their work is being recorded, technicians will always give it their best. If I notice that the number of grafts coming out of one technician's station is very different from the others I will analyze the video and find the problem. This is impossible for loupe using techs. I think the biggest reasons clinics don't adopt scopes is because the transition from loupes is usually resisted by veteran staff and, of course, the expense. A good Mantis microscope with support accessories designed for the HT industry cost about $7,000 a piece. And any clinic worth its salt has at least 8 techs. That's a $56,000 investment plus another $14,000 for two back up scopes. Heavy investment, but well worth it.

In the end neither I nor HTN are regulators or law makers. If I were, you can well imagine what would happen to the LLLT industry since such regulations and laws are based on the evidence, or lack thereof, presented on the issue to date. Dr. Mohmand, we can keep going around and around, but until an authority steps in to make a decision there is nothing to stop you from offering a therapy you may "believe in your heart" works, despite the fact that: 1. There are no before/after pics from you or your patients 2. No before/after pics from any other doctors selling LLLT 3. The basic theory of LLLT is faulty 4. You need a microscope to see the "results" of the LLLT studies you cited in defense of LLLT. How you can ignore all these factors running against LLLT is beyond my understanding. As for your love of clinical trials, nothing beats the enormous real world trials peformed by tens of thousands of LLLT patients who have NOT offered a single before/after series of photos to prove efficacy. There sure are alot of deceptive pics out there though. I'll get to those in another thread. An astronaut on the moon will die without his helmet. Do we really need a clinical study to prove this? Or is this obvious based on simple physics? I think deferring to weak studies is a bit of a cop out and a bit too self-serving, but again, I'm not a regulator or law maker. So it's up to the public to weigh what you've written against what I've written. Thank you for participating.

Click the link for a slimey LLLT TV commercial. Notice that the commercial implies it's referring to LLLT, but is really showing the results of artifical hair augmentation. Look at the fine print at the bottom of the screen. I particularly like the part where almost all the laser light is bouncing off his artifical hair. This is what I mean by unethical. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=epw-n1yDD2s

Kman, Don't be embarrassed, we all make mistakes. You should only be embarrassed if you continue to buy into something you know is wrong. And no, it is not possible that heat is offering the scalp some minimal benefit. To begin with, LLLT means LOW power laser light therapy. The amount of heat imparted from toy lasers like those used in combs is insignificant. If heat were the issue, all you would need to do is wear a wool hat. It is far cheaper than laser products and easier to apply. Or, you can take a walk outside under the sunlight. There is PLENTY of 650nm wavelength light coming from the sun to expose your head to. When you apply some common sense, LLLT seems pretty silly doesn't it? Fenderplayer, Great points. You will find LLLT proponents tripping over their own words all the time. That's why almost no LLLT doctor or industry "professional" will agree to debate LLLT in public. Those who have tried, like Dr. Bauman and Mr. Michaels have paid the price in high embarrassment and loss of credibility. Clearly the two doctors mentioned in Bill' article have learned that lesson and stay away from the forums. Dr. Mohmand made the mistake of hand picking and interpreting studies in such a way to support his agenda to sell a clinically unproven treatment. As you correctly pointed out, his selective use of these studies and what they meant to HIM do not comport with the conclusions made by the studies themselves. Furthermore, he ignored the simple scientific truths in the video that clearly undermined the foundations of LLLT theory. In other words, he made up his own conclusions to justify selling a quack remedy. Hypocrisy is the hallmark of LLLT advocates. That's just one reason why I call such practitioners unethical. Bill, You keep claiming that LLLT has credibility because "ethical" doctors use them. Yet those same doctors will not come on here to address the very real issues challenging their position. Does this not bring into question your basic premise that they are ethical? How many such "ethical" doctors are there? I'm sure the community would like a list of such "ethical" LLLT doctors. I would call it a list of shame, how you don't is beyond me. One more question, are any of the doctors in your article sitting on the board of any laser comb or device manufacturing companies?

Dr. Mohmand, You wrote: --------- "I respect your theory, but its just a theory..." --------- I did not present a theory at all, I presented a scientific experiment that TESTED the theory presented by LLLT advocates. The experiment was based on very basic scientific principles and was designed to test the validity of LLLT theory as articulated by it's most prominent supporters. This test was the first I know of that was publicly demonstrated in an effort to test the merits of the use of lasers for the growth of hair. The conclusion was obvious, LLLT failed. LLLT theory states that it is the coherent nature of light that somehow imparts a benefit to hair follicle cells-even though no one has ever identified such a mechanism nor proved it's existence. Yet the experiment in the video shows beyond a doubt that the coherent nature of light is eliminated long before it could ever reach the follicle. In fact, the only light reaching the follicle is incoherent red light that LLLT proponents have stated openly does not impart any benefit at all. Hence the reason LLLT proponents sell relatively expensive laser products as opposed to inexpensive bright LED products. Why must you scan Dr. Muricy's paper? The indisputable scientific data is right in front of you and is easy to grasp. If you are going to scan anything, why don't you scan the internet for before/after photos of patients who have claimed to have benefitted demonstrably from LLLT? I'll save you the time, there are none. You wrote: ----------------- LASERS are not supposed to travel through tissue ----------------- Now perhaps you are getting it Dr. Mohmand. Laser's CAN'T travel through tissue. But your grasp of this physical fact is at odds with LLLT theory advocates who believe that coherent light DOES travel through tissue. In fact, it is their fallacious belief that coherent light actually makes it down to the follicles though millimeters of epidermis and dermis intact! That's the problem with their theory and now YOU are beginning to appreciate it. That's good. You wrote: --------------------- They are simple light source, its just that they travel in same direction, you do remeber the resonance, its simple marching on the bridge but with resonance the bridge can collapse. Similarly its simple light but with same wave length and monochromatic, monocoherent amplified light it can do some work. ------------------------- You are bringing up the concept of resonance, something I am very familiar with as a professional electronic circuit designer. Unfortunately, resonance has no place in this discussion as LLLT proponents never pointed to resonance of the follicular cells as part of their theory. You are confusing your laser theory again. Resonance can be appreciated through the use of coherent or incoherent light frequencies, but it's application in lasers has more to do with concentration of heat in differently pigmented tissue structures during high energy hot laser applications such as hair removal, not cold low laser therapy for hair loss. Your non-sequitor inclusion of resonance shows me that you are not really familiar with the basic scientific principles you yourself bring up to support your points. Now I understand why you rely so heavily on other doctors you barely know to support YOUR positions. Rather than concerning yourself with Resonance, take some time to look up Rayleigh Scattering, Raman Scattering, and Compton Scattering. They are far more germane to the discussion. Dr. Mohmand, the first step in analyzing the validity of a theory is NOT to set up double blind multicenter studies. It's to break down each aspect of the theory into sub-components and subject each one to scientific testing. If any of these component parts of the theory fail their tests, then the entire theory falls. This is what I've done with the experiment in the video, and the final result was that at least two components of LLLT theory failed miserably. It should be back to the drawing board for the industry, however, they are selling too many laser products to be bothered with annoyances like validity testing. I implore you Dr. Mohmand, start thinking for yourself instead of relying completely on 2 or 3 studies that weren't even performed by professional researchers. . Look at the real world data, or lack there of, and then view the video that clearly shows a major flaws in LLLT theory, THEN make your OWN decision.

To the members of the community, Please understand that this thread was presented to stir debate. I am looking for an LLLT proponenet to prove me wrong becaue I may very well be wrong. However, no LLLT proponent has yet made any case against what I have written nor the video I have presented. Dr. Mohmand was bold in coming onto the thread, but he failed to address any of the factual evidence I have laid before this community. I still await his attempt to do so, but am beginning to see that he is more interested in selling laser combs rather than analyzing what those combs really may or may not be doing. He has much to learn. I do not sell laser therapy. I certainly could, and am sure I could make a bundle. But I don't. I don't because it has not been shown to work clinically and the science behind it makes no sense. To sell LLLT would be to accept the many false premises that form it's faulty theoretical foundation. My love of science and truth will not permit that. My appreciation of my patients and the trust they put in me and the medical profession will not allow it either. Let's keep this field open, honest and transparent. I look forward to more challenges from the LLLT propenent camp.

Dr. Mohmand, I see, NOW you sell your device only to keep the hair from falling out- not to grow it. A benefit that can NOT be demonstrated. How convenient. Unforutnately, the studies you cited mention an INCREASE in shaft diameter and hair count. The rational inference is that such increases MUST translate to a perceptive change or improvement in apperance, NOT mere maintanence of what's already there. You have misinterpreted the studies to support your own agenda. In fact, you've taken a step backward Dr. Mohmand.Your logic is simply faulty. Your post from yesterday demonstrates that you know little about how lasers work. I corrected your errors but they seeemed to have no impact on your position. None of the common sense information I presented has impact for you. I gave you ten articuable reasons why your understanding of LLLT is wrong and you didn't address any of them. Instead, you dogmatically hold onto the a few weak studies that are riddled with problems and then accuse ME of being a hardliner. You made up the statistics you mentioned in your thread out of mid-air, yet you put them forward as if they are fact. The only fact you know is that you have NO evidence of the efficacy of the laser therapy you sell your patients work. You rely on other doctors studies. But even THEY have no evidence of clinical efficacy. Don't you understand that if you have to take out a microscope to see the results of laser therapy that there are no results in the frist place? Since you are a man in love with satistics, let's look at some REAL Dr. Mohmand statistical facts: 1. You have 0% before/after pictures 2. You have 0% demonstrable results 3. You have seen 0% before/after pictures from any doctor or laser clinic 4. You have seen 0% before/after results from the doctors whom studies you blindly cite. 5. You understand 0% about how lasers work 6. You learned 0% after you were given a lesson as to how lasers work even with a video demonstration. 7 You made up 100% of the statistics you cited in your recent post. 8. You made up 100% of the clinical theory you use to justify selling laser combs to your patient. 9. You ignored my last post 100%. 10. You have ignored 100% the fact that laser light collapes to standard light on impact 11. You have ignored 100% that a tissue stopped a laser beam 100% in its tracks. Cite those statistics the next time you talk about laser therapy for hairloss. Dr. Mohmand, you are a man with an agenda. You are making up justifications to continue selling laser combs for money in your pocket while all the while turning a blind eye to the facts before you. Your opinions about the purposes and uses for laser combs are useless if they are built on made up statistics, faulty logic, a complete lack of clinical evidence, and a total dismisal of the facts of physics. You have not debated well as you have failed to prove a single word I've written to be wrong. You still have that opportunity, but like all LLLT propoenents you will continue to fail to make your case, just like the other two doctors running from this thread.

Bill, I will not go down the junk science rabbit hole any further with laser healing studies. Even if it were true, which it's not, it doesn't lend itself to affecting organ structures like follicles. That's a stretch that LLLT proponents have made to justify their quack remediy. It's invalid. I don't see how so many people fall for this false premise and yet overlook the enourmous fact that there are NO valid before/after pictures. There is nothing magical or special about light once it strikes a surface and converts to standard light. The only thing that happens is that the light is converted to heat. The change is instant and has no radiative or long lasting property. Any thought that it does, or any extension therefrom as you are attempting to make is exactly how junk science is born, Bill.

Sorry Bill, no hostility on this side. It's all good and we're all still friends. By all means I agree it is your prerogative to present your opinion, but please don't take it so personally when I challenge those opinions or when I know they are based on what I believe to be invalid or irrational logic. That's not a personal swipe, just my opinion. Now on to the business at hand... You wrote: ----------- But it doesn't conclusively prove laser light can't benefit scalp tissue or hair follicles ------------ Bill contrary to your assertion, it is not my job to prove LLLT doesn't work- even though that's exactly what I did in the video as a matter of objective scientific fact. I think every poster on this thread agrees with that. You wrote: ---------------- All it proves is that a laser converts to light and energy when it hits a target --------------- It is not the only thing it proved. It also proved that the light reaching the follicle is no longer "laser" in nature-it's just a red light, the kind of light LLLT proponents admit is ineffective- yet another objective scientific fact. You wrote: --------------- The proponents of laser therapy concentrate on what that energy does after it hits the target (the scalp) -------------- That's a factually incorrect assertion, Bill. The proponents of laser therapy, like the doctors mentioned in your article, have been deafeningly silent on how they claim LLLT actually works. Yet another objective fact. I could ask you to cite your "other" source(s), but I know it would be a fruitless effort because they don't exist. Spare me the Russian studies and supposed laser induced healing studies. None of that has been demonstrated to have any clinical effect on hair follicles. And until I see a new protocol or mandate that all wounds must be exposed to laser light for optimal healing I will reject it for any such use. You wrote: ----------------- t's unfair for you to accuse your well respected colleagues of being unethical for having a different point of view. ----------------- The issue is not what I think about doctors who engage in such practices, that's irrelevant. The issue is whether the actions of these doctors can be considered objectively ethical. What would you call a doctor who charges top dollar for a therapy that's based on junk science and who, at the same time, ignores indisputable physical evidence that might cut into his bottom line?

Bill, Almost everything you write includes a qualifying word or words thrown in to limit your commitment to whatever point you are trying to make at the time. There's never any black and white with you, even in the most black and white circumstances. Words like "supposedly", "said to", "indicate", and "questionable" are words that weaken your points and show you really don't believe in what your writing. That's a fact, and you use these terms way too much. Why are you presenting the views of laser therapy advocates as you just wrote in your last post? Who gave you that job? YOU didn't perform the studies and the experiments. You haven't even had first hand communication with those who did. For crying outloud David Michaels won't even release his study to the public! Yet you blindly quote the talking points from LLLT proponents with absolutely no idea what you are talking about while completely disregarding the evidence I just presented in living color that clearly refutes their basic premise. If LLLT proponents have something to say about the data presented on this thread then it is up to THEM to present their points NOT you. And so far your "ethical" doctors haven't written so much as one post to support their positions. Not one. Yet that doesn't register with you, huh? Still on the fence, right? You are insulted that I wrote that you did not understand the video I made. But based on your wishy-washy post you gave no reason for anyone to believe otherwise. The video is prima facia evidence that LLLT CAN'T work according to the very rules and theories laid out by LLLT proponents themselves. Even if you don't agree with this, which is impossible since it isn't subjective, it would be your job to encourage LLLT proponents to counter it with logic and reason, NOT turn on me for exposing these people for what you know they are. A moderator takes the available data and comes to a conclusion. Instead, your usual default is to say that you will wait for more data. It's been 25 years, how much longer does the LLLT camp need? Only ONE person on this thread has taken your position, BeHappy, and he refuses to offer any evidence of his very subjective statements. I offered to meet him in person and he didn't even have the courtesy to respond. Other than him NOT ONE PERSON on this thread sided with the LLLT proponents. So why are you? The evidence is stacked against LLLT, and claiming you know ethical doctors that perform it is NOT supporting evidence it's putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps your basic premise is wrong again. Maybe the doctors you refer to are NOT ethical. Has it yet occured to you that this may be the case? Stop trying to psycho-analyze me. All that's going to do is make me do it back to you, and nothing will get accomplished. I created this thread about a ground breaking video that cuts the legs off the LLLT industry and you are taking it off course. I'm not the one making outrages claims, I am presenting evidence against those who are. I am not the focus of this thread, LLLT and those who offer it for pay ARE. I want to make it clear to you Bill that you are NOT a judge and I do not consider you to be one.

Bill, I have to ask you this flat out, do you purposefully try to create a disingenuous middle ground for yourself in all posts, or just mine? Outright misquoting me and then building off of that false premise serves neither you, me, or the community. You wrote: ------------- "One statement by Dr. Feller on the same thread indicated that those who have a financial interest in lasers cannot possibly be believed." -- - - - - - - - - If you can show me where I wrote or reasonably implied this I would be most appreciative. If you can't, I would ask that you erase that grossly erroneous misquote or misinterpretation from your post. As for the rest of your post, I wonder if you even watched the video. And if you did, I can only be led to believe that you didn't understand it. And I don't just mean the basic scientific truths I demonstrated, but the much deeper consequences it has for the LLLT industry as a whole. Although such a video would never be greeted with fanfare, it is nevertheless ground shaking to the LLLT industry because it utterly and completely sweeps away the one theory they built their entire industry upon. They went quite far out on the branch, and now it has been cut. But all this seems lost on you. I don't quite know how I failed you, I really don't. What part of the video did you not understand? The part where a piece of tissue stopped a 500mw laser beam in its tracks, or the part where within 1mm of tissue paper the light lost it's all important laser property? You know, the property that ALL laser therapy proponents point to as the foundation of their belief that their devices stimulate hair growth? Bill, your analysis of my video and LLLT in general is factually incorrect: You wrote: ----------------- We can see clearly from Dr. Feller's examples that lasers penetrate whatever it touches. The question is, what effect does it have to the area it penetrates? ------------------ The answer is nothing. And that's not just according to ME that's according to the LLLT camp themselves, including Mr. David Michaels of Hairmax in his own FDA clearance application where he stated that LED light is ineffective. And the point wasn't that lasers penetrate whatever they touch. They don't. The issue was to demonstrate that laser light MUST lose its coherency in order to illuminate anything. That is, if it is illuminating a scalp or my thumb it MUST be incoherent light that's doing the glowing NOT laser light. That's why my thumb glowed the same whether I hit it with a laser or a an LED. The final result was the same and it represents a nail in the coffin of LLLT theory. You wrote: ------------------ The laser verses LED light examples was also interesting. However, a laser is much more direct in its target than LED light. I would suspect therefore, that the conversion of light to energy is much more direct on the scalp than light that disperses every which direction --------------------- You are incorrect. 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. The power and directionality of the light are inconsequential- and this comes not just from me, but from the LLLT proponents themselves. They never claimed the problem with standard LEDS was that enough power and directionality couldn't be achieved. They claimed that even under equivalent power (allowing for normal dissipation) LED light could not grow hair because it was incoherent. By the way, we have LEDs that can transilluminate your entire hand and blind you as fast as any laser. Don't confuse the coherency of light with power and directionality. Your wrote: -------------- Supposedly, lasers work by releasing targeted energy to the cells causing metobolic changes. This process is said to provide additional nutrients and oxygen to the scalp assisting normal cell chemical processes. If indeed this energy conversion process reaches derma papilla cells, I suspect it may help improve their normal function - to grow healthy hair follicles. What role, if any, this energy conversion process has on DHT, appears to be unknown from my research. -------------------- And again you are incorrect. You are taking a simplified talking point form the LLLT camp and then creating your own lay simplistic conclusion. There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen. If they did, you can be sure all hospital patients would be sleeping under laser lights. Bill, it's just not true. Stop buying into false premises regurgitated from one lay LLLT proponent to the next. We are NOT plants! Bill, it is obvious that you want to take an anti-laser position because I can read between the lines of what you have been posting about it for years. And you would be absolutely correct. But why do you strain credibility and distort what I wrote in a weak attempt to move to the middle? In your post you asked who the enemy is. That's easy, it's the person who is either incapable or unwilling to see the truth and tell it for what it is. It's the guys in the middle, because ALL LLLT proponents are in the middle. Not one of them say it works effectively in all patients and at all times. By hedging they avoid taking responsibility for providing a therapy they themselves have serious doubts about. But it doesn't stop them from collecting the money, does it? After my video, I don't see how any ethical "middle of the road" doctor could still accept money for laser therapy. I just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that coherent light does not reach the follicle. The only righteous people are those who took a look at the dearth of LLLT results and the pseudo-science used to justify it and rightly concluded rightly that LLLT is a non-starter.

Indian, Yes, the laser in toys are the exact same lasers used by the LLLT industry. The lasers used for scar resurfacing are hot, high energy destructive lasers, not low power cold lasers. The former actually work and have a sound basis for doing so, the latter does not.