Dr. Alan Feller

Dr. Mohmand, I do appreciate the civil tone of your response and would like to congratulate you on at least replying. In the past, most discourse like this has been heated and ended up in my opponent leaving the stage. At least we can have a dialog here. I would like to address your points: Your wrote: ------------------------ ... tell me why should I believe in one doctor (Dr Feller) and not believe in another doctor (Dr Levit, Dr Perez and Dr Maria from Brazil). ------------------------ There are several reasons: 1. The results from the studies you cited are wide open to a powerful influence outside the realm of lasers, that being the normal but erratic cycling of hair growth phases that naturally occur within the scalp in the normal healthy patient. Everyone has experienced greater hair growth at one point in the year as compared to another. This is normal and has nothing to do with laser radiation. 2. A few studies are not enough to prove the bold and incredible claim that lasers can positively affect cellular function at the clinical level in the first place, much less the EFFICACY of LLLT on hair growth in particular. The only thing those studies have supported is the already established fact that erratic growth cycles occur periodically within the human scalp. Doesn't this seem more believable to you? 3. The researchers are biased because they have a financial stake in the industry. This is not to impugn their honor, but industry based research is always frowned upon for this very reason. It is usually self-serving. How do we know that "failed" studies have not been omitted? We can't. 4. The doctors involved in the multi center clinical studies are also financially involved in the laser industry. Thus biased. 5. Some of these doctors were advocating and selling laser therapy BEFORE studies were even performed. YOU may now take comfort that you are justified in selling LLLT because OTHER doctors have performed studies to your satisfaction (something I will. disabuse you of), but whom did THEY reference to justify the selling of laser therapy to their lay patients? No one. Because it didn't matter to them. Think about that. 6. None of these doctors, including those performing the studies has shown any demonstrable results in before/after photos or in person. Laser therapy for hairloss has been around for 25 years, I think they've had enough time. 7. The doctors you cited are offering laser therapy for pay right now. I am not. That alone should give me at least a bit more credibility in your eyes. 8. I showed conclusively that the light that strikes the follicles is NOT coherent. It is no longer laser. 9. I showed you that most of the laser power is consumed within the first millimeter of tissue. 10. Finally, you should not be conflicted over what I or other doctors observe and report. You should make decisions concerning treatments you offer patients based ultimately on YOUR OWN observations and assessments. To date you admit you have made NO observations on your own and have no evidence to report. Yet, in the gross absence of these key elements of decision making, your final assessment is to grant credibility to LLLT. You wrote: ------------- well its an monocromatic, coherent light source like any other but amplified by stimulation. its not rays like X Rays or gamma. So ofcourseit wont cross the finger or paper. ------------- That is exactly my point. I don't understand why you continue to miss it. If upon striking a simple Klenex tissue most of the power is dissipated AND the remaining light loses ALL of it's coherent properties, then how can you believe the premise that coherent light can even make it down to the level of the follicle through a layer of epidermis, and then a thick dermis, and then positively affect it? It is impossible. Don't you see that? It's not a sophisticated observation, it's common sense. You wrote: ----------------- What happens, this light source of certain wave length is actually absorbed by what we call is chromophore and the light is changed there into heat or some other form of energy. ---------------- Again, this is my exact point. Once a laser is absorbed it can do only one thing of consequence and that's to impart heat. Once absorbed, the light (be it coherent or not) is converted largely to heat. HOWEVER, remember, the industry name for this "therapy" is "LOW light laser therapy" (LLLT), or sometimes it's even known as COLD laser light. There is not enough energy imparted to the scalp from these milliwatt lasers to even compare with a walk during a nice day or a brightly lit room. So the heat imparted is negligable. Remember, laser advocates point to the COHERENT nature of the light as the magic ingredient in LLLT. Yet you clearly understand now that by the time the coherent light strikes the epidermis it instantly collapse to standard monochromatic light which then transmits uncoherently down to the dermis where there follicle lives. Even at that point the remaining standard light is simply converted to a degree of heat that is inconsequential to the follicle. A degree of heat that couldn't even come close to competing with a hair dryer or just wearing a cap. Don't you see the conflict in the way the LLLT advocates claim their therapy works and the reality of what's actually happening? LLLT advocates never said it was HEAT that caused follicle stimulation, they claimed it was a heretofore unexplained benefit of coherent light. Yet you can see beyond a doubt that NO coherent light, that is, no laser light, makes it down to the follicles. This was a major oversight on the part of LLLT advocates and it will ultimately be their undoing. You wrote: ----------------- If you see the video of DR Feller, you would be able to see the light actuall illuminating th whole of his fingure nail....laser penitrate the skin but does not pass through. ------------------ Ahh, but the light DID pass through, that's why you are able to see my finger glow on camera. The glow that you see, however, is NOT coherent light, if it were, you would only see a small dot in the middle of my fingernail. Instead you see my finger lighting up, that's because the second the light contacted my epidermis the light became instantly scattered and ceased to be coherent. The little bit of coherent light that made it past my porus epidermis was instantly absorbed in the denser shallow dermis and converted to multidirectional monochromatic light. This standard light was then transmitted through the entirety of my finger, then through the nail, and then to the camera. No coherent light ever made it thorough, the only thing that did was what LLLT advocates call useless light and heat. You wrote: ----------------- This is the basis of laser hair reduction, and all othernon-abalative laser treatment for skin. ---------------- This is incorrect. The bases for hair reduction or ablative laser treatment for skin is very different than that proposed by LLLT advocates. As it's name implies, "ablative" therapy is destructive. It uses HOT lasers, not cold, and it uses very HIGH power, not Low. It works by destroying the tissue in its path and it need NOT be a laser to produce the desired results. It's just that the use of lasers are more EFFICIENT in delivering power at a certain frequency. But again, even in the case of hot lasers, it is NOT the coherent nature of the light that destroys the tissue, it is what happens only AFTER the coherent light strikes the tissue surface that the effect is seen, in this case burning of the tissue. This is the exact OPPOSITE phenomenon that is proposed by LLLT advocates. What is confusing you is the fact that tissues of different color absorb HEAT energy more efficiently than others at certain wavelengths. But just because energy may be more efficiently absorbed in a deeper layer of the skin where the pigment is, doesn't mean the more proximal layers aren't also being highly heated. Just ask any laser hair removal patient how much the process hurts and just look at the epidermis after treatment. The effect of the heat is obvious even at the more shallow layers. Remember, the laser is converted to standard non-coherent high energy light at a particular wavelength upon striking the surface of the skin. The ENTIRE skin is heated up as the light is absorbed, it's just that the light frequency was tuned to allow the pigmented cells to more EFFICIENTLY pick up the incorherent light and thus be converted to heat. As interesting as this all is, the physics of high energy hot lasers designed to destroy tissue do not lend themselves to the claims made by cold low laser light therapy (LLLT) advocates. You wrote: --------------- anyway, if you do not believe in some thing that does not mean you should be so against it, atleast either prove us wrong with a good study or dont brush aside other studies by saying its not enough. --------------- I did prove you wrong. I did it with common sense by writing about the obvious dearth of before/after photos worldwide. When that didn't work, I gave an undisputed scientific explanation, when that made no impression I debated Dr. Bauman and David Michaels of Hairmax laser comb and destroyed them on the radio, when that didn't take I made a video that clearly demonstrates the fatal flaw in the fundementaltheory all LLLT advocates rely on, including the doctors you cited. You have all been easily proved wrong. Dr. Mohmand, Take some time to review the errors you made in your last post concerning laser physics. Take a moment to allow the corrections I made sink in. Then re-analyze the position of LLLT objectively. There is no more room for debate, the issue is dead...and so is LLLT. The only thing keeping it alive is the ignorance of the public who will pay for anything to regrow hair, the ignorance of doctors concerning how lasers actually work, and enlightened doctors who disingenuously advocate for LLLT anyway to make money. The facts I've demonstrated here are axiomatic and undeniable. They were based on basic scientific principles of physics and demonstrated very easily on camera repeatedly. Because these facts are indisputable, any study supporting the grand claim of LLLT proponents is invalid on it's face. Just like I don't need to do a study on carpets to know they can't fly, I know I don't have to do an LLLT clinical trial to prove it doesn't work. You know it's not my job to disprove a hypothesis. Let's step back and look at the big picture. It is your current position that the few papers presented by clinical doctors(not research experts)outweighs the absolute and total lack of before/after results from tens of thousands of LLLT patients and their doctors WORLDWIDE, including your own clinic. Objectively speaking, don't you see a problem with this position? Take some time to reconsider your position. If you can counter anything I've written here, then I will reconsider. I think that is a fair deal. But if we are to both honorably continue to call ourselves doctors ONE of us is going to have to change his position. I look forward to your reply Dr. Mohmand, and thank you for watching my video and reading my viewpoints and how I supported them. I really appreciate it and I look forward to your learned counterpoints. Dr. Feller

Thanks Bul. LLLT proponents won't come on here and face the music. They are content to be humiliated on here because the bulk of their customers don't read these forums. Threads like these concern them, but not too much yet. They tried to market their quackary on this site, and got their hat handed to them. Check out the Dr. Alan Bauman threads before he high-tailed it out of here. My real goal is to organize a group of enlightened and intelligent doctors and patients who have not been taken in by the mass delusion of LLLT. With such a group we can counter the slimey LLLT industry and expose it for what it is: Quackary. And for what it isn't: a method to regrow a cosmetically signficiant amount of hair.

Latin, I hear you. But I'm really not trying to convince the lay public. I am trying to educate the doctors, my collegues, to stop engaging in pseudo-science. There complicity in the quack endevour of LLLT degrades the medical profession in general and the hair transplant field in particular. What truly amazes me is that NO other doctor is speaking out against LLLT except Dr. Lindsey and myself. If we can make it so obvious that LLLT doesn't work, although I don't see how it CAN be made much more obvious, perhaps we can shame these LLLT doctors into explaining themselves. Every day of silence they let slip by is just another degree of credibility that they all lose. The problem is, their loss of credibility reflects on ALL doctors, and that's why I keep sounding the alarm against this junk-science. A belief in junk medicine is anathma to me. When it is promulgated by licensed medical doctors it is abhorent and must be countered. I plan to take this challenge to LLLT much further than a few videos and postings on the internet.

Dr. Mohmand, You claim to have performed 800 surgeries last year? That is an impossibility. Either you meant to write 80, or you are simply in the habit of bloating reality. I still believe you are acting unethically toward your LLLT patients. If you sell them a laser comb and they want to return it you should give them their money back, not limit their refund to it's equal worth in grafts which to you is pennies on the dollar. That is a transparent effort to unethically profit and is the kind of sales tactic that is not appreciated by the public. Americans as educated consumers would never accept such a one sided deal. You may respect that people believe in Voodoo or laser light therapy, but as a practitioner of western medicine it is your job to be the ENLIGHTENED professional who protects them from such superstitious practice and teaches them the reality of things. Respecting the beliefs of lay patients is one thing, taking advantage of it to your own benefit is quite another. Why do you blindly follow the "studies" of other doctors who have obvious agendas concerning LLLT? Are you such a sheep that you must follow the leader no matter where you are led? If you view my video, and I have included a shorter version here, you can see that the laser can't even reach the follicles in the first place. How, as an educated man, can you ignore this reality? Or do you not believe in cause and effect? http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser2.wmv Dr. Mohmand, My goal is to challenge LLLT doctors to use their minds actively, not merely open it. Take stock of the facts: 1. Laser light can NOT reach the follicles. This is a physical and fatal fact for LLLT. 2. All LLLT proponents claim it is the unique nature of LASER light that affects the follicles. Yet such laser light can not reach the follicles, only standard monochromatic red light. 3. No one has published ANY demonstrable before/after photos after 25 years. 4. You have not seen any results for yourself 5. There have only been a handful of actually studies reported and none of them demonstrate a cosmetically significant benefit. 6. The only results you seem to put stock in are those in patients whom were also taking FDA approved drugs proven to benefit hair loss sufferers. As a rational man do your really think the case for LLLT has really been made? Don't you think the points I brought up in my video are at least worth bringing up with the people who manufacture the lasers you sell to your patients? Do you honestly think that selling ineffective laser combs to patients is justified just because the patients BELIEVE it works? Especially when even you can't see any benefit from their regular use? Please don't bother with your patient's testimonial. Without photographic evidence there is no point. We've heard it all before. If David Michaels from Hair max lasercomb can't present clear cut photographic evidence, I highly doubt your patient will. Please address the issues and decide whether you want to stay on the unethical side of the LLLT debate, or join the good guys. It may mean some less money in your pocket, but you will be respected for doing the right thing. Everyone makes mistakes and get's caught up in crazes, especially when there are so many doctors involved. But that doesn't make them right about LLLT. In fact, I know they are wrong, just as you are, but there is always time to realize your mistake and correct it.

I have included a shorter version of the video. It is my hope that we will read the responses of the LLLT doctors and other industry professionals soon. Shorter version of video: http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser2.wmv

Thank you all for the comments. Blow, Someone walked off with my wiffle ball bat. Pretty low, huh?! PGP, No, it wouldn't matter if you could deliver laser light directly to the follicles even if you could. We are NOT plants! Remember, hair loss is GENETIC, not the end result of rotting. This means the follicle shuts itself down from the inside. Blood supply nor ATP has antyhing to do with it. The cells in the follicle are simply executing a genetic program downloaded during conception. Nothing more. Anything that would allow a cell to funciton more efficiently would only allow that cell to carry out its programming that much more effectively.

This thread has now been up for over a YEAR. It has been viewed thousands of times. In all that time neither Dr. Bauman nor Mr. David Michaels of Lexington has bothered to respond, although I would bet good money they've read this thread multiple times. I believe the reason for this is obvious and speaks poorly of both them and the pseudo-science they are literally selling to a lay public. Shame on them and all like them. Here is a video I produced to demonstrate once and for all that LLLT can't work. The conclusions are based on TRUE science and rational thought. No need for "secret" studies or Russian junk-science. LLLT doctors who have gotten caught up in the pseudoscience of this quack industry should watch this video very closely. I would be very interested in their feedback. The video was really designed for doctors to watch, so it is more of a lecture with demonstrations that prove LLLT cannot work as advertised, rather than an "entertaining" production. Everyone, however, is invited to watch it and respond with their thoughts. Short version: http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser2.wmv Longer version: Give the video about a minute to download. http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser1.wmv

BEFORE YOU BUY A LASER COMB OR OFFER LASER TREATMENTS TO PATIENTS SEE THIS VIDEO. I produced this video off the top of my head in an effort to educate LLLT doctors and the public as to why lasers CAN'T grow hair. The conclusions are plain to see and appreciate. They also have the benefit of being demonstrable, repeatable, and undeniable- which is much more than can be said for those who make the bold assertions that lasers can grow hair. The ignorance and arrogance of the LLLT industry has led them to make a fatal mistake. They didn't realize that once their magical lasers strike even the thinnest of surfaces, the light disperses and loses it's "laser" quality instantly. This means the light that finally makes it down to the deep layer of the follicles is nothing more than standard red light which, in their own words, has no "follicle stimulating" effect. Of course NO light has any stimulating effect on hair follicles since we are humans and not plants. This video will come as a shock to the LLLT industry The video takes about 1 minute to load, but be patient and give the stream a chance to download. Short version: http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser2.wmv Long version: http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser1.wmv

Since simply posting text about why laser threapy can't work doesn't seem to be enough, I put together a video that demonstrates WHY it can't work. I made this video presentation for doctors and LLLT industry "experts", but the public is more than welcome to watch it and comment on it. It is my fervant hope that this will educate doctors and patients as to the folly of LLLT. It takes about a minute to download so be patient. http://www.fellermedicaldata.com/Video/laser1.wmv

I would also like to add again, that performing scientific studies on laser combs is as useless as performing such studies on flying carpets. In the absence of ANY demonstrable proof of efficacy AND a realistic mechanism of action, there is just no point. At best LLLT has fooled ignorant and naive doctors and patients. At worst, the LLLT industry, and their doctor accomplaces, are knowingly preying on an unsuspecting public.

Dr. Mohmand, I find your answer to be deceptive. If a patient does not have results with their laser comb you should give them their MONEY back, not reimburse them in grafts. The obvious implication here is that a dissatisfied patient must pay you for an HT if they want to be "reimbursed" for a useless lasercomb. This makes your use of laser combs a MARKETING gimmick to put money in your pocket or sign them up for a much more expensive HT procedure. An UNETHICAL practice. Furthermore, if you truly believed in LLLT, based on the fact that you beleived the two "studies" you cited, then why haven't you invested in several large LLLT machines for your office for the "benefit" of your patients? You believe it works don't you? Then why are you denying your patients the "best" laser "treatments". You would certainly make more money. Or perhaps you don't believe in it to that extent, eh? Also, Dr. Leavitt has already publicly acknowledged that he is in the laser business, so how could you rely on their presented "study"? Finally, you acknowledged the fact that lasers don't add up when you analyze the physics of it on this forum, yet you STILL continue to support it and take your patient's money for it. That just doesn't make ANY sense. It is your obligation to present demonstrable proof to the public that laser therapy works in YOUR office. As a medical doctor citing the "studies" of other doctors is simply not enough justification for taking money for therapies that YOU have not seen work in YOUR office. Don't you see how wrong that is?

Dr. Mohmand, As a physician you should know and understand that"photobiostimulation" is junk science with absoutely no clinical efficacy. There is absoutely no basis for this so-called"pathway" and it is NOT taught in any medical school or residency in any part of the world I know of, including yours. So why in the world would you believe in it? If you remember your optical physics from your pre-med days you will remember that laser, like all light, is simply a forum of energy and nothing more. It can NOT be mixed with other substances to make a "coctail" as you call it because it is NOT a substance- just merely a form of energy. The only difference between a 650nm LED and a 650nm Laser is that the light is columnated that allows it to travel a greater distance without dispersing. Once it is absorbed by a surface, HOWEVER, the columnated nature of the light is disrupted and the light reverts from "laser" back to monochromatic light at 650nm. That is, when the laser strikes the epidermis and the very shallow dermis, the laser nature of the light collapses and the light striking the follicles is reduced to a simple red light without any supposed "biostimulation" effect. One millimeter of skin is all that is needed to destroy the laser leaving just a red monochrmatic light. Simply take a tissue and shine your laser at it. Then, look on the other side of the tissue. The light you are seeing there is NO LONGER laser light. The laser has collapsed to a standard red light at 650nm. Need more proof? Shine your laser at the wall then simply place the tissue infront of it. The laser will disappear. This is because the light no longer has laser properties. If it did, the light would still be columnated and it would continue undispersed toward the wall. But it doesn't. This is because the tissue has absorbed the laser and re-radiated the photos randomly in all directions as opposed to a unidirectional columnated fashion (laser). This is why optical componenets used in laser labs and communications equipment to reflect and refract laser light must be absolutely clean. Even a layer of dust can reduce the laser light to the point of useless. Ask any fiber optic telephone technician what would happen if just a small layer of grease (MUCH thinner than a klenex tissue by the way)was deposited in a splice by accident. No signals would pass through the fiber. And trust me, those lasers are FAR more powerful than the 5 milliwatt laser pointers employed by the bogus LLLT industry. Scalp is MUCH thicker than a layer of grease or a klenex tissue. The bottom line is that there is NO WAY 650 nanometers of energy is going to penetrate past the first 1 milimeter of scalp, much less down to the level of the follicles and past their membranes into the cells that constitute it in LASER form. It doesn't happen. And since it is specifically the LASER nature of the light that LLLT industry "experts" point to for it's efficacy, we can safely conclude that the theories dreamed up to sell this quack treatment is garbage. Dr Mohmand, you clearly have no evidence that LLLT works. You clearly have no mechanism of action by which it can work. And now you know the sham mechanism of action you've believed in up to this point is completely bogus. Do you really think it is still ethical to sell this "remedy" to your patients?

I've never calculated it, but I would say 80-85% is a fair number. However, I've seen a huge range of growth yields from 50% on the one extreme to 100% on the other. When I consult with patients and tell them the difference between the two surgeries I give them the 80% yield numer.

Bill, You wrote: ---------- the efficacy of laser therapy is regularly debated by physicians in the hair loss industry ---------- What debates are your referring to? Which doctors are engaging in these debates? Plese cite your source. I don't think there is any question that such doctors are unethical. There is certainly no moral justification for selling quack remedies to the public. Even less so when the doctors involved admit there are no demonstrable results from such "therapies". I think it is pretty shameful that the doctors involved hid from this thread. As Bill said they were not "required" to respond, but I'm quite sure they've followed it everyday. Hopefully many of their potential LLLT patients read this thread as well and saw how unwilling these doctors were to stand by the treatments they sell to the their patients.

PGP, If you get the time please post a list of LLLT doctors. Bill, what is your personal take on this disgraceful situation at this point? The doctors you quoted in your article are clearly ducking this thread. As member doctors do they not have a responsibility to account for their actions in this matter to you, Pat, and the community? Unfortunately, HTN is not a regulartory body, it is a public forum where issues that might be swept under the carpet are otherwise highlighted and exposed. Such is the power of these forums. But while the general physician poplulation cannot be held responsible for the quack remedies they sell to their patients, member doctors of this forum CAN be held responsible. But I believe they must also be given a chance to correct their mistakes. All people make mistakes and get caught up in them. Perhaps that's what happened in the case of these doctors. If this is indeed the case, my recommendation would be for these doctors to publicly renounce LLLT on this forum and admit that after "extensive experimentation" LLLT was a failure. Which it most certainly is by the way. Then I would recommend re-joining the side of the honest, righteous, and transparent by actively commenting against LLLT whenever the issue comes up. Make amends by challenging other LLLT doctors and their corrupt industry-and allow the public to see you do it. By doing this you might not only redeem yourselves, but elevate the entire profession as well. The choice is yours gentlemen. Dr. Feller

DAY 3- and still not a word from the LLLT doctors.

BeHappy, I repair LIMA patients all the time. You must live nearby. Why don't you come to the office for me to evaluate your situation and see if we can figure something out? You're certainly welcome and there is no charge for the consultation. If we can come up with a plan we will cover it on the internet. Pictures, video, the works. Come down, maybe I can help you out of that mess.

PGP, You seem to have a great facility using the internet. If you have the time, could you please list all the doctors you can find who offer LLLT to their patients on their websites? I think it's time we took this whole issue out of the shadows and into the open the same way HTN exposed HT doctors who continued to unethically offer plug surgery and scalp reductions knowing full well superior techniques were available and well established. BeHappy, Your logic is truly stunning. It is only in that kind of mind that LLLT can be given any credibility. Your signature says: "Using laser brush since 7/26/07. Working great so far." Yet you have refused to show photos. That puts you in the same camp as Dr. Alan Bauman and the other doctors that Bill cited in his article. Any rational person knows you are lying and obfuscating for reasons known only to yourself, so why do you continue on here trying to mislead people into using LLLT? Free or not, quack medicine is bad for everybody. Don't you understand that? What I find very interesting is that everytime I expose an issue like this, the doctors themselves never come on to defend themselves. Rather, they allow anonymous posters to do their job for them. From megaFUE, to BHT, to garbage shampoos, to LLLT it's always the same. They insult the intelligence of the public while picking their pockets and are just allowed to continue doing it unopposed. But I believe the buck stops at HTN. And while this may not be a regulatory body, it is a powerful voice that has changed the direction of this industry and helped to clean it up by cutting past the arrogant misuse of the public trust that so many HT doctors have engaged in over the years just to feather their own nests. Hey, I have no problem with making money, but only when the means are transparent and justified.

Bill, I would think that if these doctors are "recommended" or "coalition" doctors that they would be mandated to respond. When the patient of a member doctor complains on this site you send that doctor an email and require them to respond. If they respond satisfactoraly life moves on, if they don't their membership is put on probation. I believe the recent ousting of an Australlian doctor who refused to justify an obviously poor treatment plan is just one such example. LLLT does not work. You agree with this conclusion. The only people who don't agree are those who financially benefit from not agreeing or have some other mysterious agenda. The only conclusion I can come to in terms of doctors offering LLLT is that it is, in fact, the definition of an unethical practice. I will, of course, wait for some LLLT doctors to respond and perhaps give me cause for re-consideration of my position. I believe we are into day 2 of waiting.

Bill, I think I was very clear in my last post why BeHappy should not post on this thread. He has already made grand claims supporting LLLT that he has REFUSED to back up for the past year. Would any rational person trust anything more this man had to say or write about the subject of LLLT? What other conclusion can you draw from his past behavior other than that he is a fake? I would think you as a moderator would have jumped in yourself to censure his input so this thread didn't go off course like it is now. You took the bait from this guy and now we are discussing him instead of the doctors you emailed 24 hours ago. Bill, you don't have to worry about me thinking I'm "the moderator", I'm not interested in the job. I am interested in reading what the doctors YOU cited in your own article have to say as to how they justify the use of LLLT in their practices when they have admitted themselves that the results are not demonstrable. It has now been 24 hours since you emailed these doctors and still there is no response. I think that is the most important point made on this thread today.

Bill, I believe it was you in your last post that narrowed the focus of this thread to a virtual boxing match between DOCTORS. As such, input from patients regarding their own experiences with LLLT represent an inappropriate tangent. This goes double for BeHappy who has been claiming miraculous results with his laser comb for over a year but to date has refused to post a single photo of proof. By failing to support his claims his credibility is as suspect as that of my LLLT opponents, and any statements written by him in support of my opponents or LLLT is not to be believed. He made his bed, he now must lay in it. If BeHappy absolutely must continue to make unsupported claims about his laser comb, he can make his own thread.

Be Happy, I appreicate the input, but please keep the thread open for LLLT doctors to respond as they have been asked to by Bill. PGP, To clarify, I posted a before/after picture from the Hairmax site and pointed out their obvious use of deceptive practices.

FUT is strip surgery. I wouldn't allow the use of automated implanters on my head, and neither should you.

I know where you're coming from Rick and I appreciate you jumping in. I believe most participants on this thread don't believe in LLLT and are just trying to play a bit of the devil's advocate as Bill is doing. But that's all for the good because it will compel those doctors and other professionals who do support LLLT to come out of the woodwork and defend their position coherently and articulately. To date, LLLT proponents have not really been challenged. But there are enough dissatisfied LLLT patients online now to force a dialog. Please stay on this thread and watch for the input of the LLLT supporting doctors.

I recommend staying away from implanter pens. The amount of extra handling required to load the "pen" and then push the graft through it will reduce the overall yield. Grafts don't like to be handled, which is why FUE procedure tend to produce lower yields as well. The device may have some application in the hands of novice clinics, but it could never seriously be given credit as a device that could INCREASE dense packing. On the contrary, the large size of the needle itself limits any valid claim of dense packing. Furthermore, as Janna already noted, the increased popping of nearby grafts is virtually unavoidable causing yet more graft handling. One final objection I have to such devices is that they are relatively expensive compared to slit blades or disposable needles. Because of this the device is reusable and I personally have a problem with any reusable surgical instrument that has a lumen as the choi implanter pen does. No matter how well sterilized this tool might be, I would never want it used on me or my family.