Dr. Alan Feller

Here is a photo from a brochure sent by another company trying to sell me laser equipment for the purposes of taking advantage of patients. In the photo you see a woman who may have "thinning hair". They show her sitting in a cozy chair watching TV and drinking spring water. How nice and refreshing. However if you look at the laser light coming out of the "apparatus" anyone can plainly see the majority of it is being reflected off of her hair!!! Light, whether columnated in the form of a laser or not, is "LINE OF SIGHT". Therefore, most of the "magical" laser light isn't even hitting her scalp! Light, whether laser or not, will not "soak in" like water coming from a shower head. But that is clearly what they want us to believe. This doesn't pass the laugh test, yet they are actually selling this thing to doctors. Any doctor who buys this product clearly got a D in physics and should be forced to repeat the semester. How do they sell this garbage to other doctors?! That box with the key hanging out of it is a nice touch, isn't it?

"Guapo Therapy" That's hilarious!

Mr. Attrill, 1.First of all, I am not an "organization", I'm just me. One individual who made a statment and can back it up himself. No need to send to London for answers. 2.Secondly, it is YOUR "organization" that has printed misinformation, not me. All I did was ask you some basic questions which you STILL have not addressed. In doing so you have exposed yourself for what you really are. 3.The other snake oils you fool your clients with is a non-sequitor. 4.Your explaination as to the mechanism of action of minoxidil demonstrates your ignorance and lack of medical knowledge. I won't bother explaining it because you clearly wouldn't understand. By the way, capillary walls do not contain smooth muscle and therefore are unaffected by alpha-blockers (minoxidil) genius. Do you even know how anti-hypertensives work? You should atleast do a bit of research before misleading the public with simple-minded explainations. 5.You are not professionals and therefore not deserving of ANY courtesy. 6. I challenge you and your company to compare the results of your magic laser therapy to hair transplantation. I propose we pick a willing volunteer and draw two 1-centimeter boxes on his scalp. Then you can hit him with as much magical laser dust as you want into one box and I will transplant 40 grafts into the other. We will post the results right here on HTN. In the meantime, how about you stop misleading innocent people into spending thousands of dollars on a "treatment" that I have yet to see any significant cosmetic results from? Man, how do you sleep at night?

HLBD, I am going to respond to you, and while what I write may be quite direct, it is not meant to be disrespectful or an attack. Some of your statements seem to give support to the company, so in answering them you may be getting caught in the "cross fire" a bit. I appreciate your comments, but when grandiose claims are made it is up to the claimant to prove them conclusively and articulatly. This company has not done so. In fact it has gone out of it's way NOT to do so. It is not my job to "prove a negative" (although in this case it is a particularly easy task). It IS my job, however, to question the claim. If I don't, then I am indirectly lending credibility to the claim. This is why I posted questions to the company spokesperson publically-and as yet received no answers. I know that they cannot answer them because their claims are widlely beyond the scope of modern day science AND they run counter to known physiology. It is up to THEM to convince ME that their "technology" is credibible. Instead, however, they obfuscate, confuse, and distract rather than chosing to answer my direct questions. Sending to London for an answer is just ridiculous on it's face and is, as put by another poster, a "run-around". This company knows that it is best to throw out ANY answer, rather than not answer at all. They duck the question, but not the conversation-that is clearly their modus operandi. They just hope the thread get's too long and most people won't bother reading it. Then it won't matter what they write. Very shrewed group. You wrote that you were not one to say that LLLT doesn't work. But you are wrong. If you claim to have a scientific background (as you have), then it is your obligation to say it doesn't work until they prove that it does. It is your job to review your own knowledge of physiology and laser physics to determine if the claim could pass your personal credibility test. If you had any such knowledge then you would be outraged by this company's claim. Instead you take a middle of the road position that serves no one. You have a capacity to think, reason, and question- but you reject them. It is your obligation to utilize them. That's the greatest gift mankind has been given. You don't need to see evidence that LLLT doesn't work, you only need evidence that it DOES work. And it is the company's job to provide it. They have avoided doing so. Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence is against LLLT, but you still deny yourself the right to come to a conslusion. Why? Unfortunately, most people have little or no knowledge of either physiology nor laser physics. What is shown in movies and tv is misleading to say the least, but I think it is this myth that companies like this one rely on to hook their clients. It pains me to see a modern society fall so easily to this company's methods. It's like taking a step backwards into the dark ages. You wrote that "cells do seem to respond to certain wavelengths of light". OK, but so what? How does this very broad, yet scientific sounding statement relate to the claims being made by the company? It doesn't. Why would you even post a non-sequitor statement like that? What power levels were used? What was the purpose of the "study" you cite? You don't even know the wavelengths or conditions used by the company nor that of the "study" you are attempting to quote. So how can you take an experiment performed under controlled conditions and compare it to a largely hidden procedure being performed for money? And then how do you take the extra step of presenting this to a lay public as some sort of support for LLLT? Besides, wouldn't you say that there is a huge difference between an experiement performed in a lab and that performed in a living human being? See how asking questions can blow a theary apart (or support it?) If the use of different "wavelengths" clinically can affect human tissue, then why isn't it used in cancer treatments? Autoimmune diseases? Infectious processes? Dr. Bauman is not a researcher as far as I know. He is a user of laser devices and makes money for his efforts. This does not make him a "researcher". Not that making money is a bad thing, but don't you think that puts his credibility into quesion just a bit? Back to your "wavelength and cells" theory. Did you know that there are MANY things that affect cellular growth and function beyond wavelengths of light? Here are a few: 1. Acids and Bases: (ABT) Did you know that weak acids and bases (ph) will also affect cellular growth? Does this mean that a company that pours vinigar or baking soda on the scalp for the purpose of hair re-growth has credibility? 2. RF frequecies (RFT): Should we strap radio antennas onto the scalp and start transmitting? 3 Ultrasound (UST): Should we "vibrate" the hair cells back to life? 4. Pressure (PT): High pressure will affect cellular function and growth. Why don't we put every bald person into a decompression chamber? 5. Heat (HT): Let's put blow dryers on people's bald scalps for twenty minutes at a time and bill them thousands of dollars for it. 6. Laser Light Therapy (LLLT): Oops, this is being done already. Do you begin to see how LLLT fits into this questionable list of "therapies" very nicely? You can buy a laser device and do an "unbiased" test, but you really shouldn't have to. Your intellect, reason, and available evidence should be enough on it's own. You also don't have to buy a carpet to prove that it can't fly, but if you feel you must, then you must. But how can you call yourself "unbiased" when you wrote that you doubt that 90% of people that try LLLT are satisfied with it? Sounds like major bias to me. And you SHOULD be biased. You should take a solid position on everything in life UNTIL you are convinced to change that position for something even more solid. Flowers and inanimate objects blow in the wind, a thinking and rational person does not. The real question I have for you is: if you already acknowledge so much evidence against LLLT, why do you insist that you are still in the middle of the road? You should be careful there, that's where people get hit by on coming traffic from BOTH lanes. Very bad place to be. Dr. Feller

HT doctors have been ducking the internet for years- looking for any and every excuse not to have to participate. Most of them know their work is substandard compared to those doctors who encourage their patients to post photos of every aspect of their procedures. Rather than improve their work, they try to tear down the forums used to display other doctor's work. It is so transparent. I have been attacked by other doctors who've critisized my use of the web to display my results. They think it is "wrong" but can never articulate why. Interesting isn't it? Anyone with a medical degree and the due's fee can be an ISHRS member. It is meaningless as far as merit goes. Any doctor who honestly believes their work is superior should have no problem allowing themselves to be scrutinized DAILY on the web. If a doctor resists this, then you know where he/she feel's they really rank in the pack.

Rhodeman, You are 100% correct. I told you that group was a bunch of real silky smoothies. He used a technique known as "distraction" to respond to the thread without actually anwering. Confidence men use this method regularly. As far as I'm concerned, based on their silence, they are busted. I see a class action lawsuit coming for them and the manufacturer of their magic laser beams. I still have not had a chance to contact Dr. Bauman who is the only reputable doctor I know who advocates this "laser therapy". Once I do I will share it with this site. Should be interesting. Dr. Feller

MD1 Answer this simple question: How does laser light, which is "line of site", pass through existing hair? Furthermore, how does your "equipment" account for the massive variability in skin color, texture, and thickness? Instead of doing your standard "softshoe" dance of claiming how you are supposedly refunding patients, why don't you answer this very substantive and direct question? *Tell us how your magical laser light show re-animates dead or dying cellular material.* It's a simple question isn't it? But you haven't answered yet. I can go into ridiculous detail as to how hair transplantation works ??“and even do so on a daily basis. Where is YOUR explanation? I'm not holding you to any standard I don't hold myself up to, so come on, let's have your explanation. Every viewer of this thread is waiting for a logical answer-your credibility and that of your company is on the line here so don't you think you should answer?

Hairtech, You talk trash about me even though you've never even met me or a patient of mine. Anytime you have the balls to speak that way to my face you know where to find me. It's beyond me how any doctor would let you touch their patients. Only 3 weeks ago, you had the gaul to send me your resume and beg me for a job. Problems at Dr. Cole's office? You were such a zealous defender of his only a few months back, what ever could have happened? After your trash talk about me what in the world made you think I would even consider hiring the likes of you? It's "independent clinical consultants" like you that give HT a bad name. That's why I didn't even respond to the resume you sent-other than to laugh loudly when reading it. Man are you full of yourself. Character and credibility are everything in the medical business. You have shown that you have neither. Don't bother sending your resume to me again. Dr. Feller

Interesting how MD1, the rep from the laser hair growth company, no longer posts on this thread. I think my accusation was articulate and clear, so where is their defense? They should be able to easily refute my statements shouldn't they? After all they have "thousands of HAPPY patients"! I would love to be proved wrong because then I would buy a laser and increase my bottom line. As for Dr Bauman, I know and respect him. He is a bright and hardworking doctor who knows what he's doing. His advocacy for this laser comb stuff does throw me a bit and I will give him a call to find out his position and report back here. Who knows, maybe he'll convince me. I doubt it, but we'll see. Should be interesting Dr. Feller

Let's move past the rhetoric about lasers: To begin, there is no such substance as "laser". Unlike a "medication" it has no properties OTHER than simply being a form of energy. In and of itself it has no properties that are useful in our "plane of existence". Medical lasers work in ONLY ONE WAY, and that is to deliver energy to a target. When it strikes the target the energy is absorbed and converted to HEAT. THAT'S IT! The beauty of a laser is that by varying the frequency and power the doctor can focus on tissue at various depths AND tissues of various colorations. THAT'S IT! Companies like AHS promulgate the myth that "laser" is a medication. They even go the next step and say that if it is combined with other "medications" like minoxidil and "herbs" that there will be some mystical magical synergy and hair will some how re-grow from the dead. In the original Frankenstein I believe lightning was the magical "medication" used to bring life to the lifeless. The modern version has simply changed lightening to laser beams.

That was an excellent post. One of the very best I've ever read on a forum. Funny too. I have several 510k s to my name for medical devices I've designed and built over the years. While it was certainly convenient and cheap to get approval on my devices using the "substantial equivalence" argument, it is true that there is room for abuse. Laser combs are only a SMALL example of this abuse. Keep in mind, however, that the 510k process also allows good and useful products to receive approval much faster than without it. I was never a fan of gov't regulation because it provides a false sense of security to the general public and makes them become lazy about researching products and thinking for themselves. How else could a product like laser combs not be laughed off the market? By "approving" the product the gov't has given the public the false perception that it has consistent and demonstrable efficacy. Forum viewers and contributors are obvious exceptions to this rule. Gov't intrusion into invention and development styfles innovation. It seems there will always be a good and bad side to every process. For this reason, it is up to the public to be EVER vigilant when opting for anything medical or otherwise. A good place to start is common sense. If what is being offered seems too good to be true...then it is! The second place to start is to examine the credibility of those offering the "fantastic product". If they seem like sleezy salespeople, then step back and re-evaluate.

It is truly unfortunate that there are companies out there who take advantage of the public's ignorance about basic physiology and laser physics. This company takes the prize. I have been vocal against so-called "laser treatments" for hairloss because it simply doesn't make any sense. If it were that easy to repair dead or dying follicular cells, then it would work on kidney or heart cells. But it doesn't of course. The scheme this company uses is a bit more sophistocated than the average confidence ploy through their creation of the mystical "trifecta" of laser, herbs, and minoxidil- but in the end is still disingenuous to say the least. The interview that doctor gave could be used as an instructional video for a "confidence man" course. He's about as slick and bold as they come, but he may soon find out that the "this things happen" defense will not keep him out of trouble. Claiming you have "thousands of happy patients" does not mean you have produced thousands of cosmetically significant results. My guess is that the company simply classifies anybody who doesn't demand there money back as "happy". I'd be interested to know what surveying method they used to come up with their "thousands of happy patients claim" Oh wait a moment, that information is classified. Of course I know a reprentative of the company will read my comments and I of course welcome a public debate at any time if they can publically claim that anything I've written about laser therapy is inaccurate. Bring it on.

Irish, It's time to start washing the recipient area vigorously. Use the pads of your fingers to rub in gentle circles on the recipient area while you are in the shower, and let the water hit the area directly now. You are being way too careful with those grafts. They are not that fragile. Scrub them! That area needs to be adequately washed. Dr. Feller

I found this thread from last year and thought it would be nice closure to add the conclusion of Beefy's story with photos...

LOL Irish. I remember that conversation. It's so true though isn't it?! I have to work my way over to Dublin one of these days indeed. Grow well. Dr F

Johnno, I will be in London doing consults from the 28th to the 30th of January. Watch this board for details and location. Sorry for the shameless promotion everyone! Dr. Feller

There is a big difference between minigrafting and proper FU transplanting. The following photo should make this clear. My patient had 3,000 grafts implanted. The other guy had less than half that.

Tisab, I'm sorry to say that I've never heard of your doctor, nor do I agree with his treatment plan. From the photos it appears far too much donor area was taken for the number of graft your report were transplanted. Futhermore (from your photos), it appears that the donor site was way too low on the scalp and might explain why the scar is so wide. I would also venture to say that you did not have true follicular units, but rather an old style mini/micrograft procedure. I say this based on the spacing I see between the grafts and the intense erythema (redness) in those recipient sites. At this stage this readness represents the body's attempt to remove the excess tissue that was probably left around the grafts. Now this is normal to a certain extent, but the fact that you have natrually dark skin makes me think that redness is excessive. Smaller grafts, such as true FUs and smaller incisions would probably result in far less redness and better growth. My suggestion is that you not only fill in those areas with true follicular units, but bring your temples forward a bit to balance out the hairline. Total number of grafts would probably be about 1,000-1,200. Best of luck. Dr Feller

Bill, I don't think you are getting the point. I am not the one in power in this scenerio. I am admitting just the opposite. It is the patient's physiology that is in control, not me. I am charging to ATTEMPT to do the surgery. The price is a mixture of the skill and experience I've accumulated over the years in FUE as well as the amount of money I would have made if I had signed a strip patient up for that very same day. Market forces and simple economics determine my price in order to stay competative and viable. I don't have any choice in the matter. Unfortunately, many people just FEEL it's wrong for physicians to make money off of people's misfortune and support socialized healthcare systems that strip the profit out of medicine. All this does is decrease the quality of healthcare, and if (when) that happens in the U.S., that will be end of high quality medicine and research and development. I'm not saying YOU want to socialize medicine, but your arguments are at the very core of those who do. Think about it.

Humbug

Bill and B spot, I don't take this thread personally at all, so no problem. I enjoy this banter when I get the time to participate. I find it interesting that you two view the patient as the "little guy" and the doctor as the "big guy". I think this view goes way beyond an HT discussion, but in short if falsely casts the doctor as the "oppressor" and the poor patient in the role of "victim". (Bill I know you don't mean it literally so don't take it to heart) It completely ignores that a MUTUALLY beneficial agreement was struck by two EQUAL individuals PRIOR to execution of the deal that had the benefit of FULL disclosure along with extensive due diligence and informed consent. Both parties are EQUAL, don't you see that? There is no "big guy" little guy". It doesn't matter if it's a doctor/patient, company owner/client, or cab-driver/fare, pretzel vendor/Donald Trump or Donald Trump/ Bank president. Example: Who is the "big guy" in this relationship: Donald Trump/ His new wife's divorce attorney ? There is really only a couple of ways a person can become the "big guy" and that's by FORCE or DECEPTION. In any other situation the so called "little guy" can just walk away. Isn't that obvious??? NervousNelly, I don't think being honest about my profit motives should concern you. I don't think being candid and open about it should be seen as "harsh". Don't you work for a living and hope and expect to earn as much as you feel your efforts are worth? Of course you do, it's human nature. It's only when Force or Deception is used to stifle that human drive that society runs into problems. Look at communist Russia or Socialist Western Europe. Vilifying or shunning profit has ALWAYS proved to be catastrophic and creates the largest number of truly oppressed "little guys" that you can imagine. Everything around you was created and manufactured solely and exclusively by people who had profit motives in mind. That is THE driving force of every slave-free economy since the dawn of mankind. Profit is not a pejorative term and it shouldn't be whispered. I won't. At the same time I don't worship at the "alter of the dollar". I know some that do and they truly disgust me. They give nothing away and account for every penny in their lives like it were their last, an exhaustive and (ironically) costly obsession. Sorry for the lecture, but this thread was screaming out for it. Again, I don't take anything here personally. I never thought my reputation was impugned, nor do I feel I have been "torpedoed". My basic philosophy is that if you remain optimistic, driven, hard working, and above all HONEST with your fellow man, prosperity sneaks up on you. Doesn't matter what your occupation or station in life is, success is an equal opportunity stalker. Dr. Feller

Don't be ridiculous B, I have an accountant Thanks for the post. Dr F

Bill, I do not take what you wrote personally, but I do disagree with you on a few points. I also think there are a few things that you haven't taken into account. 1. FUE procedures are no longer experimental. They are now a proven entity and have entered the mainstream of modern hair transplantation. Body hair FUE has NOT. The two are not comparable. 2. When FUE was experimental I DID do hundreds of them (thousands of FUE grafts) for free on volunteer patients. From 2002 to 2004 I never charged a dime for FUE until I had worked out a viable technique, designed and built customized FUE instrumentation, and had enough patient results to satisfy even the harshest critic that FUE was a successful adjunct to strip. 3. What I have learned from practicing FUE from 2002 to now is that NOT everybody is a candidate, and even fewer are candidates for FUE megasessions. Any doctor claiming that they can do FUE on everybody is doing one of two things: a. They are lying about the actual number of grafts they report or b. They are switching up to larger punches beyond .9mm in diameter which takes the procedure out of the FUE realm and into the old "plug" territory. Since I refuse to do either of the above, I would rather tell the patient before hand that they simply may not get the number of grafts desired. 4. I want to make it clear that I am an unabashed and unapologetic capitalist. I absolutely love performing surgery , but I am also in business to make money and I, like you, strive to work in the most efficient manner toward that end. This hardly means that money is "everything" to me. On the contrary, I have been donating my services for years and have a waiting list for my pro bono patients well into 2007. But I can't afford to lose valuable days of surgery on a hit or miss procedure like megasession FUE, particularly when I know I could have scheduled sure-fire strip surgeries on those days. Yes, it IS about the money as such days like those can add up. 5. While I may not be able to perform a megasession FUE on a particular patient, it doesn't mean they have thrown away $4,000. They always have the option to switch it to a strip procedure on that very day and apply every dollar of the $4,000 to the strip. In this scenario I make no money for attempting the FUE megasession. 6. I firmly believe that if I can't perform a megasession FUE on a particular patient, then neither can any other doctor practicing FUE today and that patient should switch over to a strip procedure. If any FUE doctor out there cares to challenge me on that statement I await your invitation. There are a few high profile FUE doctors out there whom I've openly challenged to disclose their methods and results on these forums who haven't answered these challenges. That should tell you all something. Hairroot understood and agreed to the terms of my megasessions and it paid off for him. You should also note that in only two cases have I failed to achieve the FUE megasession count. In both those cases the patient was switched to strip and actually SAVED money. I do all of this not because I want to make money for doing little or nothing, but because I want to see the best results possible. Dhuge- Since you've already had a strip procedure, there is really no reason for you to go for FUE. The whole point of FUE is to avoid a strip scar, since you've already got one from your first doctor you would simply do well to revise it and then get as many grafts as you possibly can in your next procedure. From your photos I would recommend at least 2,500 grafts if not more applied to just the hairline and top of your scalp.

Dr Seager was not only my HT doctor, but a mentor to me as well. He encouraged me to start offering dense pack procedures and to expand my staff in terms of both numbers and training to meet the demands of this new type of surgery. I modeled my practice after his and used his results as a benchmark for many years. My first encounter with Dr. Seager was in the 1990s in an indirect way through his patients who would visit me in the U.S. for second surgeries. I always marvelled at how consistenly good his work was and how it exceeded just about everybody elses results at the time in terms of density and natural appearance. This is why I chose him to do my surgery back in 2001. Dr Seager was a true academic and perfectionist. His contribution to the HT world cannot be overstated. His loss touches me deeply. He will be remembered and he will be missed. Dr. Feller

Ben, The physician in your "hypothetical" is an oportunist-plain and simple. As you pointed out, the whole point behind a "deposit" is to cover costs should a problem arise with the patient and he can't make it. But even this only applies on short notice, like within a week or so. In our office we do take deposits, but if a paitent can't make a surgery and gives uf the courtesy of a phone call we will try to fill his day with someone else. Unfortunately, this doesn't always work out because most patients can't just put their lives on hold on short notice to fill someone elses spot, and more importantly it's hard to get lab work back in time on short notice. One other problem is that even they are willing and able, they may already have had alcohol or aspirin within the past week which can thin the blood and make the surgery quite difficult. If the patient has paid for his entire procedure before the surgery, he will ALWAYS get his money back. Sometimes we will even give the deposit back if we can fill the space in enough time. It is wrong for your hypothetical doctor to do what he did. Dr. Feller