VIDEO: This video will come as a shock to the LLLT industry. Produced by Dr. Feller of Great Neck, NY

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Wow. Not one, but TWO long winded supposed "newbies".

 

Sorry guy (s), I don't bother reading posts that don't directly address the video in the first two sentences. Past that point I don't read, so you really shouldn't waste your typing.

 

If you want to present your detailed philosphies on how C-A-T actually spells DOG, or how UP is really DOWN, you may do so on your own threads.

 

Now I am addressing those TRUE viewers who may be new to this thread:

 

My video clearly and simply showes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that laser light CANNOT strike the body of the follicle. Not a single critic of this video has addressed this irreducible and undeniable FACT. Not a single LLLT industry advocate NOR LLLT doctor has come onto this thread to either refute the video or correct it's premise. They are, and have been, in hiding as not a single one of them will stand accountable.

 

At nearly 7,000 views you would think an industry representative or LLLT doctor would come on here to defend their own position and correct the record; but nope, when the light comes on they scatter. Pretty embarrassing for them and pretty revealing of the industry in general.

[GreyHunk]

OK, I have to make a statement.

 

I have no clue why greydrunk chose to pick a nickname that resembles mine, why would creating confusion help making his point. I need to make it clear that I have no relation whatsoever to graydrunk (I am not sure I fully follow his reasoning, so I am not saying this beacuase I disagree or agree with what he is saying)

 

If it is some kind of a smart attempt to discredit me or even get my post moderated on the basis of using multiple names and not complying with he forum policies, then I am ready to prove my identity to the forum moderators...

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:

 

Sorry guy (s), I don't bother reading posts that don't directly address the video in the first two sentences. Past that point I don't read, so you really shouldn't waste your typing.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Feller, as a newcomer I thought it is polite to introduce myself first, and therefore unfortunately I only addressed your video directly in the 4th sentence. If you were so kind to read it -- or I can rephrase it to start with the sentence that contains the reference to your video, I was not aware that having it only in the 4th sentence renders the whole post irrelevant.

 

 

I am also sure you are not using double standards, so if you believe that those directly addressed in the video aren't showing up to address your concerns implies that you are right, then you yourselves would not want to seem dodging the answer to my concerns directed to you, do you?

 

Thank you for your considerations.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Sorry GreyHunk,

 

We've been tracking a troublemaker suspended poster who apparently keeps using new IP addresses to create new accounts. "Graydrunk" was his latest creation trying to regurgitate the same points over and over again.

 

Carry on.

 

Bill

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by Bill - Associate Publisher:

Sorry GreyHunk,

 

We've been tracking a troublemaker suspended poster who apparently keeps using new IP addresses to create new accounts. "Graydrunk" was his latest creation trying to regurgitate the same points over and over again.

 

Carry on.

 

Bill

 

Thanks. Unfortunately, damage is already done, he did manage to discredit me by making people believe that it is the same person. I hope Dr. Feller revisits my post now after this has been cleared up.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

GreyHunk,

As Bill mentioned, there are those who seek to just make trouble for reasons known only to themselves and their psychiatirsts. I will cut you some slack since you have gone out of your way to disassociate yourself from the more malicious elements who seem to pop up from time to time on this and other sites.

 

I read the rest of your post and noticed that you never commented on the video or what it demonstrates. You didn't even attempt to show where I or the demonstration are in error. Instead, you did what all LLLT advocates do (even though you stated you were not an LLLT advocate) which is to completely SKIP over the fact that the laser light CAN'T reach the follicles in the first place.

 

Remember, it's called "Low Light LASER Therapy" by the industry itself. But if the laser light CAN'T make it to the follicles in the first place, then how can it have any effect? See the basic problem?

 

If you are trying to claim that simple red light is effective for hair regrowth, that's fine and I'll deal with that at another time. But for now, the LLLT industry has gone out of it's way to claim that it is the LASER nature of the light that acts as the "magic" indgredient and specifically NOT red light.

 

The absolute inability of the laser light to hit the follicles represents a huge elephant in the room that the LLLT industry and it's advocates are just trying to ignore, and hoping that the general public does as well.

 

I understand and am aware that there is much phenomenon that exists that we can't scientifically explain yet. But the phenomenon itself is always well described and documented, such is NOT the case for LLLT. In fact, the evidence of the reality of the phenomoneon is virtually invisilbe. For example, there has not been ONE convincing photo on the internet to date demonstrating the benefits of LLLT. Not one.

 

Not ONE doctor will come onto this or ANY site and post photos of their patients who benefitted from the LLLT they sold to them. Not one. There are MANY disingenous before/after photos, but that's about it.

 

To date only ONE doctor from the so-called Medical Advisory Team of Hairmax came on here to attempt to defend LLLT and he failed miserably. He admitted himself that after offering lasercombs to patients for years that he had NO photos to demonstrate efficacy.

 

Does any of this reality resonate with you? Perhaps the entire LLLT industry is a sham?

 

You should know that I debated David Michaels (Hairmax boss) live on the radio last year and brought up these issues and more. He tried to sidestep them, but only dug his hole deeper. He has vowed never to debate me again. Why do you think that is? Do you think for a second I would avoid any opportunity to defend the hair transplant industry? Never. So why doesn't David Michaels or ANY of the doctor on his medical advisory team, or ANY of the doctors selling LLLT to the public stand behind their own industry? I'll tell you why, because they CAN'T and they know it.

 

I criticize and expose the LLLT industry using my real name and position without fear because I KNOW I am writing the truth. When people CAN'T write the truth they stay VERY quiet. The silence from the LLLT is deafening don't you think? The only people "defending the LLLT world are ANONYMOUS posters who attack ME instead of the merits of the video.

[GreyHunk]

Dear Dr. Feller.

 

I think you miss the point if you are asking me why I did not comment on the video -- because for the point I am trying to make it is irrelevant. I happily accept that the video proves that the laser light as a laser light [as we know it in science today] cannot reach the follicles. Tehcnically speaking I accept that you falsified the hypothesis that it could achieve its effect by the laser light directly reaching the follicle, which is what some of the LLLT proponents say. I am not arguing that you did that. What I am arguing is the conclusion: you concluded that it is enough evidence to prove that LLLT is ineffective as a treatment.

 

Well, it doesn't prove it to me. Many medications for example don't directly reach the target, still, through a complex mechanism of action, understood or not by science, still achieve the positive effect. You did not prove that there is no other, more complex plausible mechanism of action, such as, just as one stupid example that I can quickly come up with, the laser light triggering something at the top cells that it does reach, which in turn has some indirect positive effect in the nearby follicles. You cannot disprove all possible mechanisms, it is logically impossible.

 

I personally doubt the effectiveness of LLLT. But my feelings, instincts and beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to science and scientific claims. I do not KNOW that it does not work. In science, the only thing we know is there are theories and hypotheses that we merely accept until falsified by experiments conducted using strict scientific methodology. Until something is falsified it remains plausible.

 

My primary concern about the video is that the ultimate conclusion is flawed in the sense of deductive reasoning. You can't fight something that you strongly believe is unscientific with a reasoning that is also flawed.

 

I also have concerns about the additional arguments you added, such as doctors from the LLLT industry having an interest in this, not coming to defend, not providing "proof": well, these are all typical logical fallacies (appeal to motive, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ex silentio, ad ignorantiam -- wiki is the readers' friend here).

 

The only thing that matters in the sense of scientific claims about the effectiveness is studies that are done to the strict criteria of scientific methods. As far as I understand the whole LLLT is based on an 1967 study on mice hair growth I cited earlier. Yes, it may be erroneous, it does happen in peer reviewed articles from legitimate scientific institutions too, or may not meet the desired standards, or may be irrelevant to human hair and MPB. To me refuting that study, or repeating the experiment, or designing and conducting a new study with humans, that is the kind of scientific approach and dialog that means anything in this issue form a scientific, critical thinking point of view. Anything else from either side is really nothing but smoking mirrors.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

For example, there has not been ONE convincing photo on the internet to date demonstrating the benefits of LLLT. Not one.

 

Not ONE doctor will come onto this or ANY site and post photos of their patients who benefitted from the LLLT they sold to them. Not one

===================================

Does this not mean anything to you ? You seem very intelligent. How much more proof does it take ?

Honestly your just confusing people and there are desperate people that will take what you say and spin it the way they had wished and waste a bunch more money.

I know some believe in the cupacabra and ufos but if your not here to prove it works youll just confuse people and give them false hope for no worthy reason

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I think you miss the point if you are asking me why I did not comment on the video -- because for the point I am trying to make it is irrelevant.

 

Sorry Greyhunk, that's as much of your post as I bothered to read. If the video is irrelevant to your way of thinking, then you are either irrational or executing some agenda. Either way, you have nothing to offer the readers of this thread. If, as noted in your quote above, you want to make your own point that is unrelated to the video then create your own thread.

 

 

Bye bye.

[GreyHunk]

I probably didn't express myself well. Of course my critique is about your video, just not in the sense you were asking. You asked me:

 

I read the rest of your post and noticed that you never commented on the video or what it demonstrates. You didn't even attempt to show where I or the demonstration are in error.

 

My answer was in the context of your question, sorry if *your* context made it misleading that I am talking about something unrelated to this topic.

 

I didn't comment on what it demonstrates, as I accepted for the time that it is valid. But what it proves if we accept it is not that LLLT is ineffective, only that the laser beam directly hitting the follicles cannot be part of the mechanism of action for any effect. <span class="ev_code_RED">There is a huge difference between the two statements, and you seem to ignore that critique now through multiple posts</span>. So I did comment however on the conclusion of the video, so it is very relevant on this forum. That I did attempt to show now through multiple posts. Now either I am not making this clear, or you don't seem to get it, or you simply want to dodge it. I hope it is the first, so I am happy to try to explain it if I still didn't make this problem clear.

 

I hope you don't want to look like dodging this critique.

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

For example, there has not been ONE convincing photo on the internet to date demonstrating the benefits of LLLT. Not one.

 

Not ONE doctor will come onto this or ANY site and post photos of their patients who benefitted from the LLLT they sold to them. Not one

 

 

Argumentum ex slientiam; argumentum ad ignorantiam. [please look these up]

 

But as a matter of fact you can find plenty of convincing looking before/after photos of LLLT treatment in a matter of minutes on the internet.

 

I know your answer, they are "dubious", fake -- they must be, since you KNOW LLLT doesn't work... Well, if you have reasons to believe that they are fake, sue them.

 

I can reverse that too: There is scientific, peer reviewed, 40 year old study from 1967 showing that LLLT works and helps mice hair regrowth. One would think if it is refutable, in this 40 years you'd have rebuttals in some scientific publication. There is not ONE. Where are the newer studies showing that it was due to some other unconsidered side effect?

 

I offered that study many posts ago. Why the big silence? I could also say rethorically: does it not mean anything to you?

 

[of course *I* dont think that just because you can't offer a rebuttal to that study it is necessarily correct, or the TRUTH]

 

Does this not mean anything to you ? You seem very intelligent. How much more proof does it take ?

 

 

Thanks. I am a scientist and I'd better be intelligent. I am also a mathematician. We only need only one proof, but that has to be correct. So far all arguments presented had logical fallacies in them. Give me JUST ONE without any simple logical fallacy that is not listed in any compilation of standard logical fallacies...

 

 

Honestly your just confusing people and there are desperate people that will take what you say and spin it the way they had wished and waste a bunch more money.

I know some believe in the cupacabra and ufos but if your not here to prove it works youll just confuse people and give them false hope for no worthy reason

 

Argumentum ad consequentiam. [ please look it up too].

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Sometimes people are too smart that they overlook the obvious a child could spot.

Whats you reasoning for your posts?

Are you here to try and prove lasers work or dont work because once again your not helping EITHER side.

Its just looking like your here to "show off" your lingo,and point out some of your basics you learned in school..

What math and science acadamy did you go to?

I want to slap your professor for overloading your brain so much that common sense must have be eased out your ears at one time.

4 major hair sites ,thousands of posts about lasers and only a handful of photos with 90% of them using rogaine and propecia along with a laser. Also almost all the laser clinics in Chicago [where I live } and around the world are closing or are closed.

Heck I could go on and on but the majority on here wont fall for laser anyway.

 

Common sense [ please look it up too].

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

[GreyHunk]

Let me recap where we are -- assuming bona fide that I am not getting an answer to my critique because I didn't make my critique about the video's reasoning clear: So, why does the video prove that LLLT is ineffective? It only attempts to prove [and let's accept it for now] that light doesn't reach the follicles themselves as a "laser quality" light (such as concentrated, directed beam of light). I see a logical gap here from jumping to the conclusion that "therefore it CAN'T WORK by the laws of physics and physiology".

 

Since some 10 posts I am waiting for an answer. I thought it is a simple question. Don't skip to other subjects about doctors not showing up here, TRUTHS, or any other arguments for now, please, it doesn't make that logical gap disappear. It is a valid critique about the video regardless of the TRUTH, scams, quackery and the actual effectiveness of LLLT.

 

Even, if the LLLT advocates say that it only works if the light reaches the very follicles themselves in a directed, concentrated form [which I don't think they claim as it is stated, at the follicle level], then we still only proved that it cannot work that way, not that it cannot work at all, as the video concludes.

 

I really cannot make it any simpler than that. I still believe that people here take science and reasoning seriously, and are not simply looking to convincingly and scientifically sounding arguments to support something that they presume, and they are critical thinkers that don't think that such a logical error can go unexplained in their reasoning just because it doesn't matter as they are RIGHT anyway.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

GH,

 

You expressed your self very clearly, but you want to argue for argument's sake.That is not the purpose of this thread or forum. If you have your own theories about how LLLT may or may not work, then start your own thread.

 

The LLLT industry itelf has claimed that LASER light hits the follicles and it is this "magic" ingredient that makes the hair grow. My video CLEARLY showes that this is not the case. Laser light CANNOT, in fact, strike the follicles. So using the rules and precepts set forth by the LLLT industry itelf, LLLT can't work AS THEY CLAIM IT DOES.

 

If YOU have other theories, that's fine and dandy, but I'm not interested in challenging other theories, I'm focused in on the number one CLAIM made by the LLLT industry itself.

 

The video raises one and only one question. This thread raises one and only one question, which is:

 

Can laser light strike the follicles AS laser light? Greyhunk, after seeing the video, what do you think? I look forward to your reply. Please keep your first line down to a YES or NO answer because that's all the video or this thread call for. There's no room for spin or wiggling on the part of the LLLT crew, just a simple YES or NO?

[GreyHunk]

Simple: I am on the side of science.

 

Fighting pseudoscience while making the same mistakes hurt science. I do get upset when people fight something in the name of science and use the same pseudoscientific rhetoric, misleading reasoning, biased demonstrations (I can show that too, but let's discuss one problem at a time), logical fallacies.

 

You can't fight quackery with quackery.

 

Common Sense is not part of the scientific method, on the other hand critical thinking and rules of reasoning -- which includes NOT to use any of the logical fallacies in your reasoning -- is part of the scientific method. Common sense dictates things like the Sun revolves around Earth, or there are more integer numbers than even numbers.

 

Of course, you have the right to just say, OK, academically it is not correct, it may not meet the standards of scientific method, but it is "Common Sense". That is all OK, but then <span class="ev_code_RED">do not do it in the name of science</span> please. Get the wording "laws of phyisics" and all referring to science out of the video.

[GreyHunk]

Can laser light strike the follicles AS laser light? Greyhunk, after seeing the video, what do you think? I look forward to your reply. Please keep your first line down to a YES or NO answer because that's all the video or this thread call for. There's no room for spin or wiggling on the part of the LLLT crew, just a simple YES or NO?

 

OK, I didn't want to challenge that part until we clear the other logical gap, but if you ask that blatantly, YES, actually laser light can hit the follicles, although only a very, very small percentage of the light remains directed and concentrated (what you call "laser quality") when it does, but as a YES/NO question, I have to say YES. I can elaborate if you are interested. Actually your own demonstration shows this scientific fact. Interested?

 

[ It doesn't prove of course that it has a positive effect, jut shows that your video is also fundamentally flawed in that claim too.]

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Grey Hunk , Long before Dr Feller did his experiment we all saw low level laser as a HUGE scam, whether the laser hit the follicle or not.

The bottomline is no matter what the toy laser does or where it reaches it certainly doesnt grow hair.

[GreyHunk]

You expressed your self very clearly, but you want to argue for argument's sake.

 

 

No. I am saying something is either scientific, or it is not. If it is not, but it claims to be, then it is pseudoscience, and I raise my voice against that, no double standards. Your video's conclusion is immediately and strikingly flawed. See my earlier comment: you cannot fight pseudoscience with pseudoscience.

 

The LLLT industry itelf has claimed that LASER light hits the follicles and it is this "magic" ingredient that makes the hair grow. My video CLEARLY showes that this is not the case. Laser light CANNOT, in fact, strike the follicles. So using the rules and precepts set forth by the LLLT industry itelf, LLLT can't work AS THEY CLAIM IT DOES.

 

 

Dr. Feller, as I said a millioin times, if that was the conclusion of the video, that would be fine [as far as the conclusion goes]. But the video's conclusion is not that statement, but a non-scientific [flawed] jump to a much broader conclusion, namely that LLLT cannot work in general, not just "as they claim it does" as you stated it now. That is my critique. Why do you keep ignoring that? Is it OK for you to make flawed reasonings because you KNOW you are RIGHT?

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

Grey Hunk , Long before Dr Feller did his experiment we all saw low level laser as a HUGE scam, whether the laser hit the follicle or not.

The bottomline is no matter what the toy laser does or where it reaches it certainly doesnt grow hair.

 

Trust me, I am ready to believe you, and as I said, I seriously doubt the effectiveness myself (common sense, etc.). This is not the issue, and I kept getting misunderstood on that one.

 

The issue is that the video implies that it "scientifically" proves that LLLT cannot grow hair. If it claims to be a "scientific" proof, it need to pass the test for really being scientific. As it stands right now, this video is basically as pseudoscientific that the LLLT presentations and infomercials.

 

THAT is my problem.

[valencia]

It is easy to see,at least for me, that the example vith Dr.Feller video is not an example of a completely good argument.

A valid argument may still have a false conclusion.

 

When we construct our arguments, we must aim to construct one that is not only valid, but sound.

 

A sound argument is one that is not only valid, but begins with premises that are actually true. Dr.Feller's claim that LLLT is a sham and that LLLT cannot work in general,is a premisse that is false.and he with this statement -quote "So using the rules and precepts set forth by the LLLT industry itelf, LLLT can't work AS THEY CLAIM IT DOES reduced and corrected his more broad statement (can not work at all,it is a sham)

Am I right Dr.Feller?

[valencia]

I also agree that one can not claim scientific proof with using flawed logic.

according to the dominant understanding among logicians, the validity or invalidity of an argument is determined entirely by its logical form. The logical form of an argument is that which remains of it when one abstracts away from the specific content of the premises and the conclusion, i.e., words naming things, their properties and relations, leaving only those elements that are common to discourse and reasoning about any subject matter, i.e., words such as "all", "and", "not", "some", etc. One can represent the logical form of an argument by replacing the specific content words with letters used as place-holders or variables.

[GreyHunk]

Dear newbie, what's the point in copying in some Logic 101 from the net?

[thanatopsis_awry]

lol, GreyHunk.....instead of bloviating, why don't you post but a few of your favorite examples of LLLT's efficacy? Myself and others are simply too stupid to have ever found the *actual* proof that you're speaking on behalf of. It'l just take "a matter of minutes on the internet".

 

Oh, and photos are often dubious/fake because they themselves look dubious/fake -- you should know that such examination requires actual sense, and is entirely dissociated from theory and whatever treatment is supposedly at hand. Oh, and your conclusion that people should sue LLLT companies because they spot disingenuous ploys in their documentation is LOL-funny! Almost as funny as you deducing that a 67' study claiming mice show regrowth proves that the LLLC being hawked is a viable treatment for people.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Valencia and Greyhunk,

 

The video very clearly shows that ALL of the laser light is blocked by a standard Klenex tissue. Not a small portion of it as you claimed Greyhunk. You just made up your "small percentage" theory. The video clearly shows NO laser when hitting a tissue. And I can assure you, scalp is hundreds of times more optically dense than tissue paper. NO laser can penetrate the scalp intact. Period. Any allusions you have been trying to make to the contraray are disingenuous and plain wrong.

 

If you two want to come up with your own theories on how LLLT works WITHOUT striking the follicles, then make your own threads and go prove it. But even the LLLT indurstry wouldn't attempt to claim that simple red light is the "active" ingredient. In fact, they have gone out of their way to distance themselves from that possibility which is why Hairmax calls its product the "laser comb" and not the "laser red light". In fact, David Michaels went out of his way to report in his 510K submission for FDA clearence that a red light SHAM device was used to demonstrate it's ineffectiveness. What more can anyone need.

 

I think it's now time to take some bets. It's easy for anonymous posters to come on here and throw out their ridiculous or illogical theories because you have no accountability. You hide in anonymity and snipe at others from the saftey of your home computers. How about you put your money where your mouths are? Identify yourselves to me privately and we'll make a wager. Then we will go see any 3 optical physics professors at any reputable university and see if they think the premise of the video is incorrect or in anyway scientifically flawed.

 

How about it? You claim to be "scientists" how about putting your reputations and your money on the line? I do it everyday, how about stepping up Greyhunk? Valencia? It's easy to smear and confuse when you have no accountability, lets cut out the B.S. factor and see you two come forward to stand accountable. How about it?

Any takers?

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by thanatopsis_awry:

lol, GreyHunk.....instead of bloviating, why don't you post but a few of your favorite examples of LLLT's efficacy?

 

I think you don't get the point, like many others. I clearly stated my agenda: don't fight pseduoscience with the same pseudoscientific tools and rethoric. Why do you keep asking me to prove LLLT works? I never claimed that, and that is not my agenda. Dr. Feller claimed that he has scientific proof that it doesn't work. The burden of proof is there. He presented an attempted proof in his video. If I challenge the proof as being flawed, he needs to defend it or fix it, address the challenge instead of shifting the subject to some other circumstancial evidence on why he believes the LLLT industry is a scam.

 

I give you an analogy to make it clear: If I say as your math professor that your homework was to prove that the sum of angles of a triganle in Euclidian plane equals 180 degrees, and your submitted proof is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't meet the basic criteria of reason and logic, where does it follow that I am advocating that it is NOT 180 degrees? Your proof has to be correct regardless of what it tries to prove is or is believed to be TRUE or FALSE. When it comes to science, there is something called critical thinking. When I challenge someone's proof such as the 180 degree sum example, I am playing the devil's advocate in the sense that I challenge the statements made in the proof, such as "but I cannot see why B follows from A" . Refuting those challenges goes something like that: "oops, you are right, B doesn't follow from A, but I can fix it", or come up with a different proof, or say "B does follow from A, let me make it clear why, and amend that section with that clarification", etc. However, saying "but how can you challange that, do you think it is NOT 180 degrees" or "well, smart guy then show me that it is NOT 180 degrees" is, well, ridiculous. Try it in your math class, and check the efficiency of such arguments... This is what you guys keep doing here. Sure, you can say "this is not math class", but then don't imply it is one!!!

 

If the video claims that it is a scientific proof that LLLT cannot work, it has to be scientific and stand the test of a scientific critique. If it is not, then it is not any better then the demonstrations seen in the LLLT infomercials, regardless where the TRUTH is.

 

On your other attack: I mentioned the 67 study is what comes closest to anything scientifically relevant to the issue I know of. I did not propose that it proves that LLLT works. Quite to the contrary, I said that it is very plausible, that it may not mean anything specifically for treating MPB in humans, or the original study may also be missing some significant factors; and that designing and conducting a study aimed at that, double-blind, controlled, etc. would get us closer. There may even be such studies, I just don't know about them, then point me some. THAT would be a scientific discussion. I know it is outside of the scope of this topic to do that, I was just pointing at the kind of process what you CAN call scientific.