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

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by 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.

 

OK, Dr. Feller, fortunately I don't need to demonstrate it, as your own video does.

 

Your long video at 3:17 has a portion of Kleenex (I suppose it is simple-ply) obstructing the laser. You can CLEARLY see a dimmed, weakened spot from the directed, concentrated laser light on your screen.

 

What you do next is the typical pseudoscience thing. Your experiment doesn't demonstrate what you want it to, so you move the kleenex a bit (I suppose it is now a double-ply, but it is definitely a thicker section) and tada! the laser is no longer visible to the eye. Point made.

 

Knowing Optics 101 of course helps to understand what's going on. "Laser quality" is not 100% and then suddenly 0% as you imply. Even in air, a bit of it is refracted and scattered -- air is not vacuum and its optical density is non-zero. Then, hitting a fairly dense thing, like skin, kleenex, is not 100% non-transparent, but obviously radically more of the laser light is refracted or scattered, and [geometrically] less and less remains going along the original beam.

 

Your kleenex simple-ply (or less thick section) at 3:17 lets a visible percentage through. Maybe it is 10% (it is a guess, but whatever the number is the basic idea will not change). That 10% is visible to the naked eye. Now you move the kleenex to a thicker section (maybe double-ply), and of course MORE is absorbed/refracted/scattered; if you know how optics work, assuming it is double-ply instead of single-ply, it would make it 10% of 10%, making it 1%. Or, assuming it is 3x thicker, it would be 10% of 10% of 10%, making it 0.1%. That may NOT be visible, but it is still a small fraction that is STILL going concentrated, directed, along the original line, what you call as "laser quality".

 

Of course you could have said that, and say that by the time it reaches the follicle it is only estimated to be 0.001% of the original energy, and it is unlikely to have a physiological effect, but that doesn't sound so great, I know.

[valencia]

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?

 

I am a lady Dr.Feller,I am also blonde...I will have to back up.Because I like you. You are handsome.

 

I declare amnesty I don't know about this big HUNK person...i don't think he will

 

Bye bye.

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:

Valencia and Greyhunk,

 

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?

 

I am absolutely ready to bet on the statements I made. Let's see if you keep agreeing to the bet once I formalize the statement to be asked the reputable scientists:

 

1) The statements made in the video "Lasers can't grow hair" and "It can't work! Not by the laws of physics and NOT by the laws of physiology" are not proven in the video, in fact the only thing attempted to be proven is the following:

1.1 no laser quality light can reach the follicles (laser quality meaning directed and concentrated)

 

If someone claims that LLLT works specifically by laser quality light actually reaching the follicles, then than the falseness of that claim does in fact follow from 1.1 (if we accept 1.1 as true, then we can deduce that this claim is false)

 

However the more general statement "LLLT cannot work" claimed at the beginning of the video do not logically follow even if we accept 1.1. That's a false conclusion since we didn't exclude that it can work through other mechanisms of actions.

 

2) The statement that you make at 1:50 in the long video, and repeated several times, effectively claiming that once the laser hits any surface, it immediately goes from 100% "laser quality" to 0% "laser quality" and none, not a miniscule fraction of the original light actually continues to travel "directed", along the original direction -- in optical terms it is equivalent of saying that immediately all light is refracted, absorbed or scattered -- is false.

 

 

I think the second one is for reputable optical physics professors, the first one is for mathematical logic professors.

 

I am ready... Are you?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I'm still waiting for you to identify yourself greyhunk.

 

Send your identity to info@fellermedical.com

 

And stop trying to backpedal. The issue is can laser light make it to the follicles as claimed by the LLLT industry. The answer is no, and the video demonstrates this.

 

Also, you keep confusing "concentrated" light with "laser" light. You should look up the difference between the two before you come on to a public forum and show us all what you clearly don't understand.

 

But you must provide your identity and address and it must be verified. You have mine, give me yours. In fact, I think you should post it right on this forum.

[GreyHunk]

And stop trying to backpedal. The issue is can laser light make it to the follicles as claimed by the LLLT industry. The answer is no, and the video demonstrates this.

 

 

Am I backpedaling??????? These listed as 1 and 2 are the statements formalized that I made about the video and specifically why it does not meet the criteria of being "scientific" and I stand behind them even to the extent of accepting a bet. That's my issue, as I reiterated many times, even if you keep confusing it with other non-equivalent statements. Sorry, I made the statements, and I think they keep getting twisted, so I think it is fair if I formalize them. You have all rights to say, that these statements in these forms are not exactly what I said (I stringly think they are, maybe not everything I said, but the relevant essence, but I won't argue even if you challenge that; I don't care, these are offered for the bet), and you can even say that you don't bet on these, as in this form they are correct. That is more then fine with me.

 

 

What's more, to make it more complete, I am happy to extend it with a 3rd statement I made too that also addresses the unscientific nature of your video:

 

3) At 3:17 of your long video, despite the claims you make about "hitting any surface it goes immediately from 100% laser quality to 0% laser quality", a percentage (not 0, and not 100, something in between) of the laser light passes the tissue, and is clearly visible as a dimmed spot, until seconds later, you adjust the tissue and it becomes no longer visible to the naked eye and the camera without any explanation on why that phenomenon we could have noticed seems contradicting what you claim.

 

Please, wihtout derailing the issue about other things, or other statements, or arguing about the issue, just please simply answer if you are willing to take a bet on these specific (now 3) statements, or can we than agree that the above three statements are all correct? Simple YES or NO.

 

If you say yes to the bet, and we agree on the terms, sum, the scientists involved (I have some candidates from my end already), THEN I will of course disclose my identity (obviously we cannot actually play it out if I don't). Why not before that? Just because I don't want to. You opted to keep the right to read posts to only the second sentence, I keep my right to keep my identity until we are ready to make the bet, because I think we never get there, you'll keep derailing the dispute. I want to first see that you are really serious and it was not just a bluff. What's the upside for me in giving it up now? Nothing. What's the downside? Giving you another red hering to derail the conversation. My identity is irrelevant. If I am a 12 year old smart-ass typing from Mom's computer, or I am a mathematician as I claim, or I'd be paid by the LLLT industry, neither has any relevance on the TRUTH of the statements, but would be a great topic in either case to derail the conversation. So I won't do it until we are agreed fully on the bet. If you use that as a cause for backing out, do so. The readers will judge what it means.

 

Otherwise back to the simple YES/NO answer. Are the above 3 statements correct, or not, Dr. Feller, with the certainty that you are ready to bet on them?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Greyhunk,

 

Once again, your posts make no sense, and if I,PGP, and Thana can't follow them, I doubt others can either.

 

The video demonstration and its signficance are self-explanatory, any comments to the contrary can only come from a person with either an irrational mind or an agenda.

 

Now shoo.

[hairthere]

Why must all of the nutty posters be so long winded?

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Somebody obviously asked this guy to bash the video but the bottomline is LASERS DO NOT WORK AT ALL FOR HAIRLOSS.

We didnt even need the video to convince us Greydrunk .

This is a hair loss site and whether or not the video has flaws we dont care one bit .

Even if the the stupid laser saturated the follicle and made love to it there would be no newborns.

I understand your trying to discredit Dr Fellers video but are you that blind and cant see your only confusing people .

Your a very smart guy and Im sure you see this and that makes me think your here on the behalf of the industry.

Otherwise your just a nerd looking for a debate.

I personally dont care about the video because I was convinced over and over a LONG LONG time ago these lasers are worthless. I didnt need an explanation . My eyes and ears are pretty smart.

 

.

[GreyHunk]

I'll make it very short.

 

I offered 3 statements to bet on.

 

Are they correct statements, or not? Do you DARE to bet on them being expected by experts or not?

 

I even offer a bet now that if ANY are incorrect, you win. I only win if ALL 3 are correct.

 

Do you dare, Dr. Feller? SIMPLE YES/NO.

 

WHO is backpedaling?

[GreyHunk]

typo: accepted by experts instead of <STRIKE>expected</STRIKE> of course

[GreyHunk]

GROW,

 

We didnt even need the video to convince us Greydrunk .

 

 

Then why on Earth was it made? I thought it was made to convince people who are not already convinced, and not simply to show to ones that already agree to applaud it.

 

This is a hair loss site and whether or not the video has flaws we dont care one bit .

 

 

Yes, but this topic on this site, "by the very rules of Dr. Feller" is about the video. It is his own words, if the first two sentences don't address the video, he doesn't bother reading the post.

 

I understand your trying to discredit Dr Fellers video but are you that blind and cant see your only confusing people .

 

I disagree, and please read it carefully to understand my motive if you believe I am smart. I firmly believe it is the video that confuses people -- not about LLLT, but about what's scientific and what's not. In fact, I believe that on the long run this video helps quackery. People are led to believe that these stretched statements, gimmicks "You don't see it, it isn't there, makes sense, doesn't it", making absolute statements, jumping to conclusions without sound logic are part of valid science, since Dr. Feller is doing it in the name of science to fight quackery.

 

You have now a firm belief that Dr. Feller is the good guy and the LLLT industry is the scam, and it may well be so as far as the intentions go. However, now you are led to believe that this type of demonstration is how science works, and next time the very same flaws, fallacies, scientific looking "demonstrations" and reasoning will convince you about anything that you'll except emotionally as scientific.

 

Maybe including "global warming" too, who knows? Do you see my concern?

 

GreyHunk

[valencia]

Ouotes made in regards to Dr.Feller's video

 

'

 

Dr.Feller wrote:

 

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.

 

GrayHunk wrote:

 

Your long video at 3:17 has a portion of Kleenex (I suppose it is simple-ply) obstructing the laser. You can CLEARLY see a dimmed, weakened spot from the directed, concentrated laser light on your screen.

 

Dr.Feller wrote:

 

Greyhunk,

 

Once again, your posts make no sense, and if I,PGP, and Thana can't follow them, I doubt others can either.

 

The video demonstration and its signficance are self-explanatory, any comments to the contrary can only come from a person with either an irrational mind or an agenda

 

Please grow Please wrote:

 

I personally dont care about the video because I was convinced over and over a LONG LONG time ago these lasers are worthless. I didnt need an explanation . My eyes and ears are pretty smart.'

 

 

I watched the video, and I CLEARLY see a dimmed, weakened spot from the directed, concentrated laser light even though was blocked by Kleenex.

I conclude, from the VERY EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY FELLER'S VIDEO DEMONSTRATION that the 'lasser' penetrated the obstacle, and remained 'lasser' after passing through the obstacle.That video did not PROVE that LLLT laser is not a laser any more once it reaches an obstacle, that it disperses into red light only, and looses its properties.That video however proved the opposite, and showed Dr.Feller deliberately adjusting the tissue to deceive the viewers

 

For disclosing identities as a condition one to be qualified to comment on video.

That is something new.

Such disclosure was not requested by Dr.Feller before .

Why is asked from GrayHunk ONLY to post his identity on the web site?

Why ALL other members are not asked the same?

Why HTN does not post its address,its registration, number,the names of the owners?

Why does Bill not post his identity and address,he comments on this video,does he not?

 

If that is a condition Dr.Feller needs?

 

Why Dr.Feller does not disclose his home address but asks that from members replying to his post?

Why is he avoiding simple YES or NO answer from GreyHunk?

[valencia]

Dr.Feller about your video and rules made by YOU that you only read posts that address the video in the first two sentences.

 

Why did you read the posts from PGP, and Thana?

 

Because you wrote this.Quote

"

Greyhunk,

 

Once again, your posts make no sense, and if I,PGP, and Thana can't follow them, I doubt others can either. "

 

PGP and Thana did NOT address the video in their first two sentences.

 

Dr.Feller why don't you stop as you said "the B.S" and stand behind YOUR words?

[valencia]

There is number 4 flaw, or wrong proposition in that video.

Dr.Feller's claim that when laser travels through the air retains (as he claims VIRTUALLY ) ALL its power Until strikes surface .

 

That by the laws of physics is impossible .

Atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases.

 

So how much power laser retains by the time it strikes surface depends upon how many molecules of nitrogen, oxygen and other gases collided with that laser BEFORE it struck a surface in aggregate form other than gas.

[valencia]

Quote

 

Dr.Feller wrote

 

The video demonstration and its signficance are self-explanatory, any comments to the contrary can only come from a person with either an irrational mind or an agenda."

 

 

Irrational minds?

 

I dare you publish this VIDEO as an scientific evidence in support of your claim.

 

You will be laughing stock in the scientific community mister

 

YOUR video is 100% AGENDA (to erase competition

)and 0% science.It is,as you say,JUNK SCIENCE.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I watched the video, and I CLEARLY see a dimmed, weakened spot from the directed, concentrated laser light even though was blocked by Kleenex.

 

Valencia,

You still expect me to believe that you and greyhunk aren't LLLT advocates? Who do you think you're fooling?

 

Once again the anonymous sniper brigade attacks. So brave when anonymous, no guts to put up their real names to stand accountable.

 

As for the quote above, you are both wrong. I just wanted to let you two step out on the branch a bit futrther before I cut it off. The bit of laser light you saw was peaking out UNDER the tissue as I was setting up the experiment. Once I placed the tissue directly infront of the laser, the dot on the black surface completely disappered. You know this, because any rational person can see this, but you want to take that one section out of context to support your disingenous case.

 

For those viewers reading the nonsense posted by these two disguised LLLT advocates, understand that all these type people can do is to deconstruct every little thing they can in an effort to raise doubt and to confuse. They adhere to their beliefs like a religion and no amount of reason or proof will sway them

 

They never offer anything constructive, and they NEVER back up their own disingenous theories with experiments of their own. Finally, of course, they never identify themselves so they can stand accountable for what they write.

 

Now shoo away you two. Or keep posting your nonsense as it only serves to keep this thread at the top of the section so that RATIONAL people can see the truth about what lasers can and can't do.

 

As for me, I won't bother reading your posts anymore, but by all means keep venting your frustration right here on this thread. Maybe it will get it up to 8,000 views with your help.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Bye bye.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Grey, Yes your right the topic is the video.

There have been so many NEGATIVE laser threads I actually overlooked that this one was the video thread .

 

Dr Feller did say he made this video off the top of his head.

He had another video using actual tissue that I believe completely blocked the laser.

 

Go ahead and fight in the name of science but Im glad we can ALL agree on that lasers are WORTHLESS for hairloss.

Dr Fellers right, the longer this thread stays up top the more this quarkery is exposed.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

[GreyHunk]

The bit of laser light you saw was peaking out UNDER the tissue as I was setting up the experiment.

 

Well, well, well.

 

Are you trying to tell me, that you managed to bend that wire such that you happened to put the tissue there such that the edge of the tissue happened to be partially blocking the about 1-2mm thick laser beam? What a chance! Although that still wouldn't explain it: wouldn't that just produce a SMALLER dot, not a WEAKER dot, since the beam has parallel rays of lights? That cannot be the explanation...

 

Oh, I have another esoteric explanation. Maybe it is not really 1-2 mm thick laser beam there? Maybe what I and your viewers also don't realize that the device you are using is producing laser light in the sense that it is coherent, single frequency light [which could be also called "laser quality", although you didn't stress that property of lasers], but not a parallel beam like those supposedly in the laser combs and your drawings [what you DO call "laser quality", making it sound like the only important attribute of lasers pertinent in this issue], and it is only FOCUSed at your black screen to produce the tiny dot -- as in my attachment?

 

Wouldn't that explain why it is a large circle on your hand or anything that you put in front of the laser OUT OF FOCUS and a tiny dot on the screen where it IS IN FOCUS -- and nothing about the BS of surfaces turning it into "non-laser" immediately?

 

Thinking of that, really, how is it that it turns to "light" hitting "anything" -- as seen as a large circle -- but it does remain "laser" when it hits your black screen??? Isn't your black screen also "any surface" that should instantly convert it to "light"? Just a thought experiment: what would happen if you'd put a BLACK SCREEN similar to the one in the background CLOSE to the laser where you put the tissue or your hand? Would it be a small dot, or a large circle? How'd you explain EITHER result, huh? LLLT may work for African-Americans, but not for Caucasians?

 

No, no, everyone, FORGET IT, that cannot be possible. All the other stuff would "just" be oversight on Dr. Feller's part, flaws, incorrect reasoning, but all with good intention. But this one would be hard to believe as non-deliberate -- it would be deliberate CHEATING. Cannot be a bona fide mistake, as the experiment would have to be set up carefully, the focus would need to be set to the right distance, etc. THEREFORE, as I can't believe you are actually cheating, I have to exclude this as a plausible explanation: so the only remaining explanation is that the laser is actually going through the tissue partially, as I said.

 

BTW, I disclosed my identity to Bill, the moderator, though I am not sure how I would prove that I am not paid secretly by the LLLT industry, he can see that my identity is. I would appreciate if Bill confirmed that he verified my identity and I don't seem to be associated with LLLT as much as it can be proved....

 

DISCLAIMER: An attemt at discrediting Dr. Feller's video is NOT endorsing the LLLT as an effective treatment by GreyHunk. I personally don't even think LLLT is sufficiently proven to be an effective therapy for MPB, in fact circumstancial evidence makes me doubt its effectiveness seriously

[GreyHunk]

Dr Fellers right, the longer this thread stays up top the more this quarkery is exposed.

 

Glad we agree on most stuff, but not on this particular issue: I strongly believe that you can't expose quackery with quackery, and I firmly believe that those attempts are only looking positive on the short term, the long term damage of such videos are a lot larger than the damage caused by the [actual or assumed] quackery it aims to expose.

[valencia]

How much impact a laser will have on HARD surface (like a skin,paper of steel sheet) depends on laser Output power.

 

The actual output power of the laser is the best way to judge how powerful the laser is and how far away you will be able to see the light impacting a surface and how much power is going to hit that hard surface ,for example skin(traveling through atmosphere laser hits molecules all the time Dr.Feller) .

The higher the output power, the more visible the laser light will be and more powerful impact will have. Output power is measured in milliwatts (mW). A unit of power equal to one thousandth (10 -3) of a watt. It is used to measure the output power of most low to mid-power lasers.

Generally lasers that exceed 999mW are measured in watts. For example, a 1000mW laser would have a power output specification of 1W.

 

 

A measurement of ???laser quality??? (as Dr.Feller mentioned in the video) M2 is a single number that describes the beam's quality in comparison to a theoretically perfect Giessen beam, and that can be used to predict a real, non-Gaussian beam's behavior in an optics system.Milliampere (mA)A unit of current equal to one thousandth (10 -3) of an ampere. The current draw of a laser is often measured in milliamperes (mA) or amps (A).

 

Dr.Feller in every laser the beam light is increasing in diameter as it travels away from the aperture??¦that sir is called Divergence. The lower the beam divergence, the smaller will be the diameter of the beam. The smaller the diameter of the beam, the smaller (and brighter) will be the spot of laser light projected onto a surface. As the beam signals move from point A to point B they experience power loss due to three physical phenomena:

Attenuation, a weakening of the pulse over distance that is measured in decibels per kilometer (dB/km);

chromatic dispersion

and, nonlinear effects

Laser range depends highly upon atmospheric conditions sir.Your statement that untill hits hard surface retains 100% laser quality is,well,false.

Theoretically, laser light will travel infinitely and will have an infinite range.

 

Much more useful criteria by which to judge the power of a laser are output power and divergence.

[valencia]

I don't mind this to reach 10 000 views.I will help you dr.Feller.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Ok Ok Dr Feller isnt a scientist.

Hes a surgeon that did a simple demonstration ,not a scientific study showing that porous tissue can block the laser.

Yes cheap 1ply tissue doesnt completely block the laser but fold it in half presto its gone .

I dont think he came on here trying to win a Gairdner award as he has said he just came up with this off the top of his head.

Bottomline he was just showing that if cheap gas station tissue can block the laser how in the HELL could it reach the follicle. IT CANT SO IT USELESS IN FIGHTING HAIRLOSS!!!

Is this too hard to understand or you the kind of people that follow your maid around with a white glove and magnifying glass making sure everything is in perfect order

Lord all mighty it wasnt meant to compete with Newton or Einstein . It was just an SIMPLE way of showing the one main reason it cant grow hair.

Obviously you two are lovers, friends ,or partners as you post right after each other alot and your first posts were on this subject.

We get it . Its a romperroom experiment to you two but it has a ton of merit.

A simple demo he probably thought of while taking a dump shows why it cant work even if lasers could stimulate hair growth, which it cant . Whether that demo is considered scientific or not doesnt really matter to anyone but you two

Common sense is what matters and they obviously dont teach that at the University you amigos attended.

I understand your the good housekeeping Sherlock Holmes crew making sure all experiments meet your code but what are you looking for.

Could you dumb it down for me?

[GreyHunk]

Could you dumb it down for me?

 

PGP, you are plenty smart, I know you can do this if you are ready for the TRUTH: think about the black screen puzzle I had to bring up. It does not turn the "laser" into "regular light", but Dr. Feller's hand and the tissue does. Isn't that curious? Can we conclude that it may work for black skin or what?

 

Take my thought experience then, it is not rocket science, and move the black screen closer. What is your answer, what would we see, small dot, or larger circle? If you picked one, how do you explain it?

 

Reverse it: move the skin or tissue back to where the screen is now. What would you see? What would you see on the other side? Would you THEN dare to actually look into the "blocked" laser?

 

So where is it proven then that it cannot pass the skin layers to the follicle as "laser quality" even in the narrow meaning he chose to pick as "unidirectional", not to mention the other, lot more important properties he missed such as narrow bandwidth (basically single frequency) and coherent (synchronized waves)? In fact it does as other scientifically well estabilished benefits exist such as in healing arthritis where it does need to pass a lot more skin and tissue than to reach the follicles.

 

How can you explain all that?

 

What does it all mean to you? If you are clear on the science part THEN take your Common Sense revisit all your thoughts about "Good Intentions" and "Just Overlooking Some Minor Scientific Details" and "How Easily we are Deceived".

 

DISCLAIMER: An attempt at discrediting Dr. Feller's video is NOT endorsing the LLLT as an effective treatment by GreyHunk. I personally don't even think LLLT is sufficiently proven to be an effective therapy for MPB, in fact circumstancial evidence makes me doubt its effectiveness seriously.

[valencia]

Valencia,

You still expect me to believe that you and greyhunk aren't LLLT advocates? Who do you think you're fooling?

Feller I never said that I was,I never said that I was not and I never said that you should believe any of those two,or to believe anything at all.

 

Please,believe what you want.

 

PGP wrote:

 

"Could you dumb it down for me?"

 

Sure man

here it is:

 

When you look on the other side of that paper tisue blocking the laser as GH sugested,Do not stare into the beam with your remaining good eye