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

[Dr. William Lindsey]

1. DSH's post maybe the best of the last 5 pages on this thread.

 

2. Vallencia, I don't quite get where you stand on all of this. Are you pro-LLLT or anti-LLLT?

 

3. Vallencia, your take on energy not being lost is ok. Are you saying it, in this application, is being tranformed into anything other than heat?

a: if not, why doesn't applying a warm washcloth regrow hair?

 

b: if so, what mechanism of action are you proposing is going on?

1. Stimulation of chromophores?

2. energy transfer to the cells' nuclei?

 

I am not trying to be a smart-a--, I just want to know your thoughts.

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

[valencia]

1. DSH's post maybe the best of the last 5 pages on this thread.

 

2. Vallencia, I don't quite get where you stand on all of this. Are you pro-LLLT or anti-LLLT?

 

3. Vallencia, your take on energy not being lost is ok. Are you saying it, in this application, is being tranformed into anything other than heat?

a: if not, why doesn't applying a warm washcloth regrow hair?

 

b: if so, what mechanism of action are you proposing is going on?

1. Stimulation of chromophores?

2. energy transfer to the cells' nuclei?

 

I am not trying to be a smart-a--, I just want to know your thoughts.

 

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

 

 

William H. Lindsey, MD, FACS

McLean, VA

 

 

Thank you Dr.Lindsey

 

You are gentleman, you acknowledged my existence here in a way OTHER than being fift wheel??¦like some other boys do??¦even this GrayHunk person lately

 

1.I had better than DSH's post but I did not dare put it here so I put it here:

 

http://hair-restoration-info.c...?r=16710294#16710294

 

 

2.I am anti-LLLT, anti HT anti Communist, anti chauvinist??¦not anty Christ yet I hope Bill will let me know when I come close to that.

 

3. No,I am not saying that. Part gets reflected, part gets absorbed, part MAYBE (I don't know and never thought about it) gets refracted though the object (my guess is that depends on the power output of the laser and resistance of target/object. In that process laser energy colliding with mater produces heat, radiation and destruction (evaporation of the target??¦which is where the HEAT energy comes from).I don't believe it gives life to any hair. But that is a BELIEF.)

3.a) N/A ??¦.I never said laser does so it is N/A

b) N/A

b)1.N/A

b)2 No, cell's nuclei's energy can not be less and not be more,because of any laser. (a propo question for you can nucleus energy be EVER more or less or is it constant....common doc biology )

Does energy cell's ( I assume you refer to human cell) as an entity it self absorbs energy, and if yes how. I don't know. Never thought about it. That is biology you maybe know?

 

Once more thanks for being a gentleman..

[valencia]

Now what I believe

 

I BELIEVE that that LLLT laser (Maybe yes)does not penetrate the god damn bacteria sunbathing on our skin left alone the dermus.But that is what I believe,not what video proves.

[valencia]

GrayHunk

 

I don't like you any more

 

You don't know how to treat a girl.

 

Your analogy with soldiers does not suit you and your sharp brain.I can tell you why your analogy is wrong and CAN NOT BE TRUE (like you said to Feller...INTERESTED TO HEAR?)

 

P.S worst thing you can do to a girl is to put her down...

[valencia]

GrayHunk

 

I will give you a clue

 

IF ultraviolet light hits a surface causes electrons to be emitted from the surface.

 

Einstein's explanation for this was that light was made up of a stream of energy packets called photons.

 

Modern physicists believe that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, but they also recognize that either view is a simple explanation for something more complex

 

The wavelengths of the light we can see range from 400 to 700 billionths of a meter. But the full range of wavelengths included in the definition of electromagnetic radiation extends from one billionth of a meter, so the light that we see is one small part of the spectrum.

 

There are many different ways to produce photons, but all of them use the same mechanism inside an atom to do it. This mechanism involves the energizing of electrons (not the Nucleus it self Dr.Lindsey)orbiting each atom's nucleus. How Nuclear Radiation Works describes protons, neutrons and electrons in some detail. For example, hydrogen atoms have one electron orbiting the nucleus. Helium atoms have two electrons orbiting the nucleus. Aluminum atoms have 13 electrons orbiting the nucleus. Each atom has a preferred number of electrons orbiting its nucleus.

Electrons circle the nucleus in fixed orbits -- a simplified way to think about it is to imagine how satellites orbit the Earth. There's a huge amount of theory around electron orbitals, but to understand light there is just one key fact to understand: An electron has a natural orbit that it occupies, but if you energize an atom you can move its electrons to higher orbitals. A photon of light is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high-energy to normal-energy, the electron emits a photon -- a packet of energy -- with very specific characteristics. The photon has a frequency, or color, that exactly matches the distance the electron falls...

 

Think of this

 

Then think what you said with your analogy with soldiers and bridge....I will write you tomorrow

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by valencia:

GreyHunk

Don't steal my arguments

 

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to

 

I got there from a different path. I didn't believe he thinks of surface as going from nothing to suddenly a bunch of atoms. I still don't believe it, so I'd like to hear his explanation on how laser can travel in air without hitting atoms and being transformed -- maybe the way he (falsely) believes it gets through glass.

 

 

PGP, Dr. Lindsey,

 

I wasn't addressed unless you keep thinking valencia and me are the same person, and it is not directly the topic of this thread, but I did give some explanations on what my understanding is (based on scientifically supported claims and studies) on what LLLT in fact can and what I believe it can not do, including some hypothesis by the scientific community about the possible mechanism of action.

 

My primary issue was however that as far as the video goes it is pseudoscientific BS and claims things that are physical nonsense -- regardless of LLLT's efficiency. The video doesn't discredit LLLT, only discredits science, Dr. Feller, and anyone who endorses his video in his or her fight against laser hair therapy.

 

Just because you soooo want a simple proof against the LLLT industry, don't take just any bull. The LLLT for MBP may very well be a scam, but not because laser doesn't penetrate the skin, or cannot have an effect there. Even if the LLLT industry "only" stretches the truth about some actually existing benefits of LLLT and an only scientifically relevant study on mice, and "simply" the actual results specifically for MPB don't exist or remain cosmetically insignificant, it is still a scam. For some reason you are not satisfied with that, you guys want it so much to be something more trivially dismissable...

 

I even believe that Dr. Feller genuinely believes that he is right. When emotionally driven, wanting so much to prove something, you fool yourself into deceptive arguments. Deception starts at first fooling yourself... This has nothing to do with intelligence, it is a psychological phenomenon (not a condition, it is just how we all humans are). In fact, intelligence can negatively effect this, we fool ourselves smarter and in more creative fashion... Dr. Feller is a very intelligent person, who does not have experience in designing and conducting experiments, and performed a perfect example of something known as the experimenter's bias.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

I had to crush up and snort a bunch of provigil

to get through some of this .zzzzzzzzzzz Oh ok Im back .

Yes I suppose if Dr Feller isnt going to fight anymore on this then you won.

Ok your the champ now there isnt really any reason to talk about what a laser can and cannot do

We didnt need that video to realize a few years ago that these lasers are worthless for hairloss no matter how deep they penetrate

Ok you say the video is flawed ,thats fine ,Im just glad we can ALL agree that lasers have no business in a hairloss arsenal

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by valencia:

INTERESTED TO HEAR?

 

Of course I am interested -- which part are you disagreeing with? There are of course numerous actual differences between the soldiers and light, but the important thing I wanted to stress is the synchronization of the waves (particularly how in space/time, was less relevant)...

 

I can be wrong though.

 

I don't like you any more

 

You haven't seen my picture yet

[GreyHunk]

(falsely)

 

Before I get beaten up for this by valencia .

 

I meant it in the sense that one can model things many ways, but one can't model light going "uninterrupted" in air and absorbed/reemitted in glass, whichever is more convenient to present a theory.

[valencia]

whooh.....I had to drive cross town to get a computer....Bill banned all IP addresses in all town here...because of some MANIAC JOHN36 !!! Which I am NOT related to in any fashion,except that I think he is cute and I wanna F*** him

 

Ok,nice and shor like Bill wants me to be:

 

GrayHunk

 

photon does not have mass

[valencia]

lasers have

a small amount of recoil due to the momentum of the photons leaving it.

But if a photon has momentum, doesn't it also have to have mass?

If so, then since it is traveling at light speed, wouldn't it's mass would

have to be multiplied by infinity? But this couldnt happen, because the

universe would collapse every time a photon was generated.

[valencia]

One of the worrisome aspects of relativity and quantum mechanics is that we must abandon our graphic notions of Newtonian mechanics, and also some of the notions of classical electromagnetic theory of Maxwell. There is a problem with your analogy...has to be abandoned...do you see it??

 

In addition, there is the "fact" that the photon

has angular momentum -- but from the classical picture, "something" has to be spinning. What's spinning? (not my head PGP...I aint taking musrooms man)

And an electron orbiting a proton in the

hydrogen atom should spiral into the proton emitting electromagnetic radiation, but it doesn't.

Why not?

[valencia]

Think about this and answer....I am not driving again today...bad weather....

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by valencia:

Think about this and answer....

 

Honestly, I have no clue yet on what all of the above has to do with coherency.

 

If you are trying to get to that it would be a wrong analogy that the synchronized lightwaves could "multiply forces" and cause resonance LIKE the soldiers, yes, true. Sure, analogies can also be misleading -- such as electrons being imagined as tiny tennisballs can work in some cases, and not in others, the microworld is not a very small version of our world.

 

The point was that coherency is about synchronization of the light in its wave-like manifestation, and it is an important and interesting property as shown in the soldier example, and not simply parallel rays simply demonstrateable as producing a small dot.

 

I may be wrong about that too of course, but if so, can we get to the point where and why?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I don't want the thread locked, but I can't continue going over the same ground over and over again.

 

It's becoming clear that optical physics cannot be taught in a few posts on a chat forum. Even more to the point, misconceptions about physics can't be explained in a few posts either.

 

Short of the participation of a non-anonymous professional physicist, I don't see how the oppenents of the video could ever be satisfied.

 

After the holidays I will look for a physicist who is willing to identify himself and come online to evaluate the video. Perhaps then the issues regarding the legitimacy of the video can be put to rest; and by extension those of LLLT as well.

[Vasilius]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

I had to crush up and snort a bunch of provigil

to get through some of this .zzzzzzzzzzz

 

LMFAO

[Bill - Seemiller]

whooh.....I had to drive cross town to get a computer....Bill banned all IP addresses in all town here...because of some MANIAC JOHN36 !!! Which I am NOT related to in any fashion,except that I think he is cute and I wanna F*** him

 

Ok,nice and shor like Bill wants me to be:

 

Interesting statement Valencia. I wonder if you are really John36 yourself? Otherwise, how could you make such a statement.

 

And if you are...I find it funny that you called your alterego John a nut and unstable on this thread. I happen to agree with you by the way. You also claim not to know him on that thread, but on this thread are asking another member of our forum to contact John and then he will contact you. That's interesting

 

And then you go ahead and create a very John36-like thread called Quack Quack and talk about wanting to have sex with men on this thread.

 

I guess if you really are John, than John just lost any remaining credibility he had.

 

Bill

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:

I don't want the thread locked, but I can't continue going over the same ground over and over again.

 

It is not at all the same ground. We were talking about whether LIGHT and LASER LIGHT (and I tried to keep saying as we understand it) can penetrate the skin keeping its properties. You then started to talk about PHOTONs. I asked how you think LIGHT travels in air w.r.t how now you said it travels in glass; and what you mean by LIGHT as we clearly didn't seem to understand it the same way.

 

But most importantly, whatever the underlying physics is (about is light really a particle or wave, or both, or none but exhibiting these properties, are photons passing through glass or are photons absorbed and reemitted with the same properties, much of these MODELS are even debated in current science), you are basically basing your argument on saying that something is either fully transparent (air, glass) in the meaning of letting all LIGHT through while keeping some or all its qualities (phase, wavelength, etc.), or fully non-transparent, such as skin or kleenex tissue, where none of this is happening.

 

I don't see how the oppenents of the video could ever be satisfied

 

Easy, to cut it really short: Can you tell me then what the Lambert-Beer law is talking about, on which I based by claim that if 1% gets through the first mm of skin UNABSORBED [that is photons or wave, copied or original, but with the same qualities] then 0.1% would get through the second and so on? And what the absorption coefficient is in physics if not the property of how nontransparent a material is, how much of the light is getting absorbed? Of course in theory skin could have infinite absorption coefficient, but then why are these guys and others measuring it if it is so obviously not letting any light through unabsorbed?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Give it a rest man.

 

Your posts are so long and full of disparate information that I'd have to make it a fulltime job to sort out your mistakes and misconceptions.

 

I already wrote that I will find an optical physicist to comment on the video and it's consequences. I would think you as the worlds first "LLLT advocate/non-advocate" would welcome that. From the verbosity of your posts I am beginning to think that is not the case.

 

Well, I'm going to do it anyway.

[GreyHunk]

Well, I'm going to do it anyway.

 

Would have been nicer to make that bet first, remember? but you somehow lost interest in that.

 

I'll check on my end, hopefully I can quickly find someone who more than qualifies and is willing to give a few more words about your video than it deserves. And I do it because I believe it is just another bluff from you like offering the bet was.

 

Your posts are so long and full of disparate information that I'd have to make it a fulltime job to sort out your mistakes and misconceptions.

 

 

Nice sophism. When in a corner, you go down the path to make it unnecessarily complex (we could have stayed at simple classic optics and simple transparency, which explains all the phenomenons, you got into the underlying quantum models of photons to try confuse things and look educated in the subject), and when I go down to that complexity, you say "full of disperate information" and "too long"

 

Yeah, right. Nice try. (Probably works for your fans though, I don't doubt that..)

 

 

P.S. But I do admit I am writing way too much (I read back ). I ain't perfect. I didn't immediately realize that it would have been easier to be said that you confuse light with photons. Light is the whole phenomenon, regardless of photons (think of sound). If some of the PHOTONS are reemitted through stimulated emission, we still call it the same LIGHT. And all materials do that to some extent, it is not all or nothing as you imply, it is called transparency, well explained by Beer's law, and even skin has some transparency.

 

This is all I've been saying or trying to make you realize, just waaaay too long.

[vincehair]

This is the Frankensteins Monster of all HT related threads. It was dead but keeps being resurected! Ba-dum-cha!

[HaiRisWhere]

interesting thread..how did i miss this 1..any latest updates about the effective use of laser combs.Dr humayaun..do you still support it?.How are your patients responding with the use of laser combs

[HairRun]

Oh man, entertaining read for sure considering what we know today, especially when the anti-LLLT people turned out to be climate change deniers. 

I found this thread while trying to search if LLLT is safe to use pro-op, well worth the detour.