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

[Dr. Alan Feller]

To the members of the community,

 

Please understand that this thread was presented to stir debate. I am looking for an LLLT proponenet to prove me wrong becaue I may very well be wrong.

 

However, no LLLT proponent has yet made any case against what I have written nor the video I have presented.

 

Dr. Mohmand was bold in coming onto the thread, but he failed to address any of the factual evidence I have laid before this community. I still await his attempt to do so, but am beginning to see that he is more interested in selling laser combs rather than analyzing what those combs really may or may not be doing. He has much to learn.

 

I do not sell laser therapy. I certainly could, and am sure I could make a bundle. But I don't. I don't because it has not been shown to work clinically and the science behind it makes no sense.

 

To sell LLLT would be to accept the many false premises that form it's faulty theoretical foundation. My love of science and truth will not permit that. My appreciation of my patients and the trust they put in me and the medical profession will not allow it either.

 

Let's keep this field open, honest and transparent. I look forward to more challenges from the LLLT propenent camp.

[kman]

Dr. Feller,

 

After reading your post I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have a laser comb. However, I have not given up on it. Currently I am conducting studies on it's effectiveness when combined with the properties of a QRay bracelet. Stay tuned. I might be on to something here.

 

Seriously, I did think it worked for the first 6 months but really I just wanted to believe it worked, I think. Eventually I stopped using it as I had to admit that I saw no change.

 

Is it possible though that heat has some minimal benefit to scalp health, and thus hair health? Also, let's not discount the "placebo effect" here. That's my argument to my wife when she asks why I still wear my Qray. Of course, none of the above requires an $800.00 laser.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. Makes great sense. Tks.

 

Kman

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dr Feller

 

I respect your theory, but its just a theory that most of the people, of whom couple are your clients, are backing up.

 

What I will do is scan the paper which was presented by DR Maria A. Muricy from Brazil.

 

She has been working on LLLT since 2003, and a dermatologist by profession.

 

she has done a randomisd trial of three groups

1) applying only minoxidil

2) only laser

3) both laser and Minoxidil

 

I am sure that will help to resolve this debate, which Dr Feller is taking very personal.

 

But Dr Feller, please understand

 

LASERS are not supposed to travel through tissue

 

They are simple light source, its just that they travel in same direction, you do remeber the resonance, its simple marching on the bridge but with resonance the bridge can collapse.

Similarly its simple light but with same wave length and monochromatic, monocoherent amplified light it can do some work.

 

If you tell some one that I can collapse a bridge with simple march they will redicule you just like you are doing.

 

ANyway, wait till I scan the paper and send it to you.

or i will send it to Bill and he can post it on my behalf, how about that.

[FenderPlayer]

Originally posted by Dr M Humayun Mohmand:

 

I guess if nothing LLLT is a choice that a person can use to reduce the hair loss......

 

What I tell them that if we use the LLLT it will reduce the hair loss and almost majority about 80% have acknowledge that when they stop using LLLT they tend to see more hair loss.

 

DOnt sell it for hair growth, sell it for reduction in hair loss.

 

 

Mohmand,

You have effectively proven yourself to be a hypocrite. The above is a quote from this thread where you say that in your view LLLT does not grow hair only prevents loss. The below is a quote from another hread you participated in regarding LLLT. Heres a link to the page with it just to verify.

http://hair-restoration-info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/346...861/m/9951006393/p/5

 

"Recently some studies have proved that LLLT can improve the hair growth and hair count. The centers that have conducted the study are well authenticated centers and Doctors are also well reputed."

 

You obviously dont think those so called "studies" have any merit if you yourself now hav discounted them and said that you believe lasers don't INCREASE the hair count just manintain it. If you truly believe these studies and they are the reason you feel comfortable providing LLLT because of them, why would you then make a stance directly against them saying that they don't regrow hair and only prevent further loss?

 

Essentially you are either a hypocrite or a liar. I'd say both of those characteristics are something I would not want in a doctor.

 

Rely on proven results NOT LLLT. As a sufferer of hairloss I wish LLLT worked, but it just does not.

[latinlotus]

Posted September 24, 2008 03:12 AM Hide Post

Dear Captain

 

The problem is that some times we fail to open our mind to undestand the other person point of view.

 

I don't think dr. Feller has a problem being open minded. He actually went out of his way to test this product

 

 

 

DO you think the treatment really means to improve...what about to stop the further damage.

 

I guess if nothing LLLT is a choice that a person can use to reduce the hair loss.

 

This is not the claim of the laser comb manufacturer at all. They claim that it increases hair growth

 

 

I am not saying all this just cause I am on this side ofthe debate, but because over the period of 4 years, I have seen my patients (majority of them) saying that the hair loss has reduced.

 

When they come to me, I do not tell them that LLLT is a miricale treatment and would solve your problem ....acra ka Dabra, There is no magic vond.

 

What I tell them that if we use the LLLT it will reduce the hair loss and almost majority about 80% have acknowledge that when they stop using LLLT they tend to see more hair loss.

 

One must use LLLT for 30 to 45 minutes every other day, and for atleast 12 weeks before he can appreciate the effects.

 

ONE more thing WHY did FDA cleared this device for hair growth? do you think people who are sitting there are also stupid or have a financial interest in this device?

 

FDA only approved the safety of the device, not whether it actually works as intended

 

 

They must have seen some thing, it might be not enough to do FDA approval but enough to grant clearence.

 

Try to see the point.

 

As far as I am concern, I am ok with it and so are my patients. DOnt sell it for hair growth, sell it for reduction in hair loss.

 

One way of getting more profit is reduce your loss.

 

PLEASE DO SEE THIS ASPECT.

 

we are worried that 7 to 10% of grafts can be damaged without microscope but we are not willing to give a chance to a device which helps about 10% or more. There are studies that have shown.

 

YES those studies are not double blind control randomised trial but there are studies....make it a pre-liminary study.....but its there.

 

 

without double blinded tests, all claims/studies are meaningless, including claims by patients saying they got more hair because perception can be very strong and very wrong

 

Dont be a hard liner

 

I think your comment about the insult for DR Feller if I use the word "colleague" is an insult to this forum, which issuppos to be a forum for educated enlightened people and not for extreemist who would not listen to people.

 

I thought freedom of expression is the right that Americans are so proud of....dont let them down with your comments. you are insulting the freedom of expression

 

 

actually you got a point here for freedom of expression and opinion, regardless how wrong it is

 

[Bill - Seemiller]

FDA only approved the safety of the device, not whether it actually works as intended

 

Latinlotus,

 

Supposedly Lexington International did release a private study to the FDA for efficacy as well as safety for clearance. However, to date, it has not been released to the public.

 

When I was at the annual ISHRS conference, I stopped by the Lexington booth, and they told me that they would be releasing the study to the public in the near future.

 

Will the study prove anything? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Id release that study in a minute if it meant more sales

[latinlotus]

I second that. If this study is not already released, it will never be released. And i guess, we can easily presume the reason why.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Mohmand,

You wrote:

---------

"I respect your theory, but its just a theory..."

---------

I did not present a theory at all, I presented a scientific experiment that TESTED the theory presented by LLLT advocates. The experiment was based on very basic scientific principles and was designed to test the validity of LLLT theory as articulated by it's most prominent supporters. This test was the first I know of that was publicly demonstrated in an effort to test the merits of the use of lasers for the growth of hair. The conclusion was obvious, LLLT failed.

 

LLLT theory states that it is the coherent nature of light that somehow imparts a benefit to hair follicle cells-even though no one has ever identified such a mechanism nor proved it's existence. Yet the experiment in the video shows beyond a doubt that the coherent nature of light is eliminated long before it could ever reach the follicle.

 

In fact, the only light reaching the follicle is incoherent red light that LLLT proponents have stated openly does not impart any benefit at all. Hence the reason LLLT proponents sell relatively expensive laser products as opposed to inexpensive bright LED products.

 

Why must you scan Dr. Muricy's paper? The indisputable scientific data is right in front of you and is easy to grasp. If you are going to scan anything, why don't you scan the internet for before/after photos of patients who have claimed to have benefitted demonstrably from LLLT? I'll save you the time, there are none.

 

You wrote:

-----------------

LASERS are not supposed to travel through tissue

-----------------

Now perhaps you are getting it Dr. Mohmand. Laser's CAN'T travel through tissue. But your grasp of this physical fact is at odds with LLLT theory advocates who believe that coherent light DOES travel through tissue. In fact, it is their fallacious belief that coherent light actually makes it down to the follicles though millimeters of epidermis and dermis intact! That's the problem with their theory and now YOU are beginning to appreciate it. That's good.

 

You wrote:

---------------------

They are simple light source, its just that they travel in same direction, you do remeber the resonance, its simple marching on the bridge but with resonance the bridge can collapse.

Similarly its simple light but with same wave length and monochromatic, monocoherent amplified light it can do some work.

-------------------------

You are bringing up the concept of resonance, something I am very familiar with as a professional electronic circuit designer. Unfortunately, resonance has no place in this discussion as LLLT proponents never pointed to resonance of the follicular cells as part of their theory. You are confusing your laser theory again. Resonance can be appreciated through the use of coherent or incoherent light frequencies, but it's application in lasers has more to do with concentration of heat in differently pigmented tissue structures during high energy hot laser applications such as hair removal, not cold low laser therapy for hair loss.

 

Your non-sequitor inclusion of resonance shows me that you are not really familiar with the basic scientific principles you yourself bring up to support your points. Now I understand why you rely so heavily on other doctors you barely know to support YOUR positions.

 

Rather than concerning yourself with Resonance, take some time to look up Rayleigh Scattering, Raman Scattering, and Compton Scattering. They are far more germane to the discussion.

 

Dr. Mohmand, the first step in analyzing the validity of a theory is NOT to set up double blind multicenter studies. It's to break down each aspect of the theory into sub-components and subject each one to scientific testing. If any of these component parts of the theory fail their tests, then the entire theory falls. This is what I've done with the experiment in the video, and the final result was that at least two components of LLLT theory failed miserably. It should be back to the drawing board for the industry, however, they are selling too many laser products to be bothered with annoyances like validity testing.

 

I implore you Dr. Mohmand, start thinking for yourself instead of relying completely on 2 or 3 studies that weren't even performed by professional researchers. . Look at the real world data, or lack there of, and then view the video that clearly shows a major flaws in LLLT theory, THEN make your OWN decision.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Kman,

Don't be embarrassed, we all make mistakes. You should only be embarrassed if you continue to buy into something you know is wrong.

And no, it is not possible that heat is offering the scalp some minimal benefit. To begin with, LLLT means LOW power laser light therapy. The amount of heat imparted from toy lasers like those used in combs is insignificant. If heat were the issue, all you would need to do is wear a wool hat. It is far cheaper than laser products and easier to apply. Or, you can take a walk outside under the sunlight. There is PLENTY of 650nm wavelength light coming from the sun to expose your head to.

When you apply some common sense, LLLT seems pretty silly doesn't it?

 

Fenderplayer,

Great points. You will find LLLT proponents tripping over their own words all the time. That's why almost no LLLT doctor or industry "professional" will agree to debate LLLT in public. Those who have tried, like Dr. Bauman and Mr. Michaels have paid the price in high embarrassment and loss of credibility. Clearly the two doctors mentioned in Bill' article have learned that lesson and stay away from the forums.

 

Dr. Mohmand made the mistake of hand picking and interpreting studies in such a way to support his agenda to sell a clinically unproven treatment. As you correctly pointed out, his selective use of these studies and what they meant to HIM do not comport with the conclusions made by the studies themselves. Furthermore, he ignored the simple scientific truths in the video that clearly undermined the foundations of LLLT theory.

 

In other words, he made up his own conclusions to justify selling a quack remedy.

 

Hypocrisy is the hallmark of LLLT advocates. That's just one reason why I call such practitioners unethical.

 

Bill,

You keep claiming that LLLT has credibility because "ethical" doctors use them. Yet those same doctors will not come on here to address the very real issues challenging their position. Does this not bring into question your basic premise that they are ethical?

How many such "ethical" doctors are there? I'm sure the community would like a list of such "ethical" LLLT doctors. I would call it a list of shame, how you don't is beyond me. One more question, are any of the doctors in your article sitting on the board of any laser comb or device manufacturing companies?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Click the link for a slimey LLLT TV commercial.

 

Notice that the commercial implies it's referring to LLLT, but is really showing the results of artifical hair augmentation.

 

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the screen.

 

I particularly like the part where almost all the laser light is bouncing off his artifical hair.

 

This is what I mean by unethical.

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=epw-n1yDD2s

[Tubs]

If you watch the other adverts from AHS (you can get to them from the above link) - Shane Warne (former Aussie cricket player) talks about how great LLLT is and then right at the end slips in that his results are due to LLLT "and a few other treatments".

 

Tubs

[youngsuccess]

Strand-by-Strand Procedure has got to be the BEST euphemism for "fake hair" I've ever heard.

 

I may just be skeptical about this whole laser thing because the last time I stuck my head near a device that emitted cheap, red light at me, I ended up being extremely disappointed:

 

 

Virtual Boy... what a piece of shit.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear Friends

 

I will scan the paper and will post it on this network either directly or through the help of Bill.

 

Read that article let me know your openion.

 

Its not about hypocrite or what, I did what my observation was. One cant fool every one all the time. my observation is based on the patients comments and their experience with the comb. I just put the options available to them.

 

I do not give them high hopes and if more and more patients who are being referred by the previous patient to come and buy the laser comb then what should I say?

 

Ofcourse I tell them that this is just one of the options available.

 

I just put the options and YES, I personally do believe in my true heart that this device does work, I have seen it, I failed to document that.

I have heard my colleagues advocating about it, some have financial interest some does not.

 

I respect Dr Feller believe I might not agree 100% with him. He has the right not to sell it or to say against it. He says what he believes in.

 

We say what we believe in. unfortunately its because of this difference of openion the world is a dangerous place but again its because of this difference of openion its a wonderful place.

 

I think we are here not to judge people or doctors but we are here to discuss the issues. If in future most of my clients come back and say that doctor the treatment you suggested or the option you gave did not work, then ofcourse I will not suggest that option again.

 

Im Pakistan, I have a reputation of being very straight and amoung one of the best, I cant afford to loose my position. My clients have given me that respect, I follow their openion and their experience. I am sharing my experience, its not a proper study its an anecdotal finding.

 

The day I feel its not the option I should be giving I wont.

 

PRESENTLY i am not convinced with the facts Dr Feller has presented. DR Feller needs to prove the other doctors wrong in the same way as they have to prove them right, by doing a clinical study and then present that study...I guess we will all benifit from his work.

 

Till that time I guess we all should wait.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

In the end neither I nor HTN are regulators or law makers. If I were, you can well imagine what would happen to the LLLT industry since such regulations and laws are based on the evidence, or lack thereof, presented on the issue to date.

 

Dr. Mohmand, we can keep going around and around, but until an authority steps in to make a decision there is nothing to stop you from offering a therapy you may "believe in your heart" works, despite the fact that:

1. There are no before/after pics from you or your patients

2. No before/after pics from any other doctors selling LLLT

3. The basic theory of LLLT is faulty

4. You need a microscope to see the "results" of the LLLT studies you cited in defense of LLLT.

 

How you can ignore all these factors running against LLLT is beyond my understanding.

 

As for your love of clinical trials, nothing beats the enormous real world trials peformed by tens of thousands of LLLT patients who have NOT offered a single before/after series of photos to prove efficacy. There sure are alot of deceptive pics out there though. I'll get to those in another thread.

 

An astronaut on the moon will die without his helmet. Do we really need a clinical study to prove this? Or is this obvious based on simple physics?

 

I think deferring to weak studies is a bit of a cop out and a bit too self-serving, but again, I'm not a regulator or law maker. So it's up to the public to weigh what you've written against what I've written. Thank you for participating.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dear Members,

 

I received this study on laser therapy from Dr. Mohmand today. I admit that I have not gotten a chance to read it yet, though I will. But I told him I'd post this on his behalf.

 

Feel free to offer your comments.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Bill - Seemiller]

Page two of the laser therapy study

[hairthere]

no big surprise here. the results show that the laser combined with minox had the most significant increase. thank goodness for hts--we no longer need to waste money on products like a laser.

 

there is still no scientific explanation to back this laser/hair regrowth "phenomena" up. Dr. Feller clearly presented this in his video.

 

oh, and where are the pictures to back this study up? probably gathering dust with those big foot pictures....

[Jimsosa]

Dr. Feller - you are amazingly passionate. Interesting conversation..... The logic says that LLLT is simply a marketing play for poor folks desperate to do something with there hair loss. Very sad...

 

Dr. Feller - I did something about my hair loss, and came to see you for surgury back in June (i think the 17th).

 

Just over 3 months now....seeing some signs...cant wait for month 6-8.

 

Thanks

Jimmy

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Jimmy,

Thanks for the feedback. Always love to read about my patients growing their hair back.

 

Hairthere,

I have to agree with you, the study falls way short in so many ways. Not to mention that it is only an abstract, not a full study paper.

 

Dr. Mohmand,

Thank you for posting this paper through Bill. I think your willingness to do it shows that you are indeed acting in good faith. However, this abstract falls drastically short in so many ways that it can't possibly be relied upon as the justification for LLLT to the extent that you do.

 

I will just include a quick list of problems off the top of my head here, but will support each item with quotes from the paper after I finish my surgery tomorrow:

 

1. There is no control group mentioned.

2. The study objective as written by Dr. Muricy herself was to elucidate the mechanism of action of LLLT, however, the study never even addressed this objective.

3. Instead, it seems that the study was solely designed to compare the efficacy of LLLT to Minioxidil, NOT to prove it's actual efficacy nor mechanism of action.

4. The paper itself demonstrated no statistical difference between either of the three groups which means that the positive changes recorded were probably from normal physiological cycling of hair growth.

5. The tatooing may have cause the few histiologic changes Dr. Muricy did record and may have interfered with the study. For example, a stab into the skin with a needle to inject a tatoo will cause microscaring from the stab and irritation from the dye. This, in turn, will INCREASE vascularity and cause other local tissue changes in response to the trauma.

 

There is much more I will add, but I don't have the time today, but I promise I will present a full written explanation as to why I think this paper carries no weight and failed to achieve it's own stated objectives.

 

I just want to leave this observation with Dr. Mohmand to think about:

 

Dr. Muricy wrote in the first paragraph of her abstract:

________

The hypothesis behind the method of action of the LLLT is that the LASER light would increase vascularization and increase celllar metabolism.

__________

BUT as we know from my video, none of the light that makes it to the follicles is LASER in nature anymore. Does this not present a serious conflict in your mind? It should. Clearly Dr. Muricy doesn't understand either that laser light collapes to standard light before reaching the follicles. She performed her study based on a false assumption.

 

More to come.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

I edited another post of mine to

Dr. Mohmand because at first I thought he was a little quacky but have finally realized that hes just been bamboozled like any of us that bought into all the hype

The same studies he posted were the main reason I bought my device in the first place.

I wanted pics back then but figured what the heck, the studies say it works.

Still cant believe after all this time after selling it there are still no credible pics. Unbelieveable!

Your forgiven Dr Mohamand so I hope you forgive me for my harsh words.

Hey we are only human and we make mistakes . Its fixing those mistakes that really counts.

I wanted that damn brush to work so bad. Even stopping the loss would have been great .

Since then propecia has stopped my loss and I can tell that by look and feel something the laser never did.

[indian_balding26]

i feel this argument should stop, Dr Mohmand has really tried to make his point. He definitely deserves some respect for trying so hard to convince everyone!

 

I have personally tried minoxidil and propecia with little to no results! personally even if laser treatment would stop me from losing 1-2hair/day i would go for it!

 

why don't we see it this way, skin produces vitamin d when sunlight/any light hits the skin. I hope everybody agrees to this. May be the vitamin d prodution due to the light(may be just simple light) helps the skin in the scalp to produce vitamin d which naturally produces anti-oxidants in the skin, which "may" reduce the interference of DHT with hair follicle?

 

Probably all we need is couple of hours in sunlight...but for people who don't get this on a daily basis(like me...i have a computer job) may be it helps just a little? 1% may be? just my 0.02

[indian_balding26]

FYI....according to a statistics 40% of the U.S. population is vitamin D deficient..

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Your right. You figured it all out .

Thats why those surfer guys have long luscious locks.

I better pull back the shades and drink an extra gallon of milk a week.

[Capt'N Mop!!!]

personally, I think if your open to new ideas and willing to take a chance then more power to ya! And if you personally see a result (difference) than I for one am happy for you. I wish you continued success Indian balding and am happy to be happy w.you.

 

On another note, while I know this isn't possible in the U.S., have there been any controlled clinical studies regarding the chicken and goat sacrificeth Dr. Mohamand brought up in the other thread? He said 1/100 might experience some sort of benefit from "woo doo" is this data taken directly from a small or large sample size of chicken and/or goat sacrifices? In your experience which produce a greater potential yield, chicken or goat?