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

[Dr. Alan Feller]

While I wait for Dr. Mohmands considered reply to my critique of the LLLT abstract I thought I might look up photobiostimulation in google.

 

Here is an LLLT explaination from a quack doctor in California who also clearly has no concept of how lasers actually work. I have never read a page so filled with shameless quackary

http://www.drkaslow.com/html/low_level_lasers__lllt_.html

Of course NO photos were provided. As per usual, all we can expect from the LLLT camp is talk and little more. Plenty of junk science as well.

[lorenzo]

I have been reading this debate about laser. Although I do not have an opinion I am a bit skepical about it. Having said that I hope they do work. I think this debate will go on forever because neither side want to back down. I recommend that they doctors that do indeed feel the laser work post some pictures, show the world that it does work on your patient. Ever offer a few people free treatment that are not using any other meds . If this study does work you should benifit from it.

I myself would be curious because if it work I would buy a comb myself. Just an idea.....

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Lorenzo,

Thanks for joining the discussion. But in actuality you did express your opinion and you acted on it by not buying a laser comb. You decided wisely.

 

But what's going on here is not a debate. It is a smack-down against ignorance, quackary and greed. I say smackdown because the other side won't even get into the ring, with the exception of Dr. Mohmand who has not been able to support one thing he has written nor has he been able to counter one thing I have demonstrated in a very straight forward video.

 

We still await Dr. Mohmand's response to the last post I and others made regarding the rather anemic paper he cited as justification for selling LLLT to the lay public.

 

We still await the input of ANY laser advocates.

[wylie]

In an industry as profitable as the hairloss industry this has got to be one of the larger scams going, selling anything purporting to grow hair through the use of any kind of laser light. Maybe shampoos that claim hair regrowth are a bigger scam, but neither do what they claim.

 

However, to be completely honest here, I simply cannot state that lasers dont work for your hair at all. Who knows what they do for your hair? Maybe they make the hair shaft thicker if they are stimulated through the use of laser therapy and it gives one the illusion of more hair? Its possible.

 

But to advocate that these devices will actually regrow real, living hair is not documented for a reason: They probably dont.

 

So with that much figured out, its follows that the sale of such therapy does not reflect well (no pun intended) upon those profiting from hair laser therapy.

[thanatopsis_awry]

I wonder if the advocates of LLLT are cognizent of this thread; and, if so, I wonder what their reactions are, in addition to their lack of participation.

[Bill - Seemiller]

I wonder if the advocates of LLLT are cognizent of this thread; and, if so, I wonder what their reactions are, in addition to their lack of participation.

 

Our forum community is largely found on the web and has high credibility, thus extremely influential. This in itself is why legal action has been brought against its Publisher for continually fighting for the rights of the hair loss patient.

 

I would suspect that a number of laser therapy advocates are aware of this thread. If anything, I'd like to see them get involved and offer the photo evidence this community is demanding.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear Dr Feller

 

I agre with you.

1) The study really did not have a control group.

2) It did not address the mode of action of LLLT.

3) Yes there is no statistical difference between the three groups

4) the tatooing may have case the inflamation etc

 

Th paper does not carry as much weght as you would like it to be, I agree

 

FACTS

 

1) Its a small study showing that laser can or might work, so more input and work needs to be done rather than stopping the work at all.

 

2) The three groups had no statistical difference between the growth, means all three gruops had same amount of growth or imprvement if we want to put that way. One group is shurely being treated by LLLT only, so its at par with Minoxidil group and Minoxidil and LLLT group. This clearly show that if Minxidil can be prescribed so can LLLT. Minoxidil cost is 25US$ per month x 12 = 300 US$, Laser comb can be bought for 200 to 700 US$ and can be used by two to three people in a family, so really cheap in long term.

 

We are not clear about the mechanasim of action but we are getting close to the out come. sooner or later we will understand the action as well.

 

All we need is a bigger study like it has been done to clear the silicone breast implant and showing that its not dangerous at all. 1000 patients were recruted over the 10 years period.

 

so we cant discard the science we just haveto reshape it.

 

what do you say?

 

My Dear Indian Balding friend, I appreciate your comment and giving me some credit, I dont want to convince people all I want is that one should not have a mental block try to see the positive aspect of what ever you do. Dont discard it out right.

 

Dear captain, I think your general knowledge is very limited, if you just visit some of your neighmouring country and see or hear the stories of original native Americans you would read a lot of Woodoo and may be there is a truth in it.

 

some people think that my having a hair shaved or massaged they can prevent hair loss we know it can not but then some one do believe, try to respect peoples believe but you can disagree thats your right and your believe. DOnt try to redicule people.

[bverotti]

My personal opinion on this:

LLLT will not do anyhting for hair. All laser could do is warm up the underlying tissue. Now if heat would be the solution ... why are men in Africa also balding ??

 

I know high energy lasers are good for HAIR REMOVAL. Why ? The light produced is of high enough energy to heat up the follicles to 70C ... enough to 'melt' them.

 

I personally see LLLT for hair stimulation on the same level of many shampoo's that promis us the limit.

 

BArt

[hairthere]

Dr Mohmand,

you're basically admitting the success your patients are having with the laser could be a placebo effect. and you're making money off this. highly unethical, imo. and i had to laugh when you tried to justify the cost by having a whole family sharing the laser device.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Mohmand,

My goal is not to "change minds" either. After all, everyone on this thread agrees that LLLT simply does not work.

 

Don't you see what's happening on this thread and how your reputation and credibility are being diminished by the day because of this thread and others like it?

 

What is fueling this thread is your refusal to even reconsider your position in light of the heavy evidence you have been presented against LLLT.

 

You based your entire justification for supporting and selling LLLT on two papers. Dr. Muricy and Dr. Mendoza's. NOW, it turns out that Dr. Muricy's "paper" was not a complete study paper at all. It was a two page abstract that was inconclusive for anything-the least of which was providing evidence or even data points that could even remotely explain or prove the existence of photobiostimulation. In fact, the opening paragraph offered photobiostimulation as a "given" and moved on disingenuously from there. It was a sloppy abstract, and from what I can tell, a poor and useless study.

 

You wrote:

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

Th paper does not carry as much weght as you would like it to be, I agree

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

No my dear Dr. Mohmand, the paper does not carry as much weight as YOU would like it to, not I. Were you not the doctor who kept referring to it as conclusive evidence that LLLT works? In fact, were you not the one who offered it up to Bill to publish on this thread in support of your untenable position?

 

You now agree that Dr. Muricy's study is very weak and proves nothing, so does this now encourage you to reconsider your position on LLLT?

 

I will review your points from your last post in the order you offered them:

 

1. If you really mean that "more input and work needs" to be done, then why don't you stop selling LLLT to your patients AT LEAST until that extra work is done? And since you will not perform such studies yourself and neither will the LLLT industry, what are you in fact waiting for?

 

2. You make a false and unscientific assumption that just because the "LLLT only" group supposedly demonstrated the same improvement as the minoxidil group that it MUST have positively affected the follicles. It is far more reasonable, however, to believe that normal erratic physiological growth and rest phases of hair accounted for any changes across BOTH groups. This is especially so if you will take a moment to realize that no "treatment" would be successful 100% of the time within their own treatment groups. And when the groups contain ONLY 8 participants each, you have a statstically useless study.

 

Since the study conveniently omitted control groups for both the minoxidil group and the LLLT group, your conclusion must be rejected. Don't you see that Dr. Mohmand?

 

I believe it has always been the unwritten goal of the LLLT industry to claim that it's results were as good as that of minoxidil and then to hide behind minoxidil's track record. That's the REAL reason why Dr. Muricey performed her study the way she did and the real objective she was after. In fact, the "control group" in her study was the minoxidil group because she was trying to covertly compare LLLT to minoxidil-not prove that LLLT actually works in the first place. But without stating as such, this "conclusion" could be viewed as an "incidental", yet fortunate "finding". A bit transparent to me.

 

The LLLT industry knows there are no demonstrable before/after photos and no verifiable success stories like there are for minoxidil, so they designed their studies and strategies around trying to show that LLLT is COMPARABLE to minoxidil. There are of course more major problems in attempting to this, but they go beyond the scope of this post.

 

You wrote:

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

We are not clear about the mechanasim of action but we are getting close to the out come. sooner or later we will understand the action as well.

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

What in the world are you talking about? On what basis can you say we are "getting close"??? This is a disingenuous statement. The only way you can claim that LLLT is getting close to proving itself is through scientific evaluation. But the only scientific study you can point to is an anemic paper that in and of itself offered no conclusions. So how exactly can you claim your side is getting close? Honestly Dr. Mohmand, your statements boggle the mind. But not as much as your next one. That one takes the prize:

 

 

You wrote:

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

so we cant discard the science we just have to reshape it.

what do you say?

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

Science is science. It is true or it is not true. Any "reshaping" is fraud designed to create an outcome that could not happen naturally. This is the very definition of junk science.

How can any doctor or scientist say we can't discard bad and unproven science? That's a medieval worldview harkening back to broom riding witches, wizards with dunce caps, and alchemists.

 

So what's it going to be Dr. Mohmand. Are you going to reconsider your position now that the foundation you have based your LLLT practice on has completely crumbled, or are you going to continue to "reshape" science to fit your agenda?

 

Dr. Bauman, Dr. Charles, nor Dr. Williams are going to chime in to help you. No LLLT doctor or proponent will. Do you really want to stay in the ranks of doctors who sell a threapy to patients who don't have the professinal courage to back their claims up? That's a list of shame, do you really want to remain on it? I don't want you to. I don't want any medical doctor on that list, and that's why I go to such trouble to present the evidence and blow away the junk science. It's ok if you made a mistake, you can fix it.

 

I appeal to you, Dr. Mohmand, to see the error of your ways. There is no shame in it as you are not the only doctor to get sucked into this junk science frenzy. Look to Dr. Bauman, Dr. Charles, Dr. Williams, and many others. You have the opportunity to join the good guys and get on the right side of the issue. You can make amends by questioning our LLLT colleagues and teaching the truth to those who are honorable enough to listen.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Mohmand,

 

Dr. Mohmand listed on Hairmax site as member of medical advisory team

 

Why didn't you tell us that you are on the Medical Advisory Board of Hairmax laser combs?

You deliberately witheld that important information.

 

How in the world can you be on anyone's medical advisory team? You are clueless about lasers, physics, and the scientific method.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dr Feller

This is for your information.

 

even if I am clue less I know what laser is. It is never ment to cross the scalp.....I guess you have confused between laser and ionising radiations like X-Rays etc

 

Please read and dont tell me ISHRS is wrong as well.

 

 

ISHRS Press Release

 

 

Low-Level Laser Therapy is Now a Do-It-Yourself Hair Loss Treatment

 

NEW YORK (October 16, 2003)- While lasers are best known as high-energy beams of coherent light that can cut through a variety of materials including human tissue, low-energy laser light has been found to be capable of modulating beneficial biologic effects in human, animal and plant cells. The biomodulating effects of low-level laser light on human cells has been adapted to medical uses such as enhanced wound healing and treatment of some types of pain, and to cosmetic uses associated with effects on human skin.

 

Low-level laser light has also been found to have biomodulating effects on human hair and hair follicles. The effectiveness of low-level laser light in hair restoration was described today by Martin Unger, MD, Toronto, Canada, in a presentation at the 11th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS). The ISHRS is meeting October 15-19, 2003, at the Marriott Marquis Hotel, New York City.

 

Clinical studies have shown that low-level laser light is effective both cosmetically and physiologically in hair restoration, Dr. Unger said. The cosmetic effects include improvements in hair sheen and strength, characteristics that enhance the perception of "fullness" in overall hair appearance. Physiologic effects on hair follicles observed in both men and women include (1) prevention of hair loss, and (2) stimulation of hair regrowth in areas of hair loss. Dr. Unger, a physician hair restoration specialist, is medical director of a firm that makes a hand-held low-level laser therapy device for home use in hair restoration (HairMAX LaserComb, Lexington International, Boca Raton, FL). The device is accepted as a Medical Device in Canada, and advertising is allowed to make therapeutic claims that it (1) increases strength of scalp hair in men and women, (2) prevents scalp hair loss in men and women, and (3) causes regrowth of scalp hair in men and women. In the United States it is accepted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use as a Cosmetic Laser Product. Approval by the FDA as a Medical Device is pending while appropriate clinical trials are completed. The device is also sold in other countries outside North America.

 

Low-level laser medical therapy is currently approved by the FDA for treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome and for relief of discomfort, Dr. Unger said.

 

The device described by Dr. Unger is a hand-held, wand-like instrument with laser-light ports arranged across its surface like the teeth of a comb. Laser light in the visible red light spectrum is generated in a laser diode. The energy level is far below that of laser beams that cut or burn tissue. Rather, the low-level red laser light has a very low absorption rate in human tissue. Low-level laser therapy for hair restoration is also delivered in a hood-like device that fits over a patient's head much like a hair dryer in a beauty salon.

 

The mechanism of action of low-level laser light on human cells is not completely understood. The interaction of laser light with cells has the basic feature of modulating cell behavior without causing significant temperature increase inside the cells; higher-energy lasers used to treat some types of cancer destroy cancer cells by heating them from the inside. A resulting photochemical reaction inside cells treated with low-level laser light may alter physical and chemical properties of molecules important to cellular activities.

 

Two of the most significant effects of low-level laser light in wound healing and in pain control, Dr. Unger said, are improved arterial and venous blood flow and decreased inflammation. The effects of low-level laser light associated with its effects of hair and hair follicles are not known with precision.

 

In clinical trials, 97% of patients have had some benefit in improvement of hair characteristics, stabilization of hair loss, or hair regrowth, Dr. Unger said. Hair regrowth is defined by Dr. Unger and colleagues as an increase of hair count of 11% or more from baseline count.

 

In the most recently conducted FDA clinical trials of the device, patients studied were men and women with thinning hair in the scalp area. The patients received two low-level laser light treatments per week over a six-month period. Results have shown:

 

100% of men had stabilization of hair loss in frontal and vertex (top of the head) areas;

84.6% of men had hair regrowth (11% of more from baseline) in the frontal area;

82.8% of men had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the vertex area;

87.5% of women had stabilization of hair loss in the frontal area;

100% of women had stabilization of hair loss in the vertex area;

75% of women had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the frontal area; and,

96.4% of women had hair regrowth (11% or more from baseline) in the vertex area.

No side effects of low-level laser therapy have been observed, Dr. Unger said. There have been no reports of eye damage from exposure to low-level laser light.

 

Patients with medical conditions such as a history of skin cancer, persistent scalp infections, and photosensitivity to laser light were excluded from the study.

 

The ISHRS is the world's largest not-for-profit professional organization in the field of hair restoration surgery, with 512 physician members in 45 countries. The organization was founded in 1992 to promote the enhancement of the specialty of hair restoration surgery through education, information-sharing, and observance of ethical standards.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Mohmand,

Are you capable of any analysis or thought beyond what OTHER doctors present to the public?

 

And you clearly have no idea what ionizing radiation is. I built several homemade X-RAY machines from scratch in the 1990s. That's what got me into a very competative radiology residency program in New York, so I think I know a bit about ionizing radiation and how it affects human tissue. The fact that you bring up ionizing radiation out of the blue confirms yet again that you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

Honestly, that ISHRS presentation was made 5 years ago by a man linked to the LLLT industry. Yet in all that time even Dr. Unger has not provided ANY before/after photos demonstrating even a detectable cosmetic improvement. Doesn't that tell you anything Dr. Mohmand? Why don't you call him and ask him to join this debate?

 

Furthermore it does not address the fact that the laser collapes to standard light after first striking the skin, a fatal fact overlooked by the junk scientists supporting LLLT.

 

Dr. Mohmand, you have lost the debate and not only failed to make the case for LLLT but you have succeeded in weakening its position even more. Why don't you notify your colleagues at Lexington Hairmax to come onto this thread and blow me and other LLLT opponents out of the water? Why do you think they don't come on here to defend themselves and back you up?

 

I have had enough of going around in circles with you Dr. Mohmand. You have much to learn and don't know what you don't know.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

OK fair enough

 

Do you think ISHRS that press release is wrong as well?

 

If you are saying that then OK.

 

I will basically stop here, I will probably keep your video in mind but will also keep my own view, which is basd on doctors like yourself.

[hairthere]

How can you be a medical advisor on a product that you're not sure even works and which you don't really even understand the principals of? this is just mind boggling....

[Dr. Alan Feller]

YES Dr. Mohmand, I beleive I've made it clear that EVERY press release that claims LLLT grows hair is WRONG!

 

Forget about the number of doctors buying into LLLT, forget the homeopathic like explanations they apply to support their theory, think for yourself man.

 

The video I posted is irrefutable. Change your position based on the facts of physics and the failure of your colleagues to defend LLLT.

 

Demand an explanation from other Hairmax advisory board members and then RESIGN in protest if they fail to respond. That's what a principled man would do in my opinion.

 

Stand up for yourself, your patients, and do what's right.

 

Wouldn't you rather be on the side of the righteous? Believe me, it's a sweet feeling even if you lose a few "friends" and a few dollars. In the end, you will be respected for your integrity which is the only real currency in this world. You have a great opportunity in front of you.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Mohmand

 

Thank you for adding the required disclaimer in your signature. This meets our disclosure requirements.

 

In the future, I encourage you to disclose all affiliations before entering into a topical debate, so that our members and guests can consider this in addition to your point of view. Additionally, even though some may agree and some may disgree, your credibility won't be in question.

 

I do accept your explanation that you were not purposeful in deceiving this community.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[FenderPlayer]

Hmmm maybe we should all consider buying red bulbs for flashlights and shining them on our heads daily......lol LLLT is such a joke.

 

Anyone who somehow believes LLLT works would have to agree that a red flashlight would have the same effect.

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Hi there

 

I am sorry I missed lot of things. Actually I have a very busy practise but then I just got another study send to me by some one who aparently ad,mired my stance could be the laser guys "Bad Guys"...hmmmmmm

 

JUST A POINT

 

No body is claiming that LLLT is all you need. Its just an adjunct to the main treatment.

 

anyway

 

I am subbitting this to be reviewed by the "Good Guys"

 

 

Long-term (1-year) experience with LDS 100 in the treatment of men and women with androgenetic alopecia

Background. LDS 100 is indicated for the treatment of men and women with androgenetic alopecia (male pattern hair loss, MPHL and female pattern hair loss, FPHL). However, the long-term (> 1 year) efficacy of LDS 100 in this population has not been previously reported.

Objectives. To assess the efficacy and safety of LDS 100 in men and women with androgenetic alopecia compared to treatment with placebo device over 1 year.

Methods. In 6 months, 240 men with MPHL and 80 women with FPHL were randomized to receive LDS 100 treatment or placebo treatment. Men and women continued in up to 1 year, placebo controlled extension studies. Efficacy was evaluated by hair counts, patient and investigator assessments, and panel review of clinical photographs.

Results. Treatment with LDS 100 led to durable improvements in scalp hair over 1 year (p < 0.001 versus placebo, all endpoints), while treatment with placebo led to progressive hair loss. LDS 100 was generally well tolerated and no new safety concerns were identified during long-term use.

Conclusions. In men with MPHL and in women with FPHL, long-term treatment with LDS 100 over 1 year was well tolerated, led to durable improvements in scalp hair growth, and slowed the further progression of hair loss that occurred without treatment.

 

Androgenetic alopecia (male pattern hair loss, MPHL and female pattern hair loss, FPHL) occurs in men and women with an inherited sensitivity to the effects of androgens on scalp hair. The disorder is characterized by loss of visible hair over areas of the scalp due to progressive miniaturization of hair follicles. MPHL does not occur in men whit genetic deficiency of the type 2 5???±-reductase (5???±R) enzyme, which converts testosterone (T) to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), implicating DHT in the pathogenesis of this condition. Of the two 5???±R isoenzymes in man, Type 1 predominates in sebaceous glands of the skin, including scalp, while Type 2 is present in hair follicles, as well as the prostate. In the androgenetic alopecia also occurs a reduction of the synthesis of the mRNA and the DNA with diminution of the cellular metabolism.

 

Three streets of control of the hair growth exist:

- steroid control (T, 5???±R, DHT);

- metabolic control (blood circulation, glucose, ATP);

- autocrine-paracrine control (HrGF - Hair Grow Factor).

 

The infrared radiation of LDS 100 (940 nm) penetrates in depth. It transits without producing great photo-biological effects; if not there where it comes to be absorbed then in the interface between the epidermis and the dermis. The photo-biological bases of therapeutic use of infrared radiation re-engage themselves in a mechanism "fallen" on various structures. There is a photoreception at the mitochondrial level. The radiation is absorbed at the level of the respiratory chain (cytochromes, oxidase cytocrome, dehydrogenase flowin) with the consequent activation of the respiratory chain and further the activation of the NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide).

 

At the cellular membrane level there is an increase in the activity of the enzyme Na/K ATPasis, which in turn acts on the flow of Ca+. At this point one has a transduction and an amplification of the stimulus in the cellular ambit, with the activation of the cyclical nucleotides which modulate the synthesis of the mRNA and the DNA.

The final photo-response is the bio-stimulation at the various levels of the cellular metabolic structure. The biological activation spreads from cell to cell with chemical transmissions. The infrared light increases the cellular metabolism accompanied by an augmentation of the capillary vascular bed of the radiant zone with an increase also in the supply of oxygen.

Studies in man with MPHL and women with FPHL showed that LDS 100 had utility in this disorder.

 

Randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that treatment whit LDS 100 produced significant improvements in scalp hair growth, slowed the further progression of hair loss that occurred without treatment and led to increased patient satisfaction with the appearance of their scalp hair.

 

LDS 100 use is contraindicated in women when they are or may potentially be pregnant and in subjects with pace-maker or other metallic devices, or those with acute phlebitis, serious arterial hypertension, neurogical illnesses, heightened cardiopathy, dermatitis and dermatosis.

 

Materials and methods

Study population

Men aged 18 to 50 years, whit mild to moderately severe vertex MPHL according to a modified Norwood/Hamilton classification scale (II vertex, III vertex, IV or V), were enrolled.

Women aged 18 to 50 years, with mild to moderately severe vertex FPHL according to a Ludwig classification scale (I, II or III), were enrolled.

Principal exclusion criteria included significant abnormalities on screening physical examination or laboratory evaluation, surgical correction of scalp hair loss, topical Minoxidil use within one-year, use of drugs with androgenetic or antiandrogenetic properties, use of finasteride or other 5???±R inhibitors, or alopecia due to other causes. Men and women were instructed not to alter their hairstyle or dye their hair during the studies.

 

Study protocols

One initial, 6-months randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies were initiated, and both were continued as 1 consecutive, 6-months, double-bind, placebo-controlled extension studies. The objectives of the controlled extension studies were to determine the effect of long-term use of LDS 100, the effect of delaying treatment by one year, and the progression of MPHL in men and FPHL in women not receiving active treatment.

 

6-months initial studies

Following a screening procedure, study subjects entered a 2 week, single-blind, placebo run-in period. All men and women received study shampoo (Claim 3S?®) for standardization of shampoo used and for prophylaxis of seborrheic dermatitis, which might affect scalp hair growth. Subjects (240 men and 80 women) were than randomized to LDS 100 (2 times for week, 20 minutes, 140 Hz) or placebo LDS 100 (no infrared light, 2 times for week, 20 minutes, 140 Hz) (1:1) for six months (Figs. 1 and 2).

Men and women visited the clinic every 3 months, where they completed a hair growth questionnaire and investigators completed assessments of scalp hair growth.

Every 6 months, photographs of scalp hair were taken for hair counts and for the expert panel assessments of hair growth. Reports of adverse events were collected throughout the studies.

 

6-months extension studies

Men and women completing the initial 6-months, placebo controlled studies were eligible to enrol in one consecutive, 6-months, placebo-controlled extension studies.

In these extension studies, men (N = 183) and women (N = 55) were randomly assigned (as determined at initial randomization) to treatment with either LDS 100 (2 times for week, 20 minutes, 140 Hz) or placebo LDS 100 (no infrared light, 2 times for week, 20 minutes, 140 Hz) (9:1), such that subjects were randomized to one of four groups that allocated treatment to them during both the initial 6-months studies and the 6-months extension studies:

 

LDS 100 LDS 100, LDS 100 Placebo,

Placebo LDS 100, or Placebo Placebo.

 

The procedures for the 6-months extension studies were similar to those for the initial 6-months studies.

 

 

 

Evaluation procedures

Efficacy measurements

Four predefined efficacy endpoints provided a comprehensive assessment of changes in scalp hair from baseline:

(1) hair counts, obtained from color macrophotographs of a 1-inch diameter circular area (5.1 cm2) of clipped hair (length 1 mm), centered at the anterior leading edge of the vertex thinning area;

(2) patient self-assessment of scalp hair, using a validated, self-administered hair growth questionnarie;

(3) investigator assessment of scalp hair growth, using a standardized 7-point rating scale;

(4) independent assessment of standardized clinical global photographs of the vertex scalp by a panel of dermatologists who were blinded to treatment and experienced in photagraphic assessment of hair growth, using the standardized 7-point rating scale.

 

Safety measurements

Safety measurements included clinical and laboratory evaluations, and adverse experience reports.

 

Statistical analysis

A data analysis, plan pre-specified all primary and secondary hypotheses, including combining data from the initial 6-months studies to improve precision of the estimates of the treatment effect, as well as from each of the 6-months controlled extensions due to the small size of the placebo groups in those studies.

Hair counts were assessed by the difference between the count at each time point versus the baseline count, and mean hair count values for each treatment group were determined using SASTM Least Squares Means.

Each of the seven questions in the patient self-assessment of hair growth was assessed separately, and the responses to each question at each time point were taken as assessments of changes from baseline.

The investigator assessment of hair growth and the expert panel assessments of global photographs were assessed by comparison of mean rating scores for each tratment group at each time point, based on the 7-point rating scale (minimum value = -3.0 [greatly decreased]; maximum value = 3.0 [greatly increased].

Hypothesis testing for hair counts, individual patient self-assessment questions, and investigator and global photographic assessments was performed using analysis of variance.

The primary efficacy analysis population for this report was the intention to treat population, which included all subjects with at least one day randomozed therapy and with both baseline and at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment.

For all efficacy analyses, missing data were estimated by carring data forward from the previous visit.

However, no data were carried forward from the baseline evaluation, or between the initial 6-months study and the 6-months extension study.

A secondary population for analysis of efficacy included only the data from the cohort of subjects who completed the 1-year study.

Safety analyses were based on all subjects with at least one day of randomized therapy. The safety analyses focused on the biochemical parameters, using analysis of variance, and on adverse experience reports.

 

Results

Patient accounting and baseline characteristics

Patient accounting is summarized in Figure 1. A summary of baseline characteristics for man and women who entered the extension study (2nd 6-months) is presented by treatment group in Table I. Demographics and baseline caharacteristics were comparable among the four treatment groups.

 

Hair counts

In the group that received LDS 100 for all 12 months (LDS 100 LDS 100), there were significant increases in hair counts over 1 year (p < 0.001 versus baseline for all time points), which reached a maximal increase at month 6, declined somewhat thereafter but remained above baseline throughout, with a mean increase of hairs at month 12 (Fig. 3).

 

In contrast, in the group that received placebo for all 12 months (Placebo Placebo), there was a progressive decline in hair counts over 1 year, culminating in a mean decrease from baseline of hairs at month 12 (Fig. 3).

 

For the group crossed over from Placebo to LDS 100 after 6 months (Placebo LDS 100) there was a decrease in hair count during the months of placebo treatment. This initial loss of hair on placebo was followed by significant increases in hair count during treatment with LDS 100 through month 12 (Fig. 3). Increases in hair count during LDS 100 treatment in this group were generally sustained over time, although the increases compared to baseline were consistently less than those observed in the LDS 100 LDS 100 group at comparable time points, with the difference being similar in magnitude to the amount of hair loss sustained during the year of placebo treatment.

 

For the group that received LDS 100 for 1st 6 months, was crossed over to placebo for 2nd 6 months (LDS 100 Placebo), the beneficial effect on hair count seen during the first 6-months of LDS 100 treatment was reversed after 6 months of placebo treatment (Fig. 3).

 

Patient self-assessment

For each of the seven questions in the patient self-assessment questionnaire, treatment with LDS 100 (LDS 100 LDS 100) was superior to treatment with placebo (Placebo Placebo) at each time point (p < 0.001 for all between-group comparisons).

 

The LDS 100 LDS 100 group demonstrated significant (p < 0.001) improvement from baseline at each time point for each question, with the exception that there was no significant difference from baseline at the month 6 time point for Question 5a (assessment of satisfaction with appearance of the frontal hairline), where as the Placebo Placebo group generally demonstrated deterioration from baseline over time.

 

For each of the seven questions, a greater proportion of LDS 100- versus placebo-trated subjects reported an improvement from baseline, with the difference between groups increasing over time (Table II).

 

In the Placebo LDS 100 group, there was generally sustained improvement following 6 months of placebo treatment for each question during the period of LDS 100 treatment (p < 0.001), although, as with hair counts, this improvement was less than that seen in the LDS 100 LDS 100 group at comparable time points.

 

For the LDS 100 Placebo group, partial to complete reversibility of the beneficial effect of LDS 100 was observed for six of the seven questions after 6 months of placebo treatment (2nd 6-months).

 

 

 

Investigator assessment

Based on the investigator assessment, treatment with LDS 100 (LDS 100 LDS 100) was superior to treatment with placebo (Placebo Placebo) at each time point (p < 0.001, all comparisons).

 

The Placebo LDS 100 group showed improvement during the period of LDS 100 therapy, although as with hair counts and patient self-assessment the magnitude of this improvement was less than that seen in the LDS 100 LDS 100 group at comparable time points.

For the LDS 100 Placebo group, there was initial improvement during the first year of LDS 100 treatment, followed by a plateau during the 6-months of placebo treatment.

 

 

 

Global photographic assessment

Based on the global photographic assessment, treatment with LDS 100 (LDS 100 LDS 100) was superior to treatment with placebo (Placebo Placebo) at each time point (p < 0.001, all comparisons).

 

At month 12, 48% of LDS 100-treated subjects were rated as slightly, moderately, or greatly improved compared to 6% of placebo-treated subjects.

 

Viewed in the context of maintaining visible hair from baseline, 90% of subjects treated with LDS 100 demonstrated no further visible hair loss by this assessment, compared to 25% of patients on placebo.

Conversely, 75% of subjects treated with placebo demonstrated futher visible hair loss by this assessment at 1 year, compared to 10% of subjects on LDS 100 (Fig. 5).

 

For the LDS 100 LDS 100 group, maximal improvement by global photographic assessment was observed at month 12.

 

In contrast, the Placebo Placebo group demonstrated progressive worsening by global photographic assessment through month 12.

 

The Placebo LDS 100 group also demonstrated sustained improvement in mean score during the period of LDS 100 treatment from month 6 to month 12 (p < 0.001), although, as with the three other efficacy measures, the magnitude of improvement was less than that seen in the LDS 100 LDS 100 group for comparable time points.

 

For the Placebo LDS 100 group, the beneficial effect of LDS 100 was reversed after 6 months of placebo treatment (p < 0.001).

 

Global photographs of representative subjects from the Placebo Placebo and LDS 100 LDS 100 groups who were rated by the expert panel as having decreased or increased hair growth from baseline are shown in Figure 6.

 

 

 

Adverse Event

Clinical adverse experiences that were considered by the investigator to be possibly or definitely treatment-related and that occurred in at least 1% of subjects are summarized in Table III.

 

As reported previously, in the first 6-months a slightly higher proportion of LDS 100 than placebo subjects reported treatment-related adverse experiences related to itching and inflammation (Table III), discontinued the studies due these side effects. These side effects resolved after discontinuation and also resolved in most subjects who reported them but remained on therapy with LDS 100. The adverse experience profile for subjects continuing in the extension studies was similar to that of the initial studies (Table III).

 

Discussion

The data from this study and its long-term extension represent the longest reported controlled observations in men with MPHL and women with FPHL.

 

The combined analysis demonstrated that long-term tretament with LDS 100 led to significant and durable improvements, compared to both baseline and placebo, in scalp hair in men with MPHL and in women with FPHL. Hair counts increased over the first 6-months of treatment with LDS 100, with improvement above baseline maintained over 1 year. In contrast, the placebo group progressively lost hair over 1 year, confirming the natural progression of hair loss in this disorder due to the conyinued miniaturization of scalp hair. Thus, the treatment effect of LDS 100 on hair count relative to placebo increased progressively over time, leading to a net improvement for LDS 100-treated subjects hairs compared to placebo at one year. Most (65%) LDS 100-treated subjects had increases in hair counts at one year, compared to none of the placebo-treated subjects, but even for those LDS 100-treated subjects with less hair by hair count at one year, the magnitude of loss was less than that observed in the placebo group. these data support that the progression of hair loss observed in placebo-treated subjects was significantly reduced by treatment with LDS 100.

 

Based on the predefined endpoints utilizing photographic methods (hair counts, and global photographic assessment), peak efficacy was observed at 6 months to 12 months of treatment with LDS 100. This observation of an apparent peaking effect is likely due, in part, to the previously-reported beneficial effects of LDS 100 on the hair growth cycle based on a phototrichogram study. In that study, initiation of LDS 100 treatment was shown to increase the number of anagen-phase hairs and to increase the anagen to telogen ratio, consistent with normalization of the growth cycles of previously miniaturized hairs.

 

Consistent with these results, LDS 100 treatment was also shown to increase the growth rate and/or thikness of hairs, based on analysis of serial hair weight measurements. Because these beneficial changes in the hair growth cycle are dependent on when therapy with LDS 100 is initiated and occur rapidly, the affected hairs are driven to cycle in a synchronous manner. If these hairs have somewhat similar anagen phase durations, they would enter telogen phase as the anagen (and catagen) phase ended, followed by subsequent shedding, in a partially synchronized fashion. This would be expected to produce a gradual decline from peak hair count after a period of time equal to the average anagen phase duration. Eventually, as subsequent growth cycles recurred, these hairs would be expected to become increasingly independent, thereby losing their synchronous character as their growth cycles further normalized over time, leading to a sustained increase in hair count at a plateau above baseline, as suggested by the 1 year data presented here.

 

Patient self-assessment of hair growth provides a mechanism for each subject to judge the benefits of treatment under controlled and blinded conditions. This questionnaire asks specific questions about the patient's hair growth or loss and his degree of satisfaction with the appearance of his hair compared to study start. While a placebo effect was observed with this instrument, as is typical of patient questionnaire data, results consistently demonstrated that subjects treated with LDS 100 had a more positive self-assessment of their hair growth and satisfaction with their appearance than subjects treated with placebo, with the majority of LDS 100-treated subjects reporting satisfaction with the overall appearance of their scalp hair at 1 year. Consistent with the findings of another study in which LDS 100 was evaluated in subjects with predominantly frontal MPHL, patients' satisfaction with the appearance of their frontal hairline was improved by treatment with LDS 100 in the present study.

 

The investigators' assessment are based on observations of subjects seen in the clinic and provide a clinically relevant assessment of the patient's hair growth or loss since study start. These assessments demonstrated a sustained benefit of LDS 100 treatment over 1 year.

 

 

 

As with the patient self-assessment, the investigator assessment had a greater placebo effect than the more objective

endpoints of hair count and global photographic assessment. Such an effect is not inusual in double-blind, placebo-control led studies, and is often due to general expectation bias on the part of the patient's treating physician.

 

Despite this apparent placebo effect, the beneficial effects of LDS 100 were demonstrated by the clinical assessment made by the investigators in these studies. In contrast to the investigator assessment, the blinded comparison of paired pre- and post-treatment global photographs by the expert panel, which also assessed change from baseline, demonstrated minimal, if any, placebo effect.

Based on this assessment, LDS 100 treatment led to maintenance of improvement above baseline in scalp hair growth and scalp coverage over one year, while placebo subjects progressively worsened.

 

Treatment with LDS 100 for one year led to sustained protection against further visible hair loss in nearly all (90%) subjects, while further visible hair loss as evident in most (75%) subjects treated with placebo over the same time period.

 

While the number of patients remaining in the study declined over time and the size of the placebo group was limited in the extension study, the results of analyses that included either all available patients at each time point or only the cohort of patients with data at month 12 were consistent and supported a sustained benefit in hair growth for subjects receiving LDS 100 compared with placebo.

 

Additionally, examination of data from placebo-treated subjects in all cohorts demonstrated the continued loss of scalp hair that occurs in untreated subjects with MPHL and FPHL. Thus, regardless of the cohort examined, the long-term data from these studies consistently demonstrated a beneficial effect of LDS 100 compared with placebo for men with MPHL and women with FPHL.

 

Moreover, this beneficial effect increased over time due to the progressive increase in the net treatment effect of LDS 100 compared with placebo.

 

The safety data from the one year of controlled observations in the current study provide reassurance that long-term use of LDS 100 in men with MPHL and women with FPHL is not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse experiences or any new safety concerns.

 

A few subjects in the current studies experienced reversible itching and inflammation. No other significant adverse effects of LDS 100 were observed in the patient population evaluated in the current studies.

 

This excellent safety profile of long-term use of LDS 100 is consistent with the experience with the infrared light at five times the dose used in the present study that has been well-documented in large clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance in men and women.

In summary, treatment with LDS 100 over one year increased scalp hair as determined by scalp hair counts, patient self-assessment, investigator assessment, and global photographic assessment, when compared with placebo. In contrast, data from the placebo group confirmed that without treatment progressive reductions in hair count and continued loss of visible hair occurs.

 

Long-term treatment with LDS 100 was generally well tolerated. The results of these studies demonstrate that chronic therapy with LDS 100 leads to durable improvements in hair growth in men with MPHL and women with FPHL and slows the further progression of hair loss that occurs without treatment.

References

 

1. Arndt K.A., Noe I.M. et al.: Laser Therapy. Basic concepts and nomenclature. J. am. Acad. Dermatol. Dec. 1981, 5

2. Dwyer R.M., Bass M.: Laser Applications. Vol. III Monte Ross Ed. Academic press, N.Y., 1977.

3. Fine S., Klein E.: Interaction of laser radiation with biological system. Proceeding of the first Conference on Biologic effects of laser radiations. Fed. Proc., 24, 35, 1965.

4. Goldman L.: Effects of new laser systems on the skin. Arch. Dermat.., 108, 385, 1973.

5. Goldman L.: Applications of the Laser. Cleveland. Chemical Rubber Co., 1973.

6. IIda H., Takahara H., Kahehi H., Tateno Y., Mammoto M.: Fundamental studies on laser radiation therapy. Nippon Acta radiol., 1969, Jul., 29, 411-5.

7. Mester E., Ludany G., Sellyei M., Szende B., Tota J.: The stimulating effect of power laser rays on biological systems. Laser Rev., 1, 3, 1968.

8. Mester E. et al.: Experimental and clinical observations wih Laser. Panmin. Med., 13, 538, 1971.

9. Olsen EA: Androgenetic alopecia. In: Olsen EA, ed. Disorders of hair growth: diagnosis and treatment. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994: 257-83.

10. Price VH: Testosterone metabolism in the skin. Arch. Dermatol. 1975; 111: 1496-502.

11. Wolbarsht M.L.: Laser applications in medicine and biology. Vol. 1-2 Plenum Press. N.Y., 1971/74.

Table I. Baseline characteristics of subjects entering the extension study

 

 

 

"I am an unpaid medical advisor to Lexington Int."

The openion I hold is totally independent of the company and its my personal view, to which I stand by.

 

I am a medical advisor to Lexington International and Hairmax. What ever I say is my personal opinion.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Mohmand,

 

Please check your email regarding an unrelated matter and respond ASAP.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[jdp710]

Dr. Feller,

 

I'm posting this in this forum as it appears you may not be returning to the debate at this thread after your comment of "School's out."

 

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?cati...DBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=7

 

I understand this thread is more geared towards the debate over laser combs but on our other thread we are talking about receiving the correct photo bio-stimulation effects of 3 - 6 joules which is what's given on clincal laser devices with hundreds of laser diodes! So I don't want to muddy the waters on this thread by posting too much and confusing the readers so I ask again if you could please come back to the thread.

 

For those that aren't aware I will make some "very brief" about lllt that dismisses Dr. Fellers opinions.

 

A. "We have tested a range of laser modules and examined the depth of penetration using electron microscopes. 630-660nm laser circa 5mW penetrate part way to the root of the hair. 20mW laser modules penetrate below the hair follicle to stimulate the hair follicle ROOTS which extend below the base of the hair follicle" http://www.aculas.com/comparison.htm

 

B. You wanted evidence so I have posted many studies. For example I have posted a lot of these on the other thread but later you refuted by claiming it "junk science" even though there are 1500 studies

 

""The Following is a Sampling of Physicians, Organizations, and Professors Who Have Published Articles on the Positive Effects of Low Level Light Therapy. Hair Retention and Re-growth:

 

Japan Laser Therapy Association (1992)

Laser Conference, Helsinki Finland (1993)

Professor Pekka J. Pontinen (1996)

Multiple European Studies (1997)

International Society of Hair Restoration Surgeons (2001)

American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (2002)

Italian Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (2002)

American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (2002)

Dr. Glenn Charles (2003)

John L. Satino & Dr. Michael Markou (2003)"

http://www.folicorhtc.com/LLLT.html

 

 

C. You also mentioned something along the lines that all light once it hits the skin becomes red light ... or something to that affect. My response is as follows:

 

"there is a specific influence of coherent light on a system of particles (cells in a biological system) which is based on the action of gradient forces originated by speckle structure of laser field inside the illuminated object."

 

"1. Apart from a photochemical mechanism of light action on biological systems there exist more universal physical mechanisms based on interactions of light induced dipole moments of particles between themselves and with electrical component of light field. Both laser and non-laser light can produce biological effect via these mechanisms.

 

2. Laser light is the most efficient at action on biological systems. At that linearly polarized laser light is expected to produce better effect than nonpolarized or circularly polarized one.

 

3. Non-laser light can also produce biological action but of smaller efficiency than the laser one and only in case if it is linearly polarized. "

http://www.laser.nu/lllt/lllt_editorial13.htm

 

D. I later gave "some" of the reasons why lllt would work by increased amounts of superoxide dismutase and nitric oxide but I never heard a reply back discounting why this would not affect hair loss:

 

"SOD's - Also known as Super Oxide Dismutase, these hair loss treatments work by handling the immune response which occurs as a result of excessive DHT in the follicle. When cells sense a foreign body, they release Super Oxide, which typically help defend the body against invading viruses, cells, and foreign tissues. SOD's reduce the presence of this Super Oxide, thus reducing the body's desire to reject the follicle. It's yet another "angle" proven to work in fighting hair loss. SOD's are kind of a hybrid treatment because they also have growth stimulation properties, as well as anti-inflammatory properties." http://www.hairlaserremoval.co.uk/hair-loss-treatments-solutions.htm

 

"Among other beneficial things, SODs appear to help spare growth-stimulating nitric oxide, reduce damaging inflammation, and help reverse fibrosis (follicular scarring that impedes the follicle's ability to grow hair). There are a few patents for SODs as hair growth stimulators"http://www.hairlosstalk.com/faq/#8

 

and here's the short answer for nitric oxide

 

"Nitric oxide is a vasodilator that appears to be important for hair growth" http://www.hairlosstalk.com/faq/#8

 

Also, "NO [nitric oxide] is a ubiquitous transmitter which has identical effects to minoxidil on blood vessels." http://www.mn.st/baldfaq.htm

 

E. You asked for photographic evidence and 4 were posted in the LDS 100 study that another poster posted followed by dozens of others by laser clinics. One forum member offered his pictures but I'm not sure if you received them. I also posted my pictures which I'll include right here but later you implied there is no difference with your comment of "I don't think any person who didn't specifically know what they were looking at would know that there was a cosmetic difference."

 

Here are my photo's for anyone that's interested.

 

Right Side of my head, 33 yrs old

Before

After

 

Left Side of my head, 33 yrs old

Before

After

 

And BTW for anyone that is interested I have zero affiliation to any laser therapy device and I don't work for any hair loss company. And if anyone is curious these are photos that show 5 months worth of difference treating with the equivalent of 201 diodes which I should be receiving around 5 joules of photo bio-stimulation. With a laser comb you'll have to be brushing your hair for a very long time to receive that many joules.

 

So again I ask, Dr. Feller can you return to that other forum so we can finish debating lllt in hair loss, as one of the last statements you made before leaving was "School's out."

 

Thank You,

 

jdp710

[jdp710]

Dr M Humayun Mohmand,

 

Here's more studies if your intersted.

 

http://www.palmbeachglamhair.com/Reported%20Studies%20o...in%20Hair%20Loss.pdf

 

Reported Studies of LLLT in Hair Loss (Man & Woman)

 

Professor Andre Mester (1964)

 

In 1964, Professor Andre Mester began experimenting with the use of low-power laser

energy in Budapest, Hungary. He observed that low energy laser exposure has a

stimulating effect on the biological system, while high-energy laser exposure had an

inhibiting effect. In his experiments with wound treatment on mice, he noticed rapid

healing due to microcirculation of blood supply. This healing was also obvious in laser

light treatment of diabetic patients suffering with dystrophic sores. He was amazed to

find sores that would not otherwise heal were healed, and he also observed accelerated

hair growth and thickening of hair in the treated areas. This theory through its evolution

has since been refined and is widely becoming one of the most popular non-invasive

hair loss treatments.

Laser researcher Dr. J. Layton Wright states: ... "Laser Hair Therapy increases

microcirculation of the hair follicle, which allows nutrients and freshly oxygenated blood

to access the hair follicle with the results being a stimulation of the natural hair growth

cycle."

 

Dr. Trelles (1984)

 

In 1984, Dr. Trelles showed in one study that patients with alopecia areata who were

treated with He-Ne laser 632,8 nm showed a good response. Dr. Trelles reported that

most of the patients with alopecia areata responded well after only 6 to 8 treatments

administered twice a week for a couple of weeks. The He-Ne laser was placed 30

centimeters from the alopecia areata with dosages ranging from 3-4 Joule per sq. cm.

No fibres or lenses were used. In the same study, microscopic evaluation of the hair

shaft structure on the alopecia areata irradiated areas showed a clear medulla rich in

keratin after treatment. Daily treatments appeared to prevent regrowth, causing irritation

with probable increase in hair loss.

 

Japan Laser Therapy Association (1992)

 

At the 4th annual Meeting of the Japan Laser Therapy Association in 1992, success

was reported with an increase in both hair growth and the density of the hair follicles in

the laser treated areas of both male and female stress alopecia and alopecia areata

with only one failure out of 40 cases reported in two papers.

 

Laser Conference, Helsinki Finland (1993)

 

An unpublished study presented at Laser Conference, Helsinki, Finland 1993 shows the

effect of LLLT on Androgenetic Alopecia. A double-blind comparative study with placebo

laser for treatment of Hereditary Androgenetic Alopecia in young males was presented

in Helsinki 1993 describing the positive effect of LLLT treatments on hair growth, stop of

hair loss and hair shaft tensile strength.

At the Helsinki Laser Conference research results demonstrating the effect of LLLT

compared to a placebo group was presented. It was found that hair re-growth was

clearly shown in the laser group. In addition all patients, with the exception of one, in the

laser-treated group showed a complete stop of hair loss. All patients, except 3, showed

a clear hair re-growth of hair with a reduction of at least one category in the Hamilton

classification.

Post-treatment showed the dermis with almost the same amount of hair follicles as pretreatment,

although a number of new follicles could be seen with clearly noticeable hair

growth. 50% of the follicles are now in the anagen phase (growth).

When comparing the histological findings, transformation into anagen hair follicles could

be observed in 83% of the patients on laser treatment but in none of the placebo

patients. Out of 18 patients, 14 showed an increase in hair thickness, and all 18 showed

improvement in general hair shaft quality measured with the hair stretcher.

The results showed no improvement in the placebo group or any adverse effects of the

treatment.

 

Prof. Pekka J. P?¶ntinen (1996)

 

Professor P?¶ntinen is one of the pioneers of LLLT in Scandinavia thorough theoretical

and practical studies on how to apply low level laser therapy in the treatment of chronic,

especially musculoskeletal and myofascial pain and dysfunction, vascular disturbances,

wound and ulcer treatment etc.

Prof. Pekka J. P?¶ntinen established the beneficial effect of Laser Hair Care?® on scalp

blood flow and published his results in 1996.

The effects of hair lasers on skin blood flow were measured on three different devices to

establish the effect of scalp blood flow. The hair lasers used were Laser Hair Care (670

nm ), a He-Ne (632.8 nm ) laser containing one laser transferring light via fibres and

lenses to the patient and a laser identical to the Laser Hair Care where the lasers were

replaced (placebo).

The differences in the laser systems are illustrated by the fact that Laser Hair Care

increased scalp blood flow by 54%. The He-Ne hair laser had no effect while the

Placebo decreased flow rate by 36%. In addition, the skin temperatures measured

before and after the treatment showed little change.

 

European Studies (1997)

 

In 1997 a European group of scientist's published their work on LLLT in the treatment of

alopecia of the scalp. The authors tried to verify the efficacy of low energy laser (LLLT)

in scalp alopecia. Sixty patients were divided in two groups: A) laser group, 33 patients

treated with both LLLT and classical therapy; B) control group, 27 patients treated only

with classical therapy, Before, during and after treatment, historical samples were done.

For the group A the results were rather superior but in a twice shorter time shorter time

than group B. The maintenance of the good results needed classical therapy for a long

period. They conclude that LLLT therapy could have a useful complementary method

for the treatment of scalp alopecia.

The same European group of scientist's published their findings on LLLT use in the

treatment of alopecia and crural ulcers in 1998. The authors tried to verify the efficacy of

LLLT in scalp alopecia and crural ulcers of different causes. Laser used was (red diode,

continuous emission, 8 mW power, wave length 670 nm spot size about 5 mm diameter

on some points. They also use as control classical therapy. Before, during and after

treatment, histological samples were taken from alopecia regions. For the laser groups

(alopecia and ulcers) the results were rather superior and in a three or twice time

shorter than the control group. They conclude that LLLT therapy is a very useful

complementary method for the treatment of scalp alopecia and crural ulcers.

[electricb]

Indian Balding, you are incorrect about any kind of light producing vitamin D. It is the light from the ultraviolet part of the spectrum that causes the production of vitamin D. Ultraviolet light has a higher frequency/narrower wavelength than visible light which allows it to penetrate deeper into the skin.

[hairydude84]

Thank you JDP. I was going to post that link to HLH too. People need to know the truth about Feller's lies and his personal campaign against LLLT.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I believe it is you LLLT advocates who are lying. Or are at best deluding yourselves. If you think the physics demonstration I gave that rips the heart out of LLLT theory is incorrect or a fraud, why don't you get a physicist to come on here and take your side?

 

You LLLT zealots will never be swayed. The best you can do is whine and throw temper tantrums and then stoop to personal attacks that just demonstrate your desperation and ignorance. You've had plenty of time and opportunity to show us real world before/after photos like those shown for HT on this and other sites and you have failed to do so time and time again. But hey, if you want to keep pumping up this thread and all the other laser threads I participate on then by all means continue to do so. I believe that everytime you do that, another rational person is convinced not to join the likes of people like you and will reject LLLT as quackary.