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

[jdp710]

Dr. Feller,

 

I still don't understand some of the posts that you make!

 

You claim that I'm lying when I post scientific studies backing up my claims, however, "none" of your opinions are backed with scientific studies. And then in parts of your thread you state, "But where in the world are the LLLT proponents to educate me?"

 

For example you previously posted this comment in this thread, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen." This statement is obviously false and I've tried to explain the process through studies and not by opinion but your only answer to this process is that it's "junk science." Here's just one such example to show a basic flowchart of lllt in general to help with your understanding http://www.laserdarmani.com/news.php

 

And once again, there is no need to, "get a physicist to come on here" as all this information is readily available through the studies that are posted on the internet.

 

For example, in this thread you said, "No, it wouldn't matter if you could deliver laser light directly to the follicles even if you could. We are NOT plants!" I really don't know where to start with this statement as there are over 1500 studies showing that photo bio-stimulation does take place. I posted links with over 600 studies on the other forum we discussed earlier.

 

You've also implied that you can't get laser light to your hair follicles to get this photo bio-stimulation to take place and I disagree. I'll just site another link for you to read to help with your understanding,

"The light gets weaker and weaker the further from the surface it penetrates. There is, however, a limit at which the light intensity is so low that no biological effect of the light can be registered. This limit, where the effect ceases, is called the greatest active depth. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this depth is also contingent on tissue type, pigmentation, and dirt on the skin. It is worth noting that laser light can even penetrate bone (as well as it can penetrate muscle tissue). Fat tissue is more transparent than muscle tissue.

For example: a HeNe laser with a power output of 3.5 mW has a greatest active depth of 6-8 mm depending on the type of tissue involved. A HeNe laser with an output of 7 mW has a greatest active depth of 8-10 mm. A GaAlAs probe of some strength has a penetration of 35 mm with a 55 mm lateral spread. A GaAs laser has a greatest active depth of between 20 and 30 mm (sometimes down to 40-50 mm), depending on its peak pulse output (around a thousand times greater than its average power output). If you are working in direct contact with the skin, and press the probe against the skin, then the greatest active depth will be achieved."http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm#How%20deep%20into%20the%20tissue%20can

 

But whenever anyone posts anything that contradicts your statement you comment, "The physics in the videos is 100% solid and need no "backing up"" or " "I have already said that my video demonstration is beyond interpretation and that it speaks for itself."

 

As for your statement you've made in the past that where it appears you refute all these scientific studies by stating that this can't possibly take place and, "If you want to convince me that LLLT is for real ... simply show me consistent photos of cosmetically signfiicant benefits derived from LLLT."

 

However, another forum member showed you dozens and dozens of pictures that are, "cosmetically significant benefits" including my own, and just on that one thread there are 8 people that have given their testimonials that they happy with their results! I'm not sure why all our testimonials and pictures are discounted. If those testimonials and/or pictures aren't enough, I would recommend that you walk into the closest laser clinic by you, and ask the customers how they feel they have benefited. If you don't want to go down to the laser clinic then feel free to read this survey of 375 people.

 

"http://www.sunetics.com/default.aspx?ctxt=clinicalstudies

The 2005 Clinical Client Survey of 375 people participating in the Sunetics Laser Hair Therapy program showed that:

78% had an appearance of Thicker hair

76% had an appearance of Fuller Hair

64% had an appearance of Shinier Hair

86% had an appearance of Healthier Hair

85% Perceived that their hair looked better

84% were Pleased with the program"

 

 

 

As for your comments earlier in the thread on HLH I can assure you I am 100% "grass roots" as you describe. If you read my other posts about 6 months ago, you'll notice where I was asking all sorts of questions on how to build my own laser device. So you'll clearly see that I am "grass roots."

 

If you're wondering why I support lllt I would like to remind you that I 100% believe in helping other people in their battle to fight hair loss or than just telling people to get a hair transplant. I've found a product that works for me that happens to have a "very" high success rate where dozens and dozens of people on another forum are also happy with the results too!

 

All I say is that anyone can build their own laser hood/helmet for around $250 that has the potential to rival clinical laser devices, IMO, which people have been spending thousands and thousands of dollars per year on.

 

And again, I wanted to say it again as I feel it is very important to say; in the past I have used a laser comb and I received disappointing results when compared next to my 201 laser device. The reason for it, in my opinion, is because you need the proper 3 - 6 joules for the proper photo bio-stimulation to take place. With a laser comb that has a handful of laser diodes, you'll be brushing your hair for a "very" long time to get that 3 - 6 joules.

 

Thank You,

 

jdp710

[flyby]

It's interesting to see such passionate, heated and in depth discussion here about LLLT. While I definitely do agree with Dr. Feller for the most part that LLLT for hair regrowth is a bunch of BS, I don't quite understand such a progressive and proactive stance against it. As far as I've seen LLLT for hair regrowth has never caused any one physical harm or damage. It's not like laser hair removal or skin rejuvination treatments which can and do cause trauma if done wrong or treated by inexperience operators.

 

I do think that the ball is definitely in the LLLT Industry's court to show some serious scientific studies to prove the effectiveness of LLLT (to date they have NOT). I also don't like the claims that they make about hair regrowth, but in the end it's really more of a buyer beware type of topic. Unless I see evidence of damage caused by LLLT then the only thing being hurt is the gullable persons pocket book.

 

I do like Dr. Fellers tenacity about calling BS about the LLLT industry, but I think that the talented HT surgeons such as Dr. Feller and many others on here would be doing hair loss sufferers looking for a solution a much greater service by proactively and aggresively trying to weed out the bad HT surgeons out there in the HT industry who do cause harm and damage to peoples lives (same goes for the cosmetic surgery industry in general). After all these are the Dr's seeing and repairing damage by unqualified, unexperienced or untalented ht surgeons. Is it taboo for the good HT doctors to go point out their peers who are crappy HT doctors.

 

Just my 2 cents!

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear JDP

 

Thank you for joining the discussion.

I am delighted to see some one with such a deep insight into lasers and still on the same side of the fence as I am.

I am sure with the passage of time science will prove US right, I believe in it.

 

Dear Flyby

 

I appreciate your stance that LLLT should be given some chance.

I always thought "innocent till proven guilty"

 

So I think if that holds true then the other side should come back with a clinical study showing that LLLT did not improve or delayed the hair loss.

 

We must understand one thing, "If LLLT by it self even reduce the hair loss and patients come back with a comment that I have seen reduction in my hair loss is as good as a positive effect."

 

So we are not looking only towards the hair growth but also towards the reduction in hair loss.

 

Just like with hair removal we started with "hair Removal' option to now what we call " Hair Reduction"

 

Lets be open about the LLLT and wait rather than rejecting it all together.

 

I feel that Dr Feller is over reacting to LLLT. I respect his point of view but I would give a chance to this baby to grow before condeming it to death.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr Mohmand,

Your reference to infrared hair growth quackary does not support your position that red lasers work. In fact, the Infrared hair growth camp is the mortal enemy of the Red Laser camp.

I know you want us to believe they are more or less the same thing. But let's see what the Infrared camp thinks of the Red Laser camp in their own words, shall we:

 

This is from the Versacchi corporation. Makers of Hairbeam Infrared brush:

HairBeam uses 5 infra-red LED lasers plus 2 LED's. Infra-red can't be seen by the human eye . but it's far more energetic than the visible red light lasers other's may use. In fact ordinary visible red-light lasers don't do much good at all in stimulating hair growth.

 

Not convinced? Well, here is a video from Hairbeam that trounces Red laser therapy in favor of their Infrared form of quackary:

Video: Red lasers trashed by the Infrared camp

 

The most interesting page on the Hairbeam website is the "Before and After Pic" menu selection. I've included the link here:

 

Hairbeam Infrared brush "Before and After Pic" menu selection

 

Don't worry folks. There's nothing wrong with your computer or browser. There ARE NO PHOTOS in the before/after page. Quite a bit of slick text explaining why they don't have photos, but no photos to be sure. They must really think their customers are idiots.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Well I'll certainly say that since jdp710 joined the discussion, the debate got more interesting.

 

JDP,

 

Welcome to our discussion forum and thank you for sharing information and cited studies that support laser therapy. I'd encourage you also to add compelling before/after photos of laser therapy patients on this forum as well for further discussion. Members of another forum are also welcome to join and share their stories, testimonies, etc.

 

The discussion on this forum to date regarding laser therapy has been very one sided. It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story to give members and guests a more balanced discussion in order to help members draw educated conclusions.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[jdp710]

I posted this on the other forum that discounts Dr. Feller's science. I figure some of you would be interested as well so I'll post the information here as well. Here's the link to the other forum. http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?cati...id=81568&STARTPAGE=1

 

 

 

Dr. Feller,

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT? You are saying LLLT doesn't work because one company says that 940 nm light is more effective than 650 nm light. While the other company says they that, no, 650 nm light is more effective than 940 nm light.

 

I've already explained this to you before that it's common practice for one maker to use 940 nm light over 650 nm light. If you look at this, you'll see that 3 out of the 7 common commercially available clinical laser devices use 940 nm light

http://www.konftec.com/html/Compare/Laser_Hood_comparison.htm

 

DR. FELLER, THEY BOTH CREATE A PHOTOBIOSTIMULATION/PHOTOBIOLODULATION EFFECT!!! PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE EFFICACY OF LLLT?!?!

 

And Dr. Feller, I keep asking questions but you never answer them directly. Instead, you keep changing the subject to something unrelated. Let's please keep this discussion of LLLT efficacy on track!

 

Dr. Feller,

 

You posted this earlier, "HairBeam uses 5 infra-red LED lasers plus 2 LED's. Infra-red can't be seen by the human eye . but it's far more energetic than the visible red light lasers other's may use. In fact ordinary visible red-light lasers don't do much good at all in stimulating hair growth." and said this on your other thread you created and then said in response to "Your reference to infrared hair growth quackary does not support your position that red lasers work."

 

Please read this study and please tell me why neither infrared or near infrared laser light does not work?!?!

 

Visible red wavelengths (~620-690 nanometers) - shallow penetration - superficial tissue treatment, eg. wound healing, superficial APs, acne, etc.;

 

Infra-red wavelengths (~760-1260 nanometers) - deeper penetration - deeper tissue treatment, eg. musculoskeletal injuries, sports therapy, deeper APs and myofascial TPs, also wound healing,etc;

http://www.spectramedics.com/llltinfo.htm

 

"The 670 and 692 visible lasers caused a higher improvment in cell proliferation that the infrared lasers. ... It also confirms that visible red is the best wavelength for suferficial wound healing."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_MHGinqgAYYJ:www.l...&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

 

And I'll go ahead and make a second post for you to get back on track of the debate!

 

You said, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen."

 

And I've responded with multiple studies showing this opinion to be wrong. It's called photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation! Here's another study to disprove your "opinion."

 

"The present study supports the hypothesis that one mechanism for the photobiostimulation effect after irradiation at 660 nm is the reaction of light with hemoglobin, resulting in oxygen radical production." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73501387/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

Also you said, " As my video clearly demonstrates, the moment the laser strikes the skin it instantly looses it's laser properties and from that point on acts like regular monochromatic light coming from a standard LED."

 

This statement again is false. Please read this:

 

"Q: Does the coherence of the laser light disappear when entering the tissue?

 

A: No. The length of coherence, though, is shortened. Through interference between laser rays in the tissue, very small "islands" of more intense light, called speckles occur. These speckles will be created as deep as the light reaches in the tissue and within a speckle volume, the light is partially polarized. It is easy to show that speckles are formed rather deep down in tissue and the existence of real speckles prove that the light is coherent." http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm

 

 

And I've posted this before but I'll post it again as YOU STILL NEVER ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!!

"You've also implied that you can't get laser light to your hair follicles and I disagree. I'll just site another link for you to read to help with your understanding,

"The light gets weaker and weaker the further from the surface it penetrates. There is, however, a limit at which the light intensity is so low that no biological effect of the light can be registered. This limit, where the effect ceases, is called the greatest active depth. In addition to the factors mentioned above, this depth is also contingent on tissue type, pigmentation, and dirt on the skin. It is worth noting that laser light can even penetrate bone (as well as it can penetrate muscle tissue). Fat tissue is more transparent than muscle tissue.

For example: a HeNe laser with a power output of 3.5 mW has a greatest active depth of 6-8 mm depending on the type of tissue involved. A HeNe laser with an output of 7 mW has a greatest active depth of 8-10 mm. A GaAlAs probe of some strength has a penetration of 35 mm with a 55 mm lateral spread. A GaAs laser has a greatest active depth of between 20 and 30 mm (sometimes down to 40-50 mm), depending on its peak pulse output (around a thousand times greater than its average power output). If you are working in direct contact with the skin, and press the probe against the skin, then the greatest active depth will be achieved."http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm#How%20deep%20into%20the%20tissue%20can

 

Dr. Feller please explain why you still believe your prior statements are still valid!?!?

[jdp710]

Hello Bill ,

 

Thank you for allowing me to be here. I went ahead and posted this on the other forum but I figure it would also help in the understanding of LLLT

 

"As far as any controversy surrounding lllt please keep in mind that in the beginning there were laser clinics that charged thousands of dollars a year that showed significant improvement for hair loss. Then companies decided, hey, lets see if we can get in on the action and laser combs were created in the thinking that, "well, maybe less diodes will bring the cost down for the average person to afford it while still giving results." Unfortunately, that's where lllt for hair loss took a nose dive!!! Their thinking proved wrong and laser combs started to earn the reputation as a scam, in my opinion. The reason why laser combs don't work for the vast majority (in my opinion speaking as a former laser comb user) is because you need around 3 - 6 joules for a bio-stimulatory effect to dramatically affect hair loss. With laser combs, you'll be brushing your hair for a very long time to get that 3 - 6 joules. So fast forward to today. You still have laser clinics that are charging thousands of dollars a year with laser customers noticing an 78% improvement in the thickness of their hair ... see sunetics survey earlier in the thread. But now, due to China and the lower cost of laser diodes you can now get laser diodes "very" cheap. You can now build a device for $250 that rivals clinical lasers. The only problem is the average consumer still sees lllt as a scam, IMO, due to the laser brushes that hit the market. The average person on these boards just has not realized that they can build there own clinical laser device for just a few hundred bucks! And then you have people like Dr. Feller who are stuck in the old ways of laser brushes who just don't understand lllt and make claims that lllt doesn't work, WHEN THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED IT THEMSELVES! And again, don't take my word for how well lllt works. Go to a laser clinic. Talk to the customers. Even ask how it compares to rogaine/propecia."

 

And to help bring this forum up to speed, these are the commonly used laser clinical devices that have been getting very good results that I referred to in the above paragraph. http://www.konftec.com/html/Compare/Laser_Hood_comparison.htm

 

And I know I've said it before but I believe it's very important for me to say again. I don't work for a hair loss company or laser device company. I will in no way benefit if someone uses or buys lasers.

 

The reason why it's important for me to state that is because Dr. Feller accusations that I'm not "grass roots." You see, I got my start into building my own laser device that has the equivalent of 201 diodes because I've heard positive comments on the internet about LLLT. I'm not talking about laser combs as they are too underpowered in my opinion to 3 - 6 joules which is the power commonly cited to get the best results. I will post the calculation in another post so that I don't muddy the waters of this post. And if anyone is curious, yes, I have tried a laser brush before with little results when compared to my homemade laser device that I built.

 

As for posting pictures on the internet I don't work for a laser clinic so I don't have access to other people's photographs. All I can do is post my own photographs. One very important thing to keep in mind with LLLT is the ability to thicken your existing hairs and stop hair loss. I'm not saying everyone is going to get results, but what I am saying is that, in my opinion, when getting the proper joules and wavelength, you'll have a very good chance of it. I also base this opinion from talking to dozens of other forum members on a completely unrelated forum than the one I cited earlier

and these other people have built or bought their own laser device or used a clinical laser device in the past several of which I have seen their own before and after photos.

 

I should also say that pictures will have an incredibly hard time capturing this thickness without someone like Dr. Feller crying foul on every single photo that has been posted before. If you go to the thread where this debate is also occuring you'll see before and after pictures which are from laser clinics.

 

But again, don't take my word for it. And don't even take other people's words for it either. What I say is just go to your local laser clinic and talk to the customers. I'm sure they will be able to show you their before pictures too.

[jdp710]

Here is a website to help anyone that wants information on how to build their own. www. overmachogrande.com

 

Here is the calculation I talked about earlier to get the necessary joules. It is very long. And again, from studies that have been cited before you need roughly 3 - 6 joules which is what the laser clinics shoot for.

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

 

"Calculating Laser and Treatment Parameters

 

Laser diodes are generally operated at or below the laser diode manufacturer's recommended maximum optical output power rating of, say, 100mW, to ensure maximum stability and long diode life. It is this rating which is usually used to state the output power of a laser therapy unit. It is necessary, for accurate dosage control, to know the actual optical output power emitted from the laser probe at the aperture. Check with the manufacturer or use an output power meter suitable for the wavelength of the laser in question.

 

Laser Therapy devices are generally specified in terms of the average output power (milliwatts) of the laser diode, and the wavelength (nanometres) of light they emit. This is necessary information, but not enough with which to accurately define the parameters of the laser system. To do this, one must also know the area of the laser beam (cm2) at the treatment surface (usually the tip of the handpiece when in contact with the skin).

 

If the output power (mW) and beam area (cm2) are known, it is a reasonably straight-forward exercise to calculate the remaining parameters which allow the precise dosage measurement and delivery.

 

The output power of a laser, measured in milliwatts, refers to the number of photons emitted at the particular wavelength of the laser diode.

 

Power Density measures the potential thermal effect of those photons at the treatment area. It is a function of Laser Output Power and Beam area, and is calculated as:

 

1) Power Density (W/cm2) = Laser Output Power (W)

Beam area (cm2)

 

 

 

Beam area can be calculated by either:

 

2) Beam Area (cm2) = Diameter(cm)2 x 0.7854

 

or: Beam Area (cm2) = Pi x Radius(cm)2

 

 

 

The total photonic energy delivered into the tissue by a laser diode operating at a particular output power over a certain period is measured in Joules, and is calculated as follows:

 

3) Energy (Joules) = Laser Output Power (Watts) x Time (Secs)

 

 

 

It is important to know the distribution of the total energy over the treatment area, in order to accurately measure dosage. This distribution is measured as Energy Density (Joules/cm2). "For a given wavelength of light, energy density is the most important factor in determining the tissue reaction"(Baxter, 1994). Energy Density is a function of Power Density and Time in seconds, and is calculated as:

 

4) Energy Density (Joule/cm2) = Laser Output Power (Watts) x Time (Secs)

Beam Area (cm2)

 

OR: Energy Density (Joule/cm2) = Power Density (W/cm2) x Time (Secs)

 

 

 

To calculate the treatment time for a particular dosage, you will need to know either the Energy Density (J/cm2) or Energy (J), as well as the Output Power (mW), and Beam Area (cm2). First, calculate the Output Power Density (mW/cm2) as per Equation 1, then:

 

5) Treatment Time (Seconds) = Energy Density (Joules/cm2)

Output Power Density (W/cm2)

 

or: Treatment Time (Seconds) = Energy (Joules)

Laser Output Power (Watts)

 

 

 

Finally:

 

Laser Output Power (Watts) = Laser Output Power (mW)

1000 "

http://www.spectramedics.com/llltinfo.htm

[Dr. Alan Feller]

JDP,

I know you are trying, but you're just not getting it.

 

LLLT skeptics don't blindly accept your the false premise you use to support your flawed theories. Sorry, but we won't let you rig the debate by accepting "photobiostimulation" as a given.

 

LLLT skeptics reject the junk-science of "photobiosimulation". We are not plants! Why is that so hard for a lay public to understand?

 

Even if for argument sake we LLLT skeptics accepted "photobiostimulation" as valid, the benefits demonstrated in terms of better and quicker healing and "energizing" cells does not lend itself to affecting male pattern genetic balding. This was an incredible over-reach on the part of the LLLT industry and I and other skeptics are not buying it.

 

MPB is a function of genetic programming, NOT loss of energy or some mystical "internal trauma" that the magical energy from a laser is going to fix.

The cells in the follicle begin to kill themselves through the process of apoptosis which is programmed within the cell and is executed when DHT triggers a receptor on the cell.

 

There is no room here for photobiostimulation in this well established mechanism.

 

All LLLT advocates have are anicdotal evidence and a whole lot of marketing hype.

 

There are over 1,900 views on the thread on HLH and STILL the rest of you LLLT advocates fail to make your case in demonstrable photo presentations-the standard of proof to any rational patient or customer.

[jdp710]

Dr. Feller,

 

I have clearly shown that laser light doesn't not lose it's properties once it strikes your skin!!!

 

I have also clearly shown that laser light will reach your hair follicles!!!

 

This clearly refutes your "video" that this cannot take place.

 

Dr. Feller, go back and reread what I have posted. Tell me why you still stand by your decision with this overwhelming

evidence!?!?

 

And again Dr. Feller you said, "There is no evidence that lasers cause beneficial metabolic changes nor provide nutrients and oxygen."

 

And I've responded with multiple studies showing this opinion to be wrong. It's called photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation! Here's another study to disprove your "opinion." On my my next thread I will show just a small sample of the 1500 studies on photobiostimulation and quite a lot of the studies are double blind too!

 

"The present study supports the hypothesis that one mechanism for the photobiostimulation effect after irradiation at 660 nm is the reaction of light with hemoglobin, resulting in oxygen radical production." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73501387/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

And once again, I have posted MY photo's and you still dismiss them on the other thread saying "no photos from posters who ACTUALLY received LLLT benefits THEMSELVES." Please explain why you have said this?

 

 

AND AGAIN, ANSWER MY QUESTIONS?!?!

[jdp710]

Here's just small list showing photobiostimulation. Play particular attention to the area of inflammation as the last time I check it was an important area in treating MPB. If you'd like I will also repost my studies showing increased amounts of oxygen, microcirculation due to nitric oxide production and increased levels of superoxide dismutase. ALL OF WHICH IS GOOD FOR YOUR HAIR!

 

And one thing I will agree with is that yes Dr. Feller is correct in that hair transplant surgeons also recommend LLLT for hair loss.

 

Here's one such example:

 

"LLLT seems to increase the quality and presentation of existing hairs"

 

http://www.hairtransplanttechnicians.com/new-techniques...air-restoration.html

 

Use of Low Level Lasers in Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Disorders

> Management of Mouth Opening in Patients with Temporomandibular Disorders through Low-Level Lase...

> Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: A Placebo-Contro...

> Efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy in Myofascial Pain Syndrome: An Algometric and Thermographi...

> Arthralgia of the Temporomandibular Joint and Low Level Laser Therapy

> Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Pain with Diode Laser Therapy

> Can Low Reactive-Level Laser Therapy be Used in the Treatment of Neurogenic Facial Pain? A Doub...

> Laser Application Effects on the Bite Strength of the Masseter Muscle, as an Orofacial Pain Tre...

> Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Pain with Diode Laser Therapy

> Low Level Laser Therapy with Trigger Points Technique: A Clinical Study on 243 Patients

> Low Intensity Laser Therapy (LILT) For Temporomandibular Joint Pain: A Clinical Electromyograph...

> Plasma ACTH and ??-Edorphin Levels in Response to Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) For Myofascial...

> Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Disorders of the Maxillofacial Region

> Pain Scores and Side Effects in Response to Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Myofasical Trigg...

 

The Use of Low Level Lasers in Wound Healing

*NEW* Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Mast Cells in Second-Degree Burns in Rats

*NEW* A Comparative Study of the Effects of Laser Photobiomodulation on the Healing of Third-Deg...

*NEW* Effects of Laser Therapy on Experimental Wound Healing Using Oxidized Regenerated Cellulos...

*NEW* Effectiveness of Laser Photobiomodulation at 660 or 780 Nanometers on the Repair of Third-...

*NEW* Influence of Broad-Spectrum and Infrared Light in Combination with Laser Irradiation on th...

*NEW* Comparison Between the Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrason...

*NEW* Effects of Laser Therapy on Experimental Wound Healing Using Oxidized Regerated Cellulose ...

*NEW* Polychromatic LED in Oval Full-Thickness Wound Healing in Non-Diabetic and Diabetic Rats

> Low Level Laser Therapy Enhances Wound Healing in Diabetic Rats: A Comparison of Different Wave...

> Low-Level Light Stimulates Excisional Wound Healing in Mice

> In Vitro Exposure of Wounded Diabetic Fibroblast Cells to a Helium-Neon Laser at 5 and 16J/cm2

> Low-Level Laser Therapy Enhances Wound Healing in Diabetic Rats: A Comparison of Different Lase...

> Photobiomodulation on the Angiogenesis of Skin Wounds in Rats Using Different Light Sources

> Comparison between Wound Healing in Induced Diabetic Nondiabetic Rats after Low Level Laser The...

> Histological Assessment of the Effect of Laser Irradiation on Skin Wound Healing in Rats

> The Efficacy of Laser Therapy in Wound Repair: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature

> Comparison of the Photostimulatory Effects of Visible He-Ne and Infrared Ga-As Lasers on Healin...

> Effect of Different Wavelengths of Low Level Laser Therapy on Wound Healing in Mice

> Influence of Low Level Laser Therapy on Wound Healing and its Biological Action upon Myofibrobl...

> Polarized Light (400-2000 nm) and Non-ablative Laser (685 nm): A Description of the Wound Heali...

> Effect of NASA Light-Emitting Diode Irradiation on Wound Healing

> Increased fibroblast proliferation induced by light emitting diode and low power laser irradiat...

 

The Use of Low Level Lasers in Pain and Inflammation

> Photobiomodulation of Pain and Inflammation in Microcrystalline Arthropathies: Experimental and...

> Can Low Reactive-Level Laser Therapy be used in the Treatment of Neurogenic Facial Pain? A Doub...

> Steroid Receptor Antagonist Mifepristone Inhibits the Anti-inflammatory Effects of Photoradiati...

> Photoradiation in Acute Pain: A Systematic Review of Possible Mechanisms of Action and Clinical...

> Can LLLT Substitute NSAIDS, Analgesics and Steroid Injections in Arthritis, Tendinopathies and ...

> LLLT in Acute Pain, A Systematic Review of Mechanisms

> Efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy in Myofascial Pain Syndrome: An Algometric and Thermographi...

> Low Level Laser Therapy in Musculoskeletal Pain Syndromes: Pain Relief and Disability Reduction...

> Efficacy of Low Reactive-Level Laser Therapy for Pain Attenuation of Postherapetic Neuralgia

> Clinical Trial of Low Reactive-Level Laser Therapy in 20 Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia

> Mechanisms of the Analgesic Effect of Therpeutic Lasers In Vivo

> Report on a Computer-Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial to Determine the Effectiveness of t...

> A Double-Blind Trial of Low Reactive-Level Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Pain

> The Effect of Infra-Red Diode Laser Irradiation on the Duration and Severity of Post-Operative ...

> Effects of the Ga-As Laser Irradiation in Myonecrosis Caused by Bothrops Moojeni Snake Venom

> The Use of Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Inflammation through Lymphatic Drainage

> Retrospective Study of Adjunctive Diode Laser Therapy for Pain Attenuation in 662 Patients: Det...

> Nociceptive Scores and Endorphin-Containing Cells Reduced by Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in ...

 

The Use of Low Level Lasers in Medicine

*NEW* Infrared Laser Light Further Improves Bone Healing When Associated with Bone Morphogenetic...

> Burn Healing with a Diode Laser: 670nm at Different Doses as Compared to a Placebo Group

> Effects of 670-nm Phototherapy on Development

> Transcranial Application of Low-Energy Laser Irradiation Improves Neurological Deficits in Rats...

> Methylene Blue-Mediated Photodynamic Therapy: A Possible Alternative Treatment for Oral Lichen ...

> Spontaneous Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy (650nm) in Acute Inflammatory Mouse Pleurisy Ind...

> Effect of Laser Therapy on Bone Tissue Submitted to Radiotherapy: Experimental Study in Rats

> Antiinfectives and Low-Level Light: A New Chapter in Photomedicine

> Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis with Light-Emitting Diode

> Effects of 830nm Laser, Used in Two Doses, on Biomechanical Properties of Osteopenic Rat Femora...

> Photoengineering of Bone Repair Processes

> Photoengineering of Tissue Repair in Human Cases of Recalcitrant Diabetic Ulcers

> Impact of Laser Therapy in the Quality of Life of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer undergoing...

> Prevention and Treatment of Oral Mucositis with Diode Laser 660nm in Patients with Head and Nec...

> Temperature-Controlled 830-nm Low-Level Laser Therapy of Experimental Pressure Ulcers

> Preoperative Activation of the Immune System by Low Reactive Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) in Onco...

> Usefulness of Low-Level Laser for Control of Painful Stomatitis in Patients with Hand-Foot-and-...

> Effect of 830-nm Laser Light on the Repair of Bone Defects Grafted with Inorganic Bovine Bone a...

> Effect of Low-Intensity Laser Irradiation on the Process of Bone Repair

> Low-Level Laser Therapy Accelerates Collateral Circulation and Enhances Microcirculation

> Protection of Skeletal Muscles from Ischemic Injury: Low-Level Laser Therapy Increases Antioxid...

> Helium-Neon Laser in Viability of Random Skin Flap in Rats

> Spontaneous Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy (650 nm) in Acute Inflammatory Mouse Pleurisy In...

> Evaluation of Low Intensity Laser Effects on the Thyroid Gland of Male Mice

> Assessment of Bone Repair Associated with the Use of Organic Bovine Bone and Membrane Irradiate...

 

The Use of Low Level Lasers in Implants and Orthodontics

*NEW* Infrared Laser Light Further Improves Bone Healing When Associated with Bone Morphogenetic...

*NEW* Low-Level Laser Irradiation Promotes Prolieration and Differentiation of Human Osteoblasts...

> Histologic Comparison of Light Emitting Diode Phototherapy - Treated Hydroxyapatite-Grafted Ext...

> Effect of Low-Intensity Laser Irradiation on the Process of Bone Repair

> Assessment of Bone Repair Associated with the Use of Organic Bovine Bone and Membrane Irradiate...

> Effect of 830-nm Laser Light on the Repair of Bone Defects Grafted with Inorganic Bovine Bone a...

> Photoengineering of Bone Repair Processes

> The Effect of GaAlAs Diode Laser on Extraction Wound Healing

> Infrared Laser Photobiomodulation (?????» 830nm) on Bone Tissue Around Dental Implants: A Raman Spe...

> Photoradiation and Orthodontic Movement: Experimental Study with Canines

> Effects of Low-Intensity Laser Therapy on the Orthodontic Movement Velocity of Human Teeth: A P...

> The Use of Biostimulative Laser for Pain Reduction during Fixed Orthodontic Treatment

> Infrared Laser Light Reduces Loading Time of Dental Implants: A Raman Spectroscopic Study

 

Physiotherapy and Low Level Lasers

*NEW* Low-Power Laser Treatment in Patients with Frozen Shoulder: Preliminary Results

*NEW* The Combined Treatment Effects of Therapeutic Laser and Exercise on Tendon Repair

> Can LLLT Substitute NSAIDS, Analgesics and Steroid Injections in Arthritis, Tendinopathies and ...

> Comparative Study of How Low-Level Laser Therapy and Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Affect B...

> Comparative Study Using 685-nm and 830-nm Lasers in the Tissue Repair of Tenotomized Tendons in...

> Photobiomodulation of Pain in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Review of Seven Laser Therapy Studies

> Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on Knee Osteoarthritis: A Clinical Study on 386 Patients

> Comparing the Effect of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Physiotherapy on Knee Osteoarthritis...

> The Repair of Bone Defects Submitted or not to Laser Photobiomodulation (?????»830nm) and Bone Graf...

> Effects of Phototherapy on Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness

> Successful Management of Female Office Workers with

> Therapeutic Low Energy Laser Improves the Mechanical Strength of Repairing Medial Collateral Li...

> Efficacy of Low Power Laser Therapy and Exercise on Pain and Functions in Chronic Low Back Pain...

> Irradiation of Arthritis with 820nm and 830nm Diode Lasers

> Efficacy of Different Therapy Regimes of Low-Power Laser in Painful Osteoarthritis of the Knee:...

> Treatment of Medial and Lateral Epicondylitis - Tennis and Golfer's Elbow - With Low Level Lase...

> The Use of Low Level Laser Therapy in Meniscus Repair

> Ultrastructural Comparison of Medial Collateral Ligament Repair After Single or Multiple Applic...

> Effects of a Therapeutic Laser on the Ultrastructural Morphology of Repairing Medial Collateral...

> The Effect of Low Level Laser Irradiation (630 and 810 nm) on Fracture Healing in Rat Tibia

> Non-Invasive Laser Neurolysis in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

 

Neurology and Low Level Lasers

> Laser Phototherapy (780nm), a New Modality in Treatment of Long-Term Incomplete Peripheral Nerv...

> Low Level Laser Therapy in Paraesthesia of Inferior Alveolar Nerve and Lingual Nerve Post Surgi...

> Preliminary Study of Low-Level Laser for Treatment of Long-Standing Sensory Aberrations in the ...

> Promotion of Regenerative Processes in Injured Peripheral Nerve Induced by Low-Level Laser Ther...

> Efficacy of 780-nm Laser Phototherapy on Peripheral Nerve Regeneration after Neurotube Reconstr...

> Effects of Power Densities, Continuous and Pulse Frequencies, and Number of Sessions of Low Lev...

> Low-level laser Effect on Neurosensory Recovery after Sagittal Ramus Osteotomy

> Effect of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on Inferior Alveolar, Medial and Lingual Nerves after ...

> Low Reactive-Level 830nm GaAlAs Diode Laser Therapy (LLLT) Successfully Accelerates Regeneratio...

> Laser Therapy in Post Herpetic Neuralgia

> Light Promotes Regeneration and Functional Recovery and Alters the Immune Response After Spinal...

> Neurological Rehabilitation by Phototherapy

> Alteration in Gene Expression Following Spinal Cord Injury and Photo-Biomodulation

> Low Power Laser Irradiation Alters Gene Expression of Olfactory Ensheathing Cells In Vitro

 

Editorials

> Mitochondria, Mice and Men

 

Dentistry and Low Level Lasers

> Effect of GaAlAs Laser on Reactional Dentinogenesis Induction in Human Teeth

> Effect of Low-Energy Laser Application in the Treatment of Denture-Induced Mucosal Lesions

> Low Level Laser Therapy in Paraesthesia of Inferior Alveolar Nerve and Lingual Nerve Post Surgi...

> Therapeutic Effects of Low Level Laser in Periodontal Surgery

> The Effects of GaAlAs Diode Laser on Extraction Wound Healing

> The Combined Effectiveness of the Semiconductor Laser with Duraphat in the Treatment of Dentin ...

> Low Level Laser Therapy for Dentinal Tooth Hypersensivity

> Effect of Irradiation by Semiconductor Laser on Responses Evoked in Trigeminal Caudal Neurons b...

> Preliminary Study of Low-Level Laser for Treatment of Long-Standing Sensory

> Low-Energy Laser Therapy in Oral Mucositis

> Low Level Laser Therapy as a Diagnostic Tool in Dentistry

> Microbial Reduction in Periodontal Pockets Under Exposition of a Medium Power Diode Laser: An E...

> Fungicidal Effect of Diode Laser Irradiation in Patients with Denture Stomatitis

> Effect of the Clinical Application of the GaAlAs Laser in the Treatment of Dentine Hypersensiti...

> Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Biostimulative Laser Treatment and Conventional Treatmen...

> Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Candida albicans Growth in Patients with Denture Stomatiti...

 

Biomedical Effects of Low Level Laser Therapy

*NEW* Elementary Processes in Cells after Light Absorption Do Not Depend on the Degree of Polari...

*NEW* Low-Level Laser Irradiation Promotes Proliferation and Differentiation of Human Osteoblast...

> Pro- and Anti-Inflammatory Cytokine Content in Human Periperhal Blood after its Transcutaneous ...

> The Effects of Laser Irradiation on Osteoblast and Osteosarcoma Cell Proliferation and Differen...

> Photobiomodulation on the Angiogenesis of Skin Wounds in Rats Using Different Light Sources

> In Vitro Exposure of Wounded Diabetic Fibroblast Cells to a Helium-Neon Laser at 5 and 16 J/cm?????...

> Ga-As (808 nm) Laser Irradiation Enhances ATP Production in Human Neuronal Cells in Culture

> Effect of Multiple Exposures of Low-Level Laser Therapy on the Cellular Responses of Wounded Hu...

> Clinical and Experimental Applications of NIR-LED Photobiomodulation

> The Biomedical Effects of Laser Application

> Killing of Carcinogenic Bacteria by Light from a Gallium Aluminum Arsenide Diode Laser

> Photodestruction of Human Dental Plaque Bacteria: Enhancement of the Photodynamic Effect by Pho...

> Quantitation of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide mRNA and Neuronal Cell Death in Facial Motor Nu...

> Oral Bacteria in Multi-Species Biofilms can be Killed by Red Light in the Presence of Toluidine...

> Effect of Low-Power Laser Irradiation on Cell Growth and Procollagen Synthesis of Cultured Fibr...

> Low Level Laser Irradiation Enhances Expression of FoF1-ATPase Subunit-b Gene in Osteoblastic C...

> Interaction of Laser and Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) Molecule

> Stimulatory Effect of Laser Irradiation on Calcified Nodule Formation in Human Dental Pulp Fibr...

> Low Energy Laser Irradiation Promotes Cellular Redox Activity

> Exact Action Spectra for Cellular Responses Relevant to Phototherapy

> Green light emitting diode irradiation enhances fibroblast growth impaired by high glucose leve...

[jdp710]

http://www.laserlightcanada.com/articles.php

[jdp710]

I posted this on the other debate we have with Dr. Feller but I figure it's relevant for everyone to see. For those that aren't aware here's the other debate we have going http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?cati...id=81568&STARTPAGE=1

 

Dr. Feller wrote, "The fact is that laser light will not reach the follicles as laser light-which ... The laser light will ALWAYS disperse upon contact and collapse to regular red led light. Nothing more. I look forward to your video presentation."

 

Geez, I have "repeatedly" posted that info and you haven't even read it!!! THIS IS GETTING VERY OLD VERY FAST DR. FELLER!!!

 

 

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

"Q: Does the coherence of the laser light disappear when entering the tissue?

 

A: No. The length of coherence, though, is shortened. Through interference between laser rays in the tissue, very small "islands" of more intense light, called speckles occur. These speckles will be created as deep as the light reaches in the tissue and within a speckle volume, the light is partially polarized. It is easy to show that speckles are formed rather deep down in tissue and the existence of real speckles prove that the light is coherent." http://www.laser.nu/lllt/Faq1.htm

 

NOW DO YOU WANT ME TO "REPOST" HOW FAR LASER LIGHT WILL TRAVEL IN YOUR HAIR FOLLICLES "AND" HUMAN TISSUE!!!

 

Dr. Feller you said "Why don't you repeat my experiment and show us how laser light remains coherent through tissue paper?"

 

 

Well here you go.

 

I did your experiment and guess what laser light does show speckles/coherent light!!! This was also done through a VIVA paper towel which is some of the thickest paper towels you can buy!!!

 

 

picture cropped

 

[jdp710]

Here is another picture of a laser clearly showing "coherent light" through a Viva paper towel.

 

 

And once again, I've already stated that LED's "ALSO" produce photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation when done in the correct joules. It's just lasers are a lot more effective due to their speckles/coherent light.

 

Would you like me to explain why coherent light is more effective over noncoherent light in most all situations?

[jdp710]

Dr. Feller,

 

You said, "LLLT skeptics reject the junk-science of "photobiosimulation". We are not plants!"

 

It seems while you won't acknowledge photobiostimulation/photobiomodulation with 1500 studies proving it, with many doctors practicing it and even wikipedia also posting it on their site, you are still set in your old ways.

 

You really are starting to sound like the Doctors who years ago dismissed acupuncture!!!

 

I have posted dozens of studies in this thread and the other one showing how lasers increase hair growth. Look at all the studies that Farell posted showing a paradoxical increase of hair around the sites of IPL (laser) treatment and laser hair removal. Look at all the studies that I posted. Just think what happens when you get the proper joules and when you treat long enough? Oh that's right. I'll spare the research as I've already posted my pictures and everyone has already given you their testimonials! Not to mention you also have that LDS 100 Study!

 

When you ask me to explain how, I cite the references showing:

 

1. increased oxygen

2. increased microcirculation/nitric oxide leading to a more efficient way of removal of toxins and debris and transportation of nutrients to your hair follicle

3. reduced inflammation

4. increased superoxide dismutase.

 

And again, this has been posted in hair loss studies too and other studies that are double blind!

 

I think it's time for you to start citing your "studies" ... even double blind studies as I have before refuting the evidence that LLLT doesn't improve your hair quality and even lead to regrowth!

 

 

 

"Photobiomodulation , also known as low level laser therapy ( LLLT ), cold laser therapy , and laser biostimulation , is an emerging [medical] and [veterinary] technique in which exposure to low-level [laser] [light] or [light emitting diodes] can stimulate or inhibit cellular function leading to beneficial clinical effects. The technique is also known by the more ambiguous terms phototherapy and laser therapy , which may also be used to describe other medical techniques. The "best" combination of wavelength, intensity, duration and treatment interval is complex and sometimes controversial with different diseases, injuries and dysfunctions needing different treatment parameters and techniques. These are still being explored and increasingly published by the academic community.

 

History

In 1967 a few years after the first working laser was invented, Endre Mester in [semmelweis University] experimented with the effects of lasers on skin cancer. While applying lasers to the backs of shaven [mice] , he noticed that the shaved hair grew back more quickly on the treated group than the untreated group.

 

Clinical applications

Clinical applications include treating [soft tissue injury] , [chronic pain] , [wound healing] , [tinnitus] and [nerve] regeneration, and possibly even resolving [viral] and [bacterial] [infection] s. One clinical application showing great promise is the treatment of inflammation, where the anti-inflammatory effect of location-and-dose-specific laser irradiation produces similar outcomes as NSAIDs, but without the potentially harmful side-effects." http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/transcode.php?go=Photobi...e179f28410f07f09d7b2

[jdp710]

Dr. Feller,

 

Let me also remind you of how Vitamin D gets created from sunlight before you will go back to your argument that photobiostimulation doesn't exist because .... we aren't plants.

 

"Photo-biostimulation

The idea of biological changes from the stimulation, or biostimulation, of light is actually nothing new. This so-called photo-biostimulation is how vitamin D is produced in our bodies when ultraviolet rays in the sunlight strike the skin."

 

http://www.hlahc.com/news06.html

[Ceasar08]

Jdp--

I'm going to refrain from arguing the science stuff with you... I'll leave that to the physicians. Let's just take a step back for a moment and approach this from another angle...

You feel that LLLT has somehow helped your situation. If you noticed an improvement with lasers, in the absence of any other contributing factor, I am honestly surprised. Let me ask you... what do you think would happen if we posted a thread asking patients to come forward and share their experiences with LLLT? If we found one thousand people who have undergone treatment, what percentage do you believe would claim to have had success?

Look at the thread Dr. Feller started where he has asked other top doctors to come forward. How many patients do you think Dr. Feller, Dr. Rassman, Dr. Beehner, Dr. Alexander and others see over the course of a single year? How many people do you think they see combined over the course of several years? Aren't they in a position to tell you whether this therapy is doing anything? Why is it after all of these years of LLLT research, there is still so much ambiguity?

Post a thread and ask doctors if they think that Avodart, Finasteride, and Minoxidil work to grow hair. I guarantee you every last doctor on this site will agree irrefutably that all of those treatments do work. If a treatment that has been around for years grows hair, then why isn't everyone seeing it? How hard is it for a professional or a patient to notice an improvement? If there is an improvement that is not cosmetically noticeable, then the treatment is worthless anyway. These doctors who say it doesn't work have everything to gain if it does work...they can make money from selling the treatment. These doctors recommend minoxidil and write Propecia prescriptions regularly... why wouldn't they endorse another treatment that worked.

All of your studies serve as proof that LLLT claims have been made for ages, and the advocates have had plenty of time to produce observable results. Your personal experience does not translate to others.

If lasers grow hair, we don't need studies. We don't need debate. We don't need scientific graphs and charts. All we'd have to do is look and see the hair in front of us. Nobody would be arguing... there wouldn't be anything to argue about. The problem is that there is an argument. Why is that?

[jdp710]

Hello Ceasar08,

 

Thank you for joining the debate. I'm not sure how much any of you guys on this thread have read but there are is a "very" long thread at hairlosshelp that I keep linking to. I really do recommend for other to read that whole thread to help with the understanding of LLLT in the treatment of hair loss.

 

As for answering your questions I have not followed everything that the other Dr.'s have recommended in their treatment but from my brief understanding of each Dr. they recommend laser combs!!! That's the problem. In this thread I've tried repeatedly to let everyone know that laser brush's = little results. I've also used a laser brush too and just like everyone else I got ... little results.

 

But like I've mentioned in the past don't forget where laser brush's first got the idea from? Yup, clinical laser devices. The best analogy that I can give you at this time is ... think of yourself trying to give yourself a tan with a small UV bulb. Well, you'll be using it for a "very" long time to get a tan. Guess what happens when you lie in a tanning booth. Yup, you can get yourself a tan no problem. That's the same thing with laser brushes vs clinical laser devices.

 

Another analogy is if you want to get a tan when you are outside in the sun but you only sit in the sun for a minute or two. Well, of course you won't get a tan. But if you lie down for 30 minutes you'll have your tan.

 

Even further, another analogy would be if you want laser hair removal with an underpowered laser. Yup, you'll get ... little results.

 

What I'm trying to get is laser brush's are dramatically underpowered in order to get the recommended 3 - 6 joules.

 

As for ambiguity, IMO there is none. You'll have people like Dr. Feller who will come on and say that lasers = no results. Or people that can't grasp the difference between a laser brush and a clinical laser device. They aren't even in the same boat, IMO, as again, you'll need way more lasers to get the best photobiostimulation. Just look at this study "with 4 Joules/cm2 having the greatest effect on wound healing (Mester et al, 1973; Mester et al, 1989)." http://www.spectramedics.com/llltinfo.htm

 

Heck, for all those people that still have their laser combs go ahead and brush your hair for 2 hours every day for 5 months and you'll notice that you'll way better results over the standard 15 minute, 3 times a week treatment.

 

All I'm saying is that if anyone is serious about hair loss they should go see to a laser clinic and talk to the customers. They'll share their experiences. They'll probably even share their before pictures. However, you don't need to pay the thousands of dollars per year that they ask you to pay. You can build your own for just a couple hundred bucks and in turn you'll have a "very" high success rate of being happy with the treatment. What's the harm in that. I'm sure most people on hair loss forums have spent a heck of a lot more on DHT inhibitors and minoxidil. Also don't forget that what I posted in the past about nitric oxide and minoxidil since most all Dr. will state minoxidil works. "Also, "NO [nitric oxide] is a ubiquitous transmitter which has identical effects to minoxidil on blood vessels." http://www.mn.st/baldfaq.htm I forgot where I posted that study but if my memory serves me right laser light increases nitric oxide production by 250%!

 

And again, don't forget I'm talking not talking about laser brush's! So you can't equate my results of getting 5 joules to laser brush's results of my guess of .1 joules! If you actually talk to other people on the forums you'll actually get a lot of testimonials from former laser clinical customers. I've talked to quite a lot and their experiences are similiar to mine. Even on hairlosshelp on that thread with Dr. Feller their are 8 testimonials right there. Again, not laser brush testimonials but people getting around 5 joules! I've also seen their before and after pictures. Feel free to visit regrowth.com and you're free to talk to "many" people that are doing it. And again, don't take anyone's word for it on the internet. Go visit a laser clinic.

 

And I know I've said it several times, lol, but, go to hairlosshelp on that thread, in the studies that Farrel posted you'll see how 10% or something received a paradoxical increased hair growth around the site of laser hair removal. And this is just treating with no more than a handful of times. Think of what happens when you get the proper joules and you treat for long periods of time. Yup, cosmetically significant results. And BTW, don't forget in that LDS study that the other Dr. posted, you'll see 4 people's photos that were posted in that study and also somewhere around 150 from laser clinic's on hairlosshelp.

 

I hate sounding like a broken record, but go visit a laser clinic to see pictures. Don't take my word for it.

[jdp710]

Ceasar08,

 

Oh, if I didn't fully answer your question please let me know as I tried the best to answer your question directly. But to sum it up ... the whole confusion with LLLT came was when laser brush's came to the market.

 

The reason why I'm here is not because Dr. Feller says it can't work, as that's just his opinion who's never tried it before. I'm not even here for the people who have gone to a laser clinic and talked to customers who weren't happy. But I'm here to educate others understand the differences between laser brushs and clinical laser devices and to let other people know about it. I'm not even sure how many people here know about clinical laser devices?

 

You see, Dr. Fellers arguments that LLLT can't work because laser light can't get deep enough to hit the hair follicles or it instantly turns to regular red light is 100% false. I've repeatedly refutted this evidence ... here's another one posted by another forum member,PavlovsKat on hairlosshelp http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?cati...68&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=

 

 

"Well, actually, dr Feller, there is an interesting little experiment proving that laser light remains coherent, but instead of tissue paper it involves meat, and it's called "Hode's hamburger". It's an experiment first performed by Lars Hode, a renowned Swedish scientist, at the Ninth Congress of the International Society for Laser Surgery and Medicine in Los Angeles in 1991.

Allow me to quote from his book ("The laser therapy handbook", a very extensive book about laser, citing 1400 studies!, p344):

 

"Anyone with a laser can conduct this experiment.

1. Press newly minced fresh beef, e.g. raw hamburger meat, between two glass plates so that you have a 5 -10 mm thick slab of minced beef.

 

2. Aim the light from a 5 - 10mW HeNe or InGaAIP-laser (red visible light with a wavelength of 633 nm) at the glass plates with the minced beef slab [...]. You can see a red spot on the back of the minced beef where the light has penetrated.

 

3. Next, place a small penlight torch beside the laser and put its front end against the surface of the glass. The torch emits normal white light. This light also penetrates the minced beef and forms a light spot besides that caused by the laser. The spot from the penlight torch is also red, even though the torch emits white light. This is because the white light's blue, green and yellow colour components are absorbed, and only the red component penetrates.

4. Now study both the red light-spots on the back of the slab from a distance of a few metres. The laser light spot shows clear laser speckles which you can see if you slowly move your head. The spot from the torch light has no laser speckles.

 

We can draw the following conclusions from this experiment:

A. Both light spots are red after their passage through the meat. This shows that red light has the best penetration of the visible light wavelengths. Measurements using instruments show that infrared radiation penetrates even better.

 

B. The coherence of the laser light does not disappear. The laser speckles can be clearly seen, and it is obvious that there is a difference between laser light and the light from a torch. This physical difference characterising the light after its passage through tissue can explain at least some of the research results mentioned above. "

[jdp710]

Oh, if I didn't answer your question of I'll go ahead and answer it here again.

 

Q. "Let me ask you... what do you think would happen if we posted a thread asking patients to come forward and share their experiences with LLLT? If we found one thousand people who have undergone treatment, what percentage do you believe would claim to have had success?"

 

A. From the other people that I've talked to that sunetics survey is "very" accurate. Again, I'm not talking about laser brush's but clinical laser devices. Here's the survey for those that haven't seen it.

 

http://www.sunetics.com/default.aspx?ctxt=clinicalstudies

 

"The 2005 Clinical Client Survey of 375 people participating in the Sunetics Laser Hair Therapy program showed that:

 

78% had an appearance of Thicker hair

 

76% had an appearance of Fuller Hair

 

64% had an appearance of Shinier Hair

 

86% had an appearance of Healthier Hair

 

85% Perceived that their hair looked better

 

84% were Pleased with the program"

 

 

And if you want to talk to other people on another forum you can always visit Regrowth.com and you can even go through previous posts in the past. I would post previous testimonials here but I don't feel it's appropriate for the people that didn't give me consent. Again, visit regrowth.com and scan through the information or even post a question like "Are lasers for real" as someone ends up posting one of those every other month anyway

 

You can also visit hairlasertalk.com but there isn't much traffic and you'll have to register.

[jdp710]

Sorry for spamming this thread, but to answer your other question about

 

Q. "If a treatment that has been around for years grows hair, then why isn't everyone seeing it."

 

A. Keep in mind I don't believe there is a single person that ever figured out how to make these clinical laser devices until "roughly" 1 year ago. Not to mention the price of these laser diodes were a lot more expensive but now they are affordable due to China and the cost of technology aging causing a lower price.

 

Back to the point though ... So what you had were laser clinics who said you have to give us thousands of dollars a year or you can't use it. Guess what happens when that happens. You don't get a large percentage of the population that can afford to go to a laser clinic. Either that, or they can't afford to go to a laser clinic for longer than a couple years. Yup, that's the complaint former laser clinic customers. They eventually stopped going otherwise they would become bankrupt. But don't take my word for it. A lot of this information and testimonials are located at Regrowth.com You can got to overmachogrande.com to learn how to build your own.

[Ceasar08]

Jdp---

Let's start with where there is agreement. You have made it quite clear that hand held devices do not work. This means that you agree that the Hairmax Lasercomb does nothing. This also means that you do not support Dr. Mohmand's arguments in favor of hand held devices, and you do not place yourself in his corner. In fact, you're telling Dr. Mohmand, who is listed on the Lexington advisory board, that the comb he sells is not powerful enough to grow hair. Therefore, you agree with those of us who are against the laser comb. I can tell you firsthand that it did absolutely nothing for me except empty my pockets.

As for the laser machines... there is most certainly ambiguity. Dr. Rassman and Dr. Alexander have both tried the treatments in their offices. Both have stated it did nothing. I would argue that these are not just top doctors, but ELITE doctors. Look at the other doctors who are now standing behind Dr. Feller... they are some impressive names. Dr. Feller himself is regularly cited as one of the best HT surgeons in the world. Don't these doctors opinions hold a bit of weight?

I understand that there are some big names advocating LLLT. Hence... can't we agree that we have ambiguity and a lack of consensus among the experts?

Any doctor who sells laser treatments automatically has a financial interest. What do Dr. Feller and the other opponents of LLLT have to gain? These doctors must really believe it's quackery and that they're ripping off their patients. If it worked, you must agree that there is no reason for them not to be "on board." It would only help them financially and help their patients.

I will admit that it will require a bit of time and energy for me to read the entire hairlosshelp thread, and I'm yet to do so. I do see immediately that there is at least one poster on the thread who sells handheld lasercombs. He is arguing for your point, and yet you are actually claiming that his product cannot be powerful enough to work. Can you blame me for being skeptical of that poster right away?

In terms of before/after photos... everyone seems to have them. I can look up any snake oil treatment on the internet and see "before/after" photos. I'd love to hear from these people firsthand. Photos can be so deceptive, and I cannot tell you how many times I've seen photos where the full story wasn't being disclosed.

I have actually read many posts from people who have said that they have enormous success with laser therapy. They then casually mention at the end of the thread that the clinic also put them on minoxidil so the two can work "synergistically" together.

As for the Sunetics survey... isn't that a report by the company?

For closers, why hasn't the word spread by now, like with hair transplants? Laser therapy is expensive, but still cheaper than surgery. How come word of mouth hasn't spread like wildfire? I would think people would be asking other people what they did to their hair, and the lines should be around the block to get into the clinics, no?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

JDP,

The bright red spot you are refering to on the other side of the paper towel in your experiment is no longer coherent. It is just a bright spot where the center of the laser struck the towel on the other side.

 

A bright LED held up to the towel will do the exact same thing, or even a standard maglight.

 

Also, Epidermis and Dermis are FAR denser than paper towels. So if coherent light can't make it through a paper towel, how is it going to make it down to the follicle level? It can't. That's the whole point behind my video.

 

Oh, and what you are calling "speckels" of coherent light in the paper towel are really dimples pressed into the towel to increase absorbancy.

[thanatopsis_awry]

A few general thoughts:

 

We basically have the people who have (and will continue to) huddle around and fanatically embrace the "global cooling"s, the "epidemic of man-made global warming"s, the "LLLT"s, and those that know better but support the aforesaid because it impacts *their* bottomline.

 

People flock around the mystical concepts for a variety reasons, and, perhaps, due to the lack of actual veracity within their brain are generally the most obnoxious -- and, importantly, outspoken. Possibly because of tact, possibly because of a tacit but impactful bullying effect, I don't believe "we" ever truly see which side is in the process of winning, slowly but surely approaching a "de facto" victory.

 

But, much like pornography, people can and will define and see *true results* much like they can sense and define truth. In the pantheon of LLLC, regardless of what self-invested relativists and emotional fanatics espouse the truth has a sneaky way of finding its way to the entrance of people's consciousness.

[Ceasar08]

JDP--

I started looking through the forums on Regrowth.com. I'm still hunting for these people's photographic evidence.

 

As for the photos you posted... wee you using anything in conjunction with the lasers? Do you truly believe the lasers grew hair on your head??