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

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Bill,

These guys know how to use proxy servers to change their IP address, so not seeing the same IP address is not a basis for exoneration. These guys are professional internet shills, and they know how to work the system.

 

What they can't do is defeat the truth, which is exactly what my video demonstrates about the quackary of LLLT. That's why they resort to personal attacks, filibustering, and efforts to discredit me. The more they try, the more they expose themselves for the hacks that they are, and the quackary LLLT truly is.

 

PGP,

Not a single doctor nor LLLT industry representative has contacted me. None of the supposed "studies", and I use that term lightly, carries any weight with me. If there aren't hundreds if not thousands of before/after photos demonstrating the efficay of LLLT, then it simply doesn't exist. Besides, those "studies" already assumed as axiomatic that the laser light actually makes it to the follicle AS laser light. ALL LLLT doctors and industry "experts" have bought into that absolutely FALSE premise. And my video clearly demonstrates that they were all WRONG. Now, they are way out on a limb that just got chopped off.

 

Chalie,

Try and put aside your nastiness and false accusations. I know it's hard for anonymous LLLT advocates to do this, but give it a try. Your blood pressure will drop by a few points. Since you ARE an LLLT advocate I will ask of you the same thing I have of all LLLT advocates: please post YOUR before/after photos that demonstrate the benefits you've enjoyed from your lasercomb.

 

I have a question for you. Did you know that David Michaels wrote on the hairmax website that: OFTEN the benefits of his product are NOT "DEMONSTRATBLE" (sic) in photographs? Did you know that before you bought yours?

 

As usual I am attacked personally by anonymous LLLT advocates with lots of words, and yet they STILL won't post the ONE thing that will support their cause: their OWN PHOTOS.

 

I think it's pretty obvious to any rational person that LLLT doesn't make any cosmetically signfiicant difference. It's also obvious that since laser light can't get past the skins OPTICAL BARRIOR as laser light, that the very foundation of LLLT theory has been discredited.

[charlieb]

Doc Feller,

 

I wasnt being nasty or falsely accusing you of anything. If you actually read my post again it actually would be a normal response to an utter load off nonsense off a video you put up..in doing so it just proves to me that you have this massive ego which wants to be right and has to have his opinion validated and thats it...a person which would want a debate usually keeps his mind open to certain possibilities that laser light does have a benefit to human tissue and scalp tissue...and yes i am not a plant...are you saying as a human i do not respond to light ??? weird i thought without light i would probaby die off vitamin D defiency, light is actually one of the few needs that as humans we need, so that actually blows that theory of having to be a plant to benefit..doesnt it ?

the problem with this thread which i might appear to be nasty and a bit condesending is because you refuse to listen to people that actually have used the laser light and believe to have benefited...thats what is so wrong.

It like saying to people that go to church every sunday , stop going its a bunch off quackery because there is no scentific photos to prove that god exist, but what are you going to say to the person that experiences god everyday , the one thats been there , he doesnt care for scentific proof..there is something as intuition and if im using something on my body which seems to benefit me...wouldnt you at least stop to think maybe a thousand people cant all be fakes...maybe it does work for a small percentage of people...like i said and others have said, laser is not the answer for growing hair but i think it is a great use for maintaining healthy manageable hair....so stop with your 'its quackery' nonsense...you havent proved it doesnt work and i havent proved it works, so each to his own opinion.

also to answer your question

''Did you know that David Michaels wrote on the hairmax website that: OFTEN the benefits of his product are NOT "DEMONSTRATBLE" (sic) in photographs? Did you know that before you bought yours?''

The answer is no i didnt no, because i didnt buy one off him and would never buy one for that ridiculous amount off money....maybe this is the whole issue off hairmax combs costing a fortune, cos the more something costs the more we get desperate to get our moneys worth and the higher our expectations. for those that bought one of the hairmax or lexingtons or whatever..i hope it works for you but you can get one just as good for 99$..and maybe if the investment was so inconsequantial there wouldnt be this huge debate over the laser comb. So maybe the debate shouldnt be does laser combs work but why the hell do lasermax etc rip people off by pricing so high ?

[Al - Moderator]

charlieb,

I agree with you. I bought my laser comb for about $120 and have been using it for 15 months now. That's a cost of $8 per month and the per month cost keeps going down as time goes by. It's now the cheapest thing I've tried for hair growth and I've tried a bunch of things over the last 25 years. Most of them never worked. The laser comb does. If it didn't work on me I certainly wouldn't still be using it.

 

I wonder about the Drs who say they tried LLLT on some patients. I'd like to know how long they tried it for and how often. If you only use LLLT for 2 or 3 days each week for a few months, then don't expect to see any big improvements. I use my laser comb every day for 15 months. When a Dr can say they had patients who tried it daily for a year and they still aren't convinced then I'll listen to that to some extent. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything. That's like saying you let 20 people use minoxidil twice a week for 3 months and they didn't grow hair. Well of course they didn't.

 

You also can't compare it to a HT which it sounds like some people keep trying to do. If you compare it to minoxidil and propecia and think of it as an ongoing daily treatment then I think it compares very well. It may be a little less effective than either of those, but it does work on some people and there are no side effects.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Charlie,

Like so many LLLT advocates who don't like my message, you attacked me. Calling someone you've never met "ignorant" is not exactly a compliment, which is exactly what you did in your post. Don't worry about what you think the size of my ego is, or anything else personal about me.Since you've never met me, your FEELINGS about me are irrelivent. Why don't you just stick to the issues, and keep your emotions out of it.

 

Fact #1:

You are an LLLT advocate who BELIEVES your lasercomb works. Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. I've asked you to do so in the simplest way by showing photographs. You either can't or you refuse. Either way, I don't see any photos from you.

 

Fact #2:

I am a physician specializing in surgical hair restoration who sees hairloss sufferers EVERY day and has done so for the past 15 years. MANY have claimed to have used LLLT and NONE of them thought it was effective. They ALL regretted "wasting" their money without exception. They also felt taken advantage of, which is something that really bothers me because I believe they were.

You don't meet people like this every day, I do.

 

Fact #3:

LLLT industry representatives and researches have claimed ten ways to sunday that it is the laser nature of light that is imparting the magical benefit. These same LLLT industry experts have gone out of their way to claim that standard red monochromatic light is NOT effective. This is why they sell "laser" products instead of red "Light Emitting Diode (LED)" products. David Michaels himself claimed to have used a "sham" device containing red LEDs in his so-called "study" that did NOT impart any benefit. He has REFUSED to release this "study" to the public by the way.

 

Fact #4:

The skin contains and OPTICAL BARRIOR that will not permit light to reach the follicles in laser (coherent) form. That is an undeniable and non-debatable fact of human physiology.

 

Fact #5:

The LLLT industry was not aware of FACT #4 until I debated David Michaels on the radio and put this video up.

 

Fact #5:

There are no convincing, verifiable, first hand, LLLT only photos presented on this forum. There are, however, MANY deceptive photos of LLLT results online.

 

Fact #6:

Not a single LLLT doctor or industry rep will get on this site to refute my video or support their own positions. David Michaels has already told Spencer Kobren that he will never debate me on the radio again.

 

Now, if you as a LLLT advocate can address these facts, then we can have a civil discussion. If not, then maybe you should re-think your position.

[charlieb]

Doc Im not attacking you more than you have attacked everyone elses credibility..i wouldnt call you ignorant if you didnt use sweeping statements like quakery etc...and claim to know it all when it comes to laser therapy...if you dont know it all how can you call it qakery? cant you just say there may be a possibility a probability? if you dont acknowlegde that stimulus to your scalp using laser light, given statements say 50/50 is negative and positive from pass users is there a probability that it might have merit?

 

Fact #1:

You are an LLLT advocate who BELIEVES your lasercomb works. Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. I've asked you to do so in the simplest way by showing photographs. You either can't or you refuse. Either way, I don't see any photos from you.

 

Wrong , I dont have to prove it you have to disprove it..from what i seen off your video it does nothing of the sort. in fact it doesnt matter to me in the slightest because i have my laser comb and will keep using it because I think it gives me more bounce in my hair, it is frizzy before i use it afterwards it is course and just feel better, it even shines, im not a hair expert but i know when my hair is in a good state or not, why do you want to dismiss these first hand patient experiences, you just need to read the post above from behappy..another person you believes to experience the same...maybe if i said i have a stomach ache you want evidence of this as well..well guess what i cant provide that either except by telling you, its my body and i know it best.

 

Fact #2:

I am a physician specializing in surgical hair restoration who sees hairloss sufferers EVERY day and has done so for the past 15 years. MANY have claimed to have used LLLT and NONE of them thought it was effective. They ALL regretted "wasting" their money without exception. They also felt taken advantage of, which is something that really bothers me because I believe they were.

You don't meet people like this every day, I do.

 

True you meet alot off people that lose their hair, I cannot comment for their experiences, I can only draw from mine and mine says laser comb has a place in allowing for healthy hair growth, to tell you the truth i am a very happy user of the laser brush thats why i firmly believe in the merits.

 

Fact #4:

The skin contains and OPTICAL BARRIOR that will not permit light to reach the follicles in laser (coherent) form. That is an undeniable and non-debatable fact of human physiology.

 

You still havent told me, what makes you sure that the laser has to hit the follicle, isnt it possible that stimulus to the scalp is enough ? is this possible? if not what makes you so sure ?

 

Fact #5:

There are no convincing, verifiable, first hand, LLLT only photos presented on this forum. There are, however, MANY deceptive photos of LLLT results online.

 

True I have no photos , my mission is not to prove it works..it never has been my mission to do that..all i can say is i have used it and believe it has benefits. My goal is I can say to discredit post like yours which discredit laser therapy, if your post had credibity and debated in a mature manner i wouldnt be posting in this manner, i guess im just following the tone you are setting.

 

..its the believe in your video that it actually proves something and it is the answer to this whole debate...seriously your video doesnt prove anything except the light cant pass through your finger. I really cant understand why you think it proves something...thats why i think you are a bit ignorant, its not an insult more an observation..same with the ego because you hold such a hardline stance on this issue with little proof yourself. You actually lost all credibilty when you said we need to be plant to benefit from biostimulation, do plants listen to music ? can they hear ? now thats another debate ...is it possible is it probable ? if there is a stimulus if you are a living thing is it fair to hypothesis you will be effected in some way?

 

LLLT industry representatives and researches have claimed ten ways to sunday that it is the laser nature of light that is imparting the magical benefit. These same LLLT industry experts have gone out of their way to claim that standard red monochromatic light is NOT effective. This is why they sell "laser" products instead of red "Light Emitting Diode (LED)" products. David Michaels himself claimed to have used a "sham" device containing red LEDs in his so-called "study" that did NOT impart any benefit. He has REFUSED to release this "study" to the public by the way.

 

Where does it say that a laser is not a laser when you interrupt the beam? im not a phyicist but it is obvious that the laser beam doesnt turn into light but merely becomes a shorter beam off light on the surface off your scalp , correct or not? so the question isnt the fact is this beam of light a laser beam (because it still is , just compressed , it isnt a LED) the debate is does the beam need to penetrate to the follicle to be off benefits, you cant prove it does, in fact all you can prove is a lot of technical jargon and fluff, smoke screen with cries of wanting photos or what not.

 

just maybe sit back and think dismiss the science, if there are happy people out there using it like me and behappy, just two in this forum but many more im sure there are many out there , maybe it doesnt need to penetrate the follicle , maybe scalp stimulus is enough...and what evidence have you got that says it doesnt penetrate the follicle anyway..

 

i dont mean to be nasty or maybe i do but these posts are way out off line when you try to ram your opinion down someones throat, accusing people of being someone else..out to make money, in it because they are in the hairmax business...many they are just openminded people that truly believe in the laser..wouldnt you agree?

 

i make up my own mind and i honestly think your video does nothing to prove your point - sorry !

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Charlie,

You are making some serious errors which are understandable if you are not in the scientific/medical field.

 

The very first and foremost mistake is that it is in fact up to you to prove your assertion. In science it is never up to me to disprove something. Although I have successfully disproved LLLT with the video. You, understandably, have just not graspped why yet. I'll explain:

 

You wrote:

 

Where does it say that a laser is not a laser when you interrupt the beam? im not a phyicist but it is obvious that the laser beam doesnt turn into light but merely becomes a shorter beam off light on the surface off your scalp , correct or not?

 

Incorrect. The basic physics of lasers includes the undeniable truth that once the laser strikes an optically dense surface, like scalp, it's light will instantly disperse. Something as thin as a grease smudge only a few microns thick on a piece of glass is enough to disperse a laser completely. That's why laser physicists have to keep their optics VERY clean.

 

The tissue paper in my video is another example of this. The light you see reflecting off the tissue paper, or the scalp itself is NO LONGER laser light. It is just bright red monchromatic light with no coherent properites whatsoever. There is no "compression" of the light or any of the other states of light that you speculated.

 

A laser is coherent only as long as it isn't interupted. The instant that it is, the light loses it's coherency and ceases to be a laser. At this point it becomes a standard bright red LED. If it were still a laser it would only shine as a very tiny red dot and would continue through the material right across the room and hit the wall AS a tiny red dot. This is not at all what happens, as my video demonstrates.

 

I give no merit to the number of people who have CLAIMED to have benefits from LLLT because none have put in the slightest effort to prove their validity nor to post evidence in the form of photos, including you. In my 15 years of practice NOT one user of light therapy or Laser light therapy has said it did any good.

 

You can try to dismiss my requirment of photographic evidence as "crying", but the HT field was built on photographic evidence and there is no reason the LLLT industry shouldn't be held to the same standard. According to the evidence, Hair Transplants work, LLLT doesn't.

 

All the benefits that you claim to be enjoying from your lasercomb are NOT from your lasercomb, but rather due to normal physiologic variations of the hair and scalp. A good conditioner would give anyone all the benefits you listed, guaranteed, for less money and less effort. So even if your lasercomb worked, why bother combing it through your hair 3 times per week when all you have to do is add conditioner to your shower routine?

 

Charlie,

You can't just make up mechanisms of physics and physiology and then use them as a means of supporting your position. That is a true demonstration of ignorance, and the ones you made up for the sake of this discussion are wrong. But, if you believe something, then set up an experiement and prove it, just as I did in the video. Show me how a 5mw laser can somehow "stimulate" the scalp.

 

Let me ask you something. If you take a 5mw laser and shine it on a swiss watch, do you think it will somehow "stimulate" it to work better? How about if you shine one on your car engine? Think it will run smoother or more efficiently?

 

Charlie, if you are really interested in knowing why LLLT can't work for hair growth, you are welcome to call me. There is far more to LLLT quackary and laser physics than can be typed on a forum post.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Dr Feller you said that the laser becomes standard LED light once it strikes the skin.

I would like to hear from you and Dr Lindsey on your take on LED for anti-aging .

There are thousands of clinics using LED lights for this purpose.

Ive actually seen roseca almost erased in 3 sessions by green led with my own eyes.

Im one of the biggest guys screaming laser scam ,but was wondering what your take is on LED for anti-aging.

If the laser coverts to simple LED and LED is beneficial to the skin maybe those combs help contribute to a healthier scalp down below the skins surface.

A healthier scalp may induce thicker more robust hair in a small percentage of people with problematic scalps.

 

 

 

http://antiaging-wellness.com/Pages/Treatments/Facial/C.../Resurfacing/led.php

 

http://www.ledtherapycenter.com/AboutLED.shtml

[steelhorse]

great video..ad to think they trust lasers on your eyes

 

[Dr. Alan Feller]

PGP,

Hairloss is mostly the result of DHT signaling the hair cells to kill themselves. It has nothing to do with "under stimulated" or malnourished scalp. There is no way a cold, low power laser pointer is going to affect DHT or the receptors for DHT on the hair follicle cells.

 

SH,

Just a bit of sarcasm from a newbie. How obvious can you get? Another LLLT shill. Probably the same shill with a new alias. How useless you guys are. Don't you have anything better to do?

 

For those who might actual buy into this phoney's garbage:

High powered lasers for eyes are completely different than cold 5mw lasers for hair. Lasers for eyes would NOT work if not for the fact that laser instantly disperses and is converted to heat upon contacting the target, just as my video demonstrates.

 

You shills just keep on posting your B.S.. These threads just get read by more and more people.

Thank you.

[Petchski]

I've always felt the lasercomb was based on bomb science and this backs up what i've always thought.

 

Unfortunately, in the early desperate days i got suckered by advanced hair studio and had laser treatments combined with minox. The only sensation i got from the laser, was that it felt like an increase of blood flow to the scalp, and that's it, and even that could have been imagined.

 

On the hair loss forums there are amateur before and after shots for propecia and/or minoxidil, plenty of them, because they work.... Where are the amateur pictures from the laser comb? - I've come across plenty of people that have used it, but no results, speaks for itself.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

DHT isnt the only culprit in all hairloss.

By no means do I agree with any of these laser guys but if LED is used successfully for other ailments I dont want to just overlook that there possibly could be some sort of benefit for a select few in where hairloss wasnt caused by dht

You can buy the exact same led bulbs as the gentlewave on Ebay for 10 bucks.

The reason I say this is because Rogaine doesnt tell the hair cells to repair themselves yet it grows hair.

Let me emphasize I believe the combs and the units are a complete rip off for hair growth but if a cheap LED can at the very least lead to a healthier scalp Im all for it.

Im going to have a friend do a extremely CHEAP experiment and Ill report back.

Now Dr dont get too excited in what I just wrote Im still on your side.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118732006/ab...ct?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[Guest Kenneth Siporin]

I would like to put my two cents in to this, for whatever it is worth, which is probably less than the two cents that I have claimed.

First of all, I would like to state that I have great respect for Dr. Feller, and I would like to make it very clear, that I am in no way trying to argue with him, or to discredit his opinion. I must however, just add my own experiences to the debate. I must preface my comments by stating that as a plastic surgeon, and a hair transplant surgeon, I resisted the concept of LLLT for hair growth, for a long time. Although I am not a huge fan of LLLT, I do believe, through thorough investigation of numerous clinics and scores of patient photos, that LLLT does actually work on a small number of patients. I am truly neither an advocate of LLLT, nor am I an arch enemy of this industry. Rather, I would like to present a more moderate view than the two views which are most often publicized: proponents of LLLT, as represented by laser companies and the physicians representing them, and complete naysayers, represented here by the distinguished Dr. Feller.

First of all, I would like to say that there are no good scientific studies to date, which support the use of LLLT for hair growth. The studies which I have read are not great scientific studies, have low numbers of patients, or a combination of both. Furthermore, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain excellent studies with large numbers of patients, because of the nature of randomized, double blinded, controlled studies, which is what would be necessary to really establish the efficacy of LLLT. In addition, histologic studies, which would require patients to undergo a biopsy, for a treatment which may or may not work, would also be difficult to obtain, but would be helfpul. I would like to share my current philosophies on LLLT, which I present to all of my patients.

I tell all of my patients that Laser therapy for hair growth may or may not work.

I have seen patients who have had impressive results with LLLT, but the numbers are small, and by no means, do they represent a large percentage of patients.

I feel that laser therapy is best incorporated in to a hair transplant practice in the following manner:

All patients need to know that the scientific evidence supporting LLLT in hair growth is sparse.

Patients should be offered LLLT as an adjunct to other therapies, with the clear knowledge that there is a good chance that they will not see significant improvement.

I tell all my patients that all LLLT devices work ( or don't work ) by the same mechanism, namely applying a light of a particular wave length ( 670nm ) to the scalp, with the hope of stimulating the dermal papilla of the hair follicle. Patients can either buy laser combs, which are cheaper, but more cumbersome to use, requiring four twenty minute treatments a week. Or they can go to offices which provide the laser dome, which applies the same light, but at a greater intensity because there are more lights. It should be clear that there are no studies to support the superiority of either of these systems, and in fact, there are no studies what so ever which have established any protocol for LLLT, so we are really just winging it here.

So what does all this mean.

I do think that LLLT should be mentioned to our patients, but I do not think that it should be misrepresented.

I explain to all patients that LLLT is only for the patient who can follow the treatment protocols closely, who can afford the treatment, and who will not be absolutely demoralized and upset if they complete the treatment protocol, and do not see any benefit. Thus, any patient who is financially strapped, should not spend a great deal of money on this treatment, since there is no guarantee that it will work.

On the other hand, if laser treatment is explained in detail, including the lack of great scientific studies, and the patient realizes that there is only a small chance that they will get significant growth, then I see no problem in that patient trying the treatment.

In my own practice, for the appropriate patient, I will offer LLLT risk free in my office. What that means is, they can proceed with a nine or ten month treatment program, and if they do not meet their expectations at the end of that period, then I would apply the money they spent on the laser toward the cost of a hair transplant. That is all spelled out at the very beginning. Not all pateints are candidates for this offer, because some patients will obviously not benefit from LLLT. It is only the patient in which the majority of the hair loss is the result of miniaturization of diffusely thinning hair who is a candidate for this offer. Where there is skin bald scalp, nothing, short of hair transplant, will be effective.

I try to be very clear with my patients, and I let them make the decision.

I think good scientific studies need to be done, but I am doubtful we will see these types of studies in the near future.

So for now, I think we need to be honest with our patients, and let them make the decision.

As physicians, we need to provide the most honest and unbiased information possible.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.

Ken Siporin

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

What that means is, they can proceed with a nine or ten month treatment program, and if they do not meet their expectations at the end of that period, then I would apply the money they spent on the laser toward the cost of a hair transplant.

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

With all due respect doctor dont you think you should give them their money back.

Those "rules " are what pisses me off more then anything and thats right after I just posted about a 'possiblity" that the laser turned LED 'might' be beneficial to the scalp.

Your saying they probably wont work but if they dont you can apply that money to a transplant

I think thats a HORRIBLE way of selling it.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Siporin,

Thank you very much for your kind comments and for throwing your two cents in. The silence on the part of LLLT physicians to this point has been, well, deafening. Your participation is refreshing.

 

In an effort to keep this post short, I won't immediately comment on your post. So I would just like to ask you a few questions if you have the time to answer them. I, of course, am willing to answer any of your questions concerning my position.

 

1. Do you have any of your own pictures of your own patients who have enjoyed cosmetically significant growth from the LLLT you have provided them?

 

2. Approximately how many patients have you treated SOLELY with LLLT in total? Of that number, how many would you say received cosmetically significant benefits? Of that number, how many only FELT or BELIEVED they benefited-even if you felt the did not?

 

3. Do you believe the laser physics demonstration in my video is flawed in any way? If so, how so?

 

I look forward to your answers to these questions, and once again I thank you very much for stepping up and sharing your LLLT experience and thoughts with us.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Your so polite Dr Feller. You must have just stepped out of etiquette class.

Ill make you a deal .

If he posts 2 or more of HIS laser patients pics then Ill stop posting for a month .

If he doesnt you have to drink one beer or eat one piece of cherry cheesecake.

I bet he can post a bunch that put that wasted moola towards a transplant from him.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

PGP,

He is a doctor and he is posting with his own name. He is only the second LLLT advocate to do so. I want him to feel welcomed and not attacked. Either he will convince me, or I will convince him. Let's keep the conversation civil, welcoming, and warm. This thread is not an LLLT or LLLT proponent bashing thread. That's exactly what the nasty anonymous LLLT advocates want so that an honest discussion doesn't take place.

 

You don't have to bother with your LED experiment. The LLLT advocates have built their entire theory around the LASER nature of light as being the "active magical" ingredient. Now that we have proved that coherent light cannot make it past the optical barrior of the skin to reach the bulk of the follicular body, their argument falls apart and we win the debate.

 

There is no reason to extend this "debate" by coming up with an alternate theory FOR them, and then disproving it. They have already REJECTED standard monochromatic light as being useful for hair regrowth. In fact, David Michaels, Hairmax boss, reported in his "study" to the FDA that they used a red LED "sham" that demonstrated NO benefit.

 

For them to back-pedal now and actual say that monochromatic light is the "magic" ingredient would sink them because their FDA clearance study depended on the exclusivity of LASER light as the key ingredient, NOT standard red light.

 

If the LLLT advocates want to step out on that branch, however, let them. We'll cut that one off too when the time comes.

 

Don't do them any favors by performing an experiment that shows red LEDs are just as useless as red diode lasers until they first reject lasers themselves and retreat to "red light magic". Eventually they will retreat right over the credibility cliff. Then it's bye bye LLLT.

 

I am convinced this would be the end of the LLLT indusrty because a 40watt red lightbulb is far cheaper than a $500 lasercomb or $10,000 laser hood.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

In fact, David Michaels, Hairmax boss, reported in his "study" to the FDA that they used a red LED "sham" that demonstrated NO benefit.

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

Thanks you just saved me 10 smackaroos

Your right, I am sorry Dr Siporin.

I have a bad attitude when it comes to lasers because I was scammed.

I happened to get my money back the unconventional way so Im not pissed anymore just disgusted.

You being a doctor I hope youll continue with this thread and provide some pics or at least answer Dr Fellers questions.

You just lost me on that policy but you had me interested before that.

Please continue . My apologies

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Siporin,

 

You have always had a talent for being very level-headed, and your contribution to this thread is no exception.

 

I look forward to your participation in this thread and hearing more of your professional input and experience with laser therapy for hair loss.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[charlieb]

Doc,

 

This article actually blows the theory that light has to be coherent to be off benefit to humans. As you can see its actually ironic that you said we are not plants...because it is because we are so similar to plants we benefit from laser treatment..this is just my assumption and intuitive logical thinking..You see the laser beam provides a source off light which is direct coherent or incoherent it doesnt matter, the source provides energy or whatever which allows our body to respond to stimulus...your whole theory is that the light has to be coherent to work but this article theorises it doesnt have to be.

 

I cant believe you are still arguing a single point of the laser not being able to penetrate the skin for it not to work, what im saying is light provides stimulus, so as soon as it hits our scalp , coherent or non coherent it does not matter - something happens, for example say you take some water and pour it on a metal foil, depending on the conditions you might see vapour develop on the other side of the foil, because the water has made contact with the foil although it is not exactly penetrating the foil , laws off nature has cause condensation to develop.

im just saying these occurences happen everywhere in nature.

 

You also pointed out if i took a torch and shine it on a watch would it do anything, well obvious it wouldnt because a watch doesnt breathe and live...but interesting you should point this fact out because if you read below you will notice the difference between living and non living organisms and how they deal with Entropy, i thought the read was quite interesting.

 

You also said that in 15 years you have never heard of anyone benefiting from laser therapy yet there are some people here which have told you straight - yes it has worked for us..you just refuse to believe it.

 

I agree with you on one point that i find it strange there are not many before and after photos , i actually say one back in the pages with the laser helmet, but you dismissed him as a schill...maybe he was , maybe he wasnt...but that was one hell off an impressive helmet...i would love to try it !!

 

anyway doc lets agree to disagree..you need photographic prove to believe, i believe on faith and intuitive believe and the fact i feel good and my hair feels good when i use it...

bottom line is we are a living organism which respond to stimulus..

 

the article below will be interesting to shed on why are we so like plants !

 

There is quite a bit of controversy among light therapy proponents about the therapeutic value of lasers, which produce coherent light, versus LED and incandescent sources, which produce incoherent light.

 

Laser enthusiasts, backed by a large body of research, claim that only the intense, highly coherent beam of a laser can penetrate deeply into the body's tissues and meridian system for significant results. Yet some of the most respected names in light therapy research have used gentler, much more diffuse light sources for effective treatment of a staggering range of health disorders. Who is right? The purpose of this article is to explore this question by offering some fascinating contemporary research about coherence and noncoherence of light, and their effects on the human body.

 

There has been an explosive growth of interest in the uses of light for healing and cosmetic treatments in recent years. Light pens are used for non-needle acupuncture treatments, lasers are used for many common surgical procedures, and some ophthalmologists prescribe color light therapy through the eyes for a wide range of health disorders. "Photo-facials" are also becoming common in beauty salons.

 

Even the U.S. Army and NASA have gotten into the act, developing LED light therapies for accelerating wound healing, photodynamic cancer treatment and much more. According to Dr. Harry Whelan, a professor of pediatric neurology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who utilizes the NASA LED technology, "So far, what we've seen in patients and what we've seen in laboratory cell cultures all point to one conclusion - the near-infrared light emitted by these LEDs seems to be perfect for increasing energy inside cells. This means whether you're on Earth in a hospital, working in a submarine under the sea, or on your way to Mars inside a spaceship, the LEDs boost energy to the cells and accelerate healing."1

 

One of the first proponents of color therapy in the U.S. was Dinshah Ghadiali. In the early 1900s, he developed the practice of "tonating," which is bathing the entire body, or body segments, in therapeutic colors of light.2 While this remains a highly beneficial practice for a wide range of health disorders, a more modern trend is colorpuncture, developed by Peter Mandel of Germany. Colorpuncture is a specific form of therapy, in which a series of colored light beams are applied to patterns of acupuncture points. The greater sophistication of the colorpuncture system allows targeted beneficial effects on the endocrine, lymphatic, organ, psycho-emotional and central nervous systems.3

 

Colorpuncture is so effective because acupuncture points are energetic communication gateways, and highly responsive to light. According to acupuncture researcher Ion Dumitrescu of Romania: "The electrodermal points are electrical pores - concerning two-way energy exchange between the body and the environment."4

 

The work of German scientist Fritz Popp proved the existence of natural light communication between all living plants, animals and people. He called this phenomenon "biophoton" luminescence.5 Biophotons are carriers of "information," without which our bodies are lifeless collections of molecules. According to Popp, the coherent biophoton fields within the body mainly originate in our DNA.6

 

Coherent and Incoherent Light

 

There are two forms of light used in therapy - coherent and incoherent. Most visible light on Earth and in the universe is incoherent. This means that photons (light particles) randomly spread out as soon as they are emitted from a light source. Incoherent sources include the sun and light from incandescent fluorescent, and LED sources.

 

LED stands for light emitting diode. An LED is a silicon microchip with various added substances, each of which releases a different wavelength (color) of light when electrically stimulated. LEDs used to be used mainly as low-power indicator lights for electronic devices. Now manufacturers are racing to release LEDs with higher intensities and a greater range of available colors and designs. LED light has been used for acupoint stimulation and wound healing since the 1980s.

 

Lasers are the only manufactured form of light therapy that does not spread out, but stays tightly collimated (coherent). The difference between coherent and noncoherent light is easy to see. If a bright flashlight with an incandescent or LED bulb is directed toward a distant wall in a dark room, the beam projected upon the wall will be diffuse and widely spread out. Yet if a laser pointer or therapy tool is directed in this way, you will only see a tiny spot on the wall. That is because the beam remains coherent over long distances.

 

Coherence and Entropy

 

There is an inverse relationship between coherence and entropy. Entropy is the tendency for any organized system to become chaotic; that is, to break down over time. Examples of entropy are aging and death, stars burning down, and social breakdown in overcrowded cities. According to the pioneering research of Nobel prize-winning physicist Ilya Prigogine, living and evolving systems resist entropy (negentropy) because they are able to take in new, outside energy and dissipate entropic tendencies away from themselves.7 This ability to reverse entropy, in fact, may be considered a prime quality of life and consciousness.

 

There are two kinds of energy systems in regard to entropy: closed and open systems. Closed systems operate in isolation - they do not interact with a greater environment. Open systems are ecological; that is, they are in a continual state of communication and energy exchange with their environment. Only an open system can dissipate entropy as described above, and maintain or increase its coherence. Human beings, and all living things on Earth, are open systems. Therefore, our bodies can take in energy from our environment and maintain coherence. This supports homeostasis and health. It also allows us to evolve into increasing levels of order and expanded consciousness. According to the research of Popp, consciousness is based on this ability to maintain coherence.8

 

A timely application of this principle is the field of so-called "anti-aging" medicine, which is greatly in demand by our huge baby boomer population. Any therapies or supplements that genuinely slow the aging process must do so by increasing the body's ability to dissipate entropy and maintain energetic coherence.

 

Laser and LED Stimulation

 

Let's return to the question of the differing values of coherent light (laser) vs. incoherent light in therapy. In support of laser proponents, it can seem intuitive that a highly focused and coherent beam of light would penetrate more deeply into the body than scattered, incoherent photons, and hence have more profound clinical effects. Yet some of the most fascinating contemporary research shows that this may not necessarily be the case! Under many conditions now recognized by modern physics, incoherent light can transform into coherent light. A simple example of this principle is in the workings of a telescope. Light emanating from a distant star is incoherent, yet once captured in the collector lens system of the telescope, it becomes coherent.9

 

Our bodies evolved for millions of years in a field of incoherent light (the Sun), as did all of our food sources. Yet the DNA in our bodies produces coherent biophoton emissions.10 Apparently, our bodies are negentropic (entropy reducing) organisms, and can transform incoherent light into coherent light, as needed.

 

According to Mandel, it is energetic interference fields in the body that do this.11 They act as "filters" to produce this transformation. According to Mandel, the denser and more complex the interference fields, the greater the capacity to transform incoherent light into coherent light. Acupuncture points are interferences in which two or more energy pathways intersect, and hence have this filtering effect. Mandel also states that repeated use of intense laser light on acupuncture points can eventually weaken or "blow out" the subtle circuitry they regulate.

 

So, are lasers or incoherent LED light sources superior for therapy purposes? It is clear that laser light more closely resembles the coherent light our DNA produces to transmit and receive the information of life. Yet our bodies have evolved negentropic systems to utilize incoherent sunlight as energy "fuel," and transform it into coherent biophotons, as needed.

 

It is well-established that both forms of light therapy have demonstrated value. In the opinion of the author, because laser therapies are so much more focused and intense, they are a more invasive form of therapy than incoherent light from LEDs. This is evidenced by the wide use of lasers for hair removal and many forms of surgery. Yet this is not necessarily a negative indictment of laser acupuncture. More invasive therapies are often useful for treatment of acute or recalcitrant conditions, and certainly have their place in the physician's armamentarium. Lasers also enjoy a very positive reputation for treatment of some skin diseases.12

 

It is clear, however, that our bodies have developed sophisticated mechanisms with which to thrive on direct incoherent light from the sun, and secondarily from the light held within the biochemical bonds in food sources. The DNA in our cells possesses the alchemical ability to produce coherent light, carrying the precise information required for growth, functioning and healing of our magnificent bodies. According to Prigogine's pioneering research, open systems such as our bodies are able to take in energy from the environment and make it coherent, thus reversing entropy. Surely, such remarkable life systems respond superbly to the incoherent light they are programmed to process

 

References

 

Quoted from Science Daily Web site: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/12/001219195848.htm.

Dinshah D. Let There Be Light. Dinshah Health Society, 2001.

Mandel P. Practical Compendium of Colorpuncture. Edition Energetik 1986.

Dumitrescu I. Contribution to the electro-physiology of the active points. International Acupuncture Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 1977, as quoted in American Journal of Acupuncture, 1981;9(3).

Popp FA, Becker B. Electromagnetic Bioinformation, ed. 2, Urban and Schwartzengerg, Germany, 1988.

Popp FA, Chang JJ, Herzog A, Yan Z, Yan Y. Evidence of non-classical light in biological systems. Published by the International Institute of Biophysics: www.lifescientists.de/publication/pub2001-08.htm.

As quoted on numerous Web sites about Prigogine, such as: www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/entropy.html.

Popp FA. Consciousness as evolutionary process based on coherent states. Published by the International Institute of Biophysics: www.lifescientists.de/publication/pub2003-04-11.htm.

Leonard Mandel and Emil Wolf. Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, 1995, section 4.2. This phenomenon is noted in the absence of atmospheric tremors, i.e., on a good observing night.

As quoted in note 3, above.

Interference fields are intersections of two or more interacting frequencies. Interference fields are a major aspect of brain, nervous system and acupuncture point function, and such fields store memory. Quoted from: course notes, Esogetic Colorpuncture Basic Training by Peter Mandel, ND, 2003.

As quoted in Harvard University Gazette, June 2000: www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/06.01/psoriasis.html

[Dr. Alan Feller]

CharlieB,

I appreciate the effort you went to, but it's all been done before.

 

I really do not wish to be spoon fed "studies" you found on the internet. I am aware of most of them, and they have nothing to do with hairloss or hair re-growth. They are non-sequitor, and the leaps of wishful thinking you are attempting to make by simply pointing to these disparate articles in an effort to support LLLT are invalid.

 

For arguments sake lets say that I accept that red light has a physiologically significant benefit to the healing of skin. That does not mean that this so-called benefit can be STRETCHED to cover hairloss simply because hair follicle organs reside in the scalp skin. This is the disingenuous leap of faith that the LLLT industry has relied upon to this point, and it's ridiculous.

 

What I am looking for from you are your OWN first hand photos of the benefits you claim to be enjoying solely from your laser comb.

 

The LLLT industry has been hiding behind supposed "studies" like the ones you've cited. But before I begin to entertain HOW LLLT might work, I want to FIRST see that it works at all.

 

Let's see your photos please. If you have none, then you are in good company as none of the other LLLT advocates have such photos of themselves either. And that's a RED flag and the fuel that drives this thread.

 

After almost 5,000 views and ten pages, there are NO convincing nor verifiable FIRST HAND photos demonstrating the benefits of red light nor low power lasers.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

As I said before I saw a lifelong bout of roseaca reversed with LED lighting.

I also had a coworker that went for a years worth of laser for hair that didnt not help BUT they gave her photofacial for free and I swear to you it knocked 10 years off .

 

Im not going to say that lasers or Leds have no use for other cosmetic enhancements because I believe they do.

 

The problem is there no real evidence that it helps with hairloss except from people that have something invested in it.

We have been screaming for years for posters to show us their pics and only two have surfaced and those were

unimpressive.

Honestly you would have a better chance of clicking your heels together 3 times and ending up in Kansas then growing hair on your head with laser therapy.

Save your money fellas. I know it tempting but youll end up very disappointed.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

PGP,

I agree with you. Maybe monochromatic light therapy has an application to skin healing. Maybe it doesn't. But the LLLT hair regrowth industriy's disingenuous attempt to STRETCH such a questionable phenomenon to beneficial "follicle stimulation" (whatever that means)goes beyond the pale.

 

The LLLT advocates have made it clear that it is the coherent property of light that offers the beneficial effect and specfically NOT incoherent light.

 

After all, David Michaels "invented" the LASERcomb, not the LEDcomb or the Redlightcomb.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Dr. Siporin?

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Did you really think he would respond?

[electricb]

Dr Siporin, how can you justify charging people up front for laser "treatments" that, by your own admission, has little proof of being effective? When you pitch a potential customer do you immediately state that the lasers are used in conjunction with minoxidil or is the fact that minoxidil is part of the program mentioned only when the customer gets the bill? If you truly believe that lasers are unproven, why don't you offer a pay as you go program? It isn't exactly risk free if the customer doesn't want a hair transplant, after all, that is what attracts people to the laser program in the first place.