DR. MOHMAND EXPOSED as HAIRMAX LASER COMB MEDICAL ADVISOR

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Yes,it's true.

Just go down to the forth row in the middle column. This link is right off the Hairmax laser comb site.

 

Picture of Dr. Mohmand on Hairmax Medical Advisor Team

 

http://www.hairmax.com/CompanyInformation/AdvisoryBoard.aspx

 

Now we know why Dr. Mohmand ignored all the evidence presented against laser combs, he's in bed with the industry and he never disclosed this during any of the debates he took part in wherein he defended lasercombs dogmatically.

 

Dr. Mohmand, how can you be on the Hairmax laser comb Medical Advisor Team when you know nothing about laser physics or the serious flaws in the junk-science theory of photobiostimulation? Why didn't you disclose that your represent the LLLT industry? Are you not compensated for being on the Medical Advisor Team?

 

I'm going to write Mr. David Michaels, "inventor" of the hairmax laser comb, that he should get back whatever he paid you because you don't know a darn thing about lasers or the scientific method in general. You're not even a good B.S. artist.

 

I don't think your colleagues at Lexington are going to be too happy with you.

 

[thanatopsis_awry]

Wow....something *did seem a bit suspicious during the "song and dance" of you educating and refuting while he dodged directly engaging with the many points being discussed. Couldn't quite put my figure on it, but this may very well be "it"....

 

Bravo, bravo...

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Feller,

 

I agree that Dr. Mohmand should have added a disclosure that he was a Hairmax board member.

 

But I'm not sure the implication is as severe as you are hyping it to be with words like "exposed". Having a financial interest in a service he provides doesn't mean he's unethical. However, I agree that he should have disclosed it during the debate.

 

In my opinion however, Dr. Mohmand presented his case ethically, reasonably, and did not oversell laser therapy as a cure for hair loss.

 

As we've discussed, a number of ethical doctors disagree with your point of view. Whether or not they choose to indulge in this debate is up to them.

 

These threads will give forum members and guests a chance to draw their own conclusions based on all the evidence or lack thereof regarding this topic.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Bill,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more with every line you just wrote. I need not remind you of HTNs TERMS of SERVICE:

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

All posters promoting or advocating a particular physician, procedure or TREATMENT on this forum are required to divulge any compensation, monetary or otherwise, that they may be receiving in their posting signature. No links or references to websites or resources of a promotional nature are permitted on this educational forum.

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

If I am "hyping" his failure to disclose and intention to deceive, then you are most certainly "down playing" it.

 

But what else can you call a doctor who presents himself as an independent and objective evaluator of a questionable product when IN FACT he is part of the very company that produces that product in the first place YET conceals this obvious bias?

 

Then he has the arrogance and nerve to call this community biased! What a self-serving hypocrite.

 

I think it's fair to say that he was "exposed". I think it is also fair to say that we can't trust one word coming out of his mouth.

 

Furthermore, how in the world does he qualify to be on any medical advisory team? Based on his obvious lack of understanding of laser physics, physiology, or just rational thought, what good is he? If I were Mr. Michaels I would demand the return of whatever compensation he's offered Dr. Mohmand including money or stock.

 

Let me ask you Bill, have you found ANYTHING I've written on these LLLT threads to be inaccurate or subject to interpretation? Have you found anything Dr. Mohmand offered to be of value, rational, or on-point?

[M&M]

Wow - look at all of the "reputable" names that are on their board:

 

Robert Shapiro - not to be confused with Dr. Ron Shapiro

 

Matt Leavitt - isn't he involved in anything that earns a quick buck?

 

Jennifer Martinick - removed from this site approx. 12 or so months ago

 

And more. Although I am interested in learning more about Tatiana Ostroukhova... for non-HT reasons

[hairthere]

Mohmand had the nerve to claim posters on this forum were biased and now this comes to light. what a joke. sorry Bill i have to disagree--i think what this doctor is doing is extremely unethical.

[FenderPlayer]

Bill,

Dr. Feller is 100% right. This cements in my mind that MOHMAND IS UNETHICAL.

 

Having a financial interest in a product means that you can't have an objective view on it.

 

The lasercomb, along with all LLLT treatments are a joke.

 

And how come everyone else that has any relation to a company must disclose in their signature. Bill, you now seem like a hypocrite to me unless you add into his signature that he works with Lexington on the haircrap, oops I mean hairmax comb.

[FenderPlayer]

Oh, and Dr. Feller was right for using the word "exposed."

[Al - Moderator]

Originally posted by FenderPlayer:

Bill,

Dr. Feller is 100% right. This cements in my mind that MOHMAND IS UNETHICAL.

 

Having a financial interest in a product means that you can't have an objective view on it.

 

 

So you're saying all of the HT consultants such as Jotronic, Spex and others are unethical . They get paid by the HT Dr, so they can't have an objective view on anything about hairloss, so they must be unethical. Right?

 

And wouldn't that have to include ALL hair transplant Drs who post pictures here? Wouldn't they all be unethical because they can't be objective?

 

If you feel that way about one Dr shouldn't you feel the same about all of them? If not then please explain the difference.

[hairthere]

the difference, behappy, is transparency. jotronic, spex, etc. are upfront with their intentions, and a lot of the time they just simply offer good advice whether it has to do with their clinic or not.

[M&M]

BeHappy,

 

There's a key difference. If Jotronic, Spex and other representatives of clinics did *NOT* disclose their affiliation while claiming these doctors to be the best and all others to be worse, then yes - that would be unethical.

 

However, in reality, what Jotronic & Spex do is disclose their affiliation, post patient results with clear before, during and after photos and weigh in on good discussions. They also compliment good work by other good doctors.

 

In my opinion - huge difference.

[Capt'N Mop!!!]

Originally posted by BeHappy

So you're saying all of the HT consultants such as Jotronic, Spex and others are unethical . They get paid by the HT Dr, so they can't have an objective view on anything about hairloss, so they must be unethical. Right?

 

And wouldn't that have to include ALL hair transplant Drs who post pictures here? Wouldn't they all be unethical because they can't be objective?

 

If you feel that way about one Dr shouldn't you feel the same about all of them? If not then please explain the difference.

 

 

 

I guess, if the consultants removed their disclosures from their signatures -AND- all of their patient PHOTO gallery's -AND- merely gave a description of the results asking blind faith in their results, your analogy would hold it's ground; but barring that, it doesn't.

 

I wonder why Dr. M is exempt from the HTN requirements Dr. Feller posted.

 

BTW, I've read your case and I *genuinely* feel for you but TBH it seems your not approaching this discussion w/a rational, sensible, objective attitude.

[FenderPlayer]

Originally posted by BeHappy:

So you're saying all of the HT consultants such as Jotronic, Spex and others are unethical . They get paid by the HT Dr, so they can't have an objective view on anything about hairloss, so they must be unethical. Right?

 

And wouldn't that have to include ALL hair transplant Drs who post pictures here? Wouldn't they all be unethical because they can't be objective?

 

If you feel that way about one Dr shouldn't you feel the same about all of them? If not then please explain the difference.

 

As hairthere M&M and Capt'nMop explained the difference is the disclosure. Just take a look at jotronic, and spex signatures.

Also, when promoting the docs they work for, jotronic and Spex often use pictures. There are no credible before and after pictures with LLLT.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Mohmand's failure to disclose his affiliation with Hairmax is an issue. Members and guests of this open forum community have the right to accurate information and be aware of any potential biases. I'm sorry if my above post seemed as if I was attempting to minimize this. It wasn't.

 

Dr. Feller is right. As it states in our terms of service:

 

"All posters promoting or advocating a particular physician, procedure or treatment on this forum are required to divulge any compensation, monetary or otherwise, that they may be receiving in their posting signature. No links or references to websites or resources of a promotional nature are permitted on this educational forum."

 

But up until this point, Dr. Mohmand has not been publicly advocating laser therapy on this forum, nor were we aware of it.

 

Now that he has, the above rule applies. Therefore, if Dr. Mohmand is receiving any compensation (monetary or otherwise) from Hairmax, this should be disclosed in his signature. This goes the same for any other poster (physician or lay person) who publicly advocates or promotes a service or product on this forum and receives compensation for it.

 

I do not believe however, that Dr. Mohmand was trying to deceive this community by leaving this information out. In fact, he did admit that he sells the laser comb in another thread on his own accord. Why he left out being on the Hairmax board, only he can address, which I request he does.

 

Dr. Mohmand,

 

You have a profile listed on Hairmax's website with a link to yours. So whether or not you recieve any monetary compensation, this in itself is valuable to you.

 

You also mentioned on another thread that you make a little bit of money selling laser combs.

 

Therefore, please follow the terms of service as listed at the bottom of this forum and add your affiliation with Hairmax in your signature. However, please do not link to their website.

 

Please also address this community's concerns regarding why you didn't acknowledge your affiliation with Hairmax prior to getting involved in the debate.

 

Please understand that the issue is not whether or not you receive any compensation from Hairmax. It's about disclosure.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

[Al - Moderator]

Originally posted by M&M:

Although I am interested in learning more about Tatiana Ostroukhova... for non-HT reasons

 

LOL. and we hope that she is unethical with her patients. After that I think we should take a trip to Istanbul to continue the discussion with Dr. Melike Paeffgen

[lorenzo]

I have been reading most of the thread about laser because I am curious as well. I do feel that Dr. Mohmand should not have entered this discussion without disclosing his affiliation with Hairmax. This is my opinion is deceptive and dishonest there is no defence for not disclosing this to the reading like myself. I have been reading the discussion without knowing there is a certain biast based on the affilication with hairmax so I am not happy about it.

I hope that this is not a doctor that you consider for the coaltion since the high level of integrity is now in question.

Just my opinion...........

[Capt'N Mop!!!]

Lorenzo,

 

thank you for rejoining the discussion. I have been reviewing the transcripts, and I think the official position on lasers is "on the fence". There simply isn't enough evidence yet to make a conclusive decision. Right now, I *believe* were left to our own subjective judgments.

 

 

If my review of the transcripts was wrong, then I stand corrected. But, that was my interpretation.

[M&M]

I can't help but chuckle at the Hairmax website:

 

- One poster claims he has less grey hair as a result! Amazing.

 

- It says that Post 12 weeks, I should have someone look into my hair to notice any new growth as it is 'not uncommon to have to wait more than 12 weeks to experience benefits'. Also, how about this for insight? "While you may not experience dramatic improvements that are easily noticeable, little indicators, such as increased shine and manageability or an overall feeling of better scalp heath, are signs that HairMax is having a positive effect on your hair". Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Anti-Dandruff shampoo with a good conditioner would have the same effect as what is seen here as benefits of the HairMax.

 

The before and after photos are also pretty funny:

 

 

 

All the guy did was grow out his hair showing his curls. Isn't that something a lack of haircuts could achieve vs. buying a HairMax.

 

There are countless other examples, where they simply changed their part, or removed their part altogether to give the impression of thickness, while others simply removed the gel from the 'pre' photo.

 

Why not take the risk of spending $545 USD, though on the "Premium" (since the 'SE' model is not approved by the FDA). Heck, 93% of users don't return it despite a 20 week return policy. But have they read the details?

 

- Warranty only valid if purchased from the website. Betcha the 93% non-return rate doesn't apply to only those purchased from the website.

 

- 18% restocking fee if returned with 30 days. That's basically $100.

 

- And if you actually hang onto it for the 5-months (20 weeks), you only get 60% back ($329) minus the 18% restocking fee (another $100) = you only get approx. 40% back = $220 less shipping fees. How's that for confidence in their product? I'll bet most just think that they have already wasted $330 so they may as well stick with it.

 

Oh well, just more 'light' being shed on this scam.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Lorenzo,

 

Dr. Mohmand was once recommended on the Hair Transplant Network but was removed once we learned that he didn't regularly use microscopes as a regular part of his practice. Now that he uses them regularly for the slivering process, he now meets our minimum requirements for recommendation.

 

We also only recommend surgeons with a high code of ethics and stand by their patients.

 

We've been discussing with Dr. Mohmand privately about recommending him once again now that he meets our standards.

 

I recognize now that some are questioning him since he didn't disclose his official affiliation with Hairmax before entering into the laser therapy discussion. I'd like to hear his explanation as to why he didn't disclose this before concluding he was being deceitful. He did however, disclose that he sells the hairmax lasercomb.

 

Now that he knows the rules, I expect he'll add that he is a medical advisor for Hairmax into his forum signature and offer an explanation.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[FenderPlayer]

If he doesn't add that to his signature I would hope that his recommendation would no longer be considered. Otherwise that undermines the credibility of this forum. If it truly was oversight by Mohmand to include that in a signature that is fine but I don't see how he could have forgot to mention that even once on all the LLLT threads he posted on.

[lorenzo]

Bill;

I just want to start off by saying my opinions are strictly mine. I assist H&W only with translation and nothing to do with working for the hair industry. I mentioned it to you when I started posting because I wasn't sure.

I remember reading about Dr. Mohmand being removed. Is being recommended different than being in the coalition? Anyways I did not mean to sound so harsh but I am very curious about the laser comb. Trying to read and understand two doctor on two different views was interesting for somebody like me. Now I feel his views are biast and reading his opinion somewhat worthless since he may have a finacial gain from being pro laser. I am looking forward to his explanation as well.

Capt'N Mop! I agree with you I am totally on the fence. I am tempted to try it for the 20 weeks and have Joe take accurate non biast picture in two weeks intervals to see whether it make a difference of not. I am thinking about it if I decide to I will post pictures. Just at $600 for the comb it means I will not be able to go drinking for the weekend if I buy it....

[nm76]

Originally posted by BeHappy:

Originally posted by M&M:

Although I am interested in learning more about Tatiana Ostroukhova... for non-HT reasons

 

LOL. and we hope that she is unethical with her patients. After that I think we should take a trip to Istanbul to continue the discussion with Dr. Melike Paeffgen

 

man i was thinking the exact same thing , fo shizzle...

[Bill - Seemiller]

FenderPlayer,

 

All members of this community are required to abide by the rules or their forum accounts are suspended. Dr. Mohmand will be expected to add this disclosure in his signature simply because he has advocated laser therapy on threads that has now become a permanent part of this forum. Forum members and guests reading this for years to come deserve to know that Dr. Mohmand is a Hairmax medical advisor. So we're on the same page.

 

Lorenzo,

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Yes, there is a difference between recommended surgeons and members of the Coalition. To see how we recommend hair transplant surgeons click here. Be sure to follow the links to our standards which defines the difference more clearly and comprehensively.

 

My laser therapy viewpoint has been considered "on the fence", but I wouldn't say that's accurate.

 

As a general rule, I will not advocate any product until I feel enough proof has been presented to tell me otherwise.

 

In my opinion, there is a lot more evidence against it, then for it. However, I'm not as dogmatic about it since a number of ethical surgeons seem to feel it can be worthwhile as a treatment in some cases.

 

Now what being a "Hairmax medical advisor" really means, I don't know. In my opinion, being a medical advisor or someone who receives some financial gain from it doesn't necessarily lessen the credibility of a physician who supports laser therapy. Otherwise, any professional who discusses services they provide is unbelievable.

 

However, a prior disclosure is very important as we see, because failure to do so makes it appear as if the advocate is trying to hide something. I personaly believe Dr. Mohmand wasn't trying to be sneaky, but I do agree that he should have disclosed his affiliation with Hairmax prior to indulging in the debate.

 

I'm not so sure there will be an end to the laser therapy debate until everyone is satisfied that those who promote it has provided enough proof to support its use for hair loss.

 

Or perhaps we can conduct an experiment of our own and get a number of balding men or women to try it and document their progress with detailed photos to see if it does anything for them.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bill

[zackeryHaris]

[Dr. Mohammad Humayun Mohma]

Dear Lorenzo

 

I think I have told the community that I did not intentially hide my affiliation, I did not took the name of Lexington directly unless was unavoidable or so.

I am a non-paid medical advisor, that means they were looking for a doctor to support their idea and as I was doing that, they asked me if they can add my name and I agreed.

 

I still agree that it was my fault but that I guess should not be a major crime.

 

As far as my point of view is concern

 

Please read....

 

ISHRS Press Release

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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