|
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
       |
||
|
||
|
|
Our reply to Hairmax Forum message We do not compare the Leimo with the Hairmax
laser comb. In-fact we make it a point to emphasis the differences. It is our opinion that the most comprehensive debate on LED vs Lasers are published at http://www.laser.nu/lllt/laser_discussion.htm whereas the article in Acupuncture Today.com can only be classified as a single person's opinion albeit objective , might not be correct. The writer quoted Jan Tuner and Lars Hode and their book Laser Therapy, Clinical Practice and Scientific Background. In the same book Jan Tuner and Lars Hode actually pointed out that "the point to note is not that LEDs is not working but that when compared with Lasers , it seems that one can always obtain a better results with Lasers than with LEDs." From this statement and conclusion of clinical test carried out by Jan Tuner and Lars Hode with LED and Lasers we are clear that LED does work, but Lasers are better. This is the main reason the Leimo gives users the best of both worlds - both Lasers and LED.
Additionally, Leimo only contains one weak unfocused Laser diode. There
are no such things as "unfocused" laser diode. There are no
"weak" lasers. Different lasers does have different power output
depending on therapy purposes. Anyway the Hairmax Laser Comb also have
only one laser diode. The LaserComb produces 9 Laser beams. Even if they were the same power level, which they are not, it would take you 9 times as long to treat you hair with Leimo as it does with the LaserComb.
This sentence is absolutely misleading and
makes no sense. Splitting the single beam from a single laser diode into 9
beams as in the case of the Hairmax does not increase the power output nor
makes the laser therapy more effective. Furthermore lasers must be kept as
close to the treatment area as possible as laser energy decreases with
distance. Splitting the laser beam from a single laser diode could lead to
a lost in energy absorption.
On another note if LED are absolutely useless, then why are so many professional lasers manufacturers also produces LED devices, and many also produces LED+Lasers devices? For example the laser comb developed by MKW Lasers in Germany also used LED+Lasers the same device have been used by many well known and international Trichological centres. Thor lasers recently have had 7 new LED probes cleared by FDA . So if LED are absolutely useless than why are manufacturers continuing producing LED therapy products?
The Leimo web site also states “Leimo have 8 stimulating bars made of urethane rubber serves as a combing device as well as providing stimulating effect liken to massaging and acupuncture of your scalp, this effectively stimulate better blood circulation and thus better hair growth.” What they are referring to are the rubber teeth of its comb.
This is absolutely misleading. We are not
referring to the "rubber teeth of it's comb".
This is the same effect as any teeth on a comb or brush including the teeth on the LaserComb; so it is interesting and misleading that they highlight this as a stimulating effect on hair growth without any basis. The
writer claims that we are providing misleading information and that the
Leimo's stimulating bars are the same as Hairmax's comb teeth. Well we
believe that the truth and facts speaks for itself. The Leimo stimulating
bars are made of a special type of rubber - urethane rubber- which is soft
to feel and when pressed on the scalp during therapy does not hurt the
scalp yet is able to give a "massaging' effect. On the other hand the
teeth of the Hairmax is made of a harder type of plastics material, the
use of the teeth is to enable users to brush the hair aside so as to allow
the laser beam to shine on the scalp.
Once again the writer is comparing the Leimo's LED with Hairmax Lasers, comparing apple with oranges, we believe with the sole and only intention to mislead readers. The Leimo is both a LED+ Lasers device. Anyway one cannot compare even lasers with lasers of different devices if the specifications are different. In this case the lasers of the Leimo and that of the Hairmax are of totally different specifications. The writer also writes on wavelength of LED as compared with lasers - we encourage readers to refer to our Lasers & LED Therapy page for more information on this topic.
Leimo conducted their clinical studies on 6 week old mice by trimming their hair and photographing the speed of hair growth. The photographs and clinical evidence of these mice are very questionable.
Very questionable ???? This clinical studies
are conducted by Phil Sang Chung, M.D, You Chan Kim, M.D.Min Sang Chung,
B.S., Sang Oun Jung, PhD, Chung Ku Ree, M.D. at the Medical Laser Research
Center, Department of Dermatology, Dankook University, College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea
and was published by the Journal of the Korean Society Plastic & Reconstructive Surgeons 2004.
Questionable or not the public are the best judge. The researchers did not study any causes of hair loss in humans, specifically Androgenetic Alopecia (male of female pattern hair loss) ,the most common form of hair loss in humans or any other hair disorder. All of the LaserComb clinical studies have been performed on actual men and women who are suffering from hair loss. Yes
our initial clinical studies are on mice and we are preparing for more
studies on human.
Once again the writer used the words "questionable results". Is this the truth ? We encourage readers to find out yourself. The results of any clinical studies are always summarized in the Abstracts.
In an effort to stay ahead of the industry Lexington designed, built, and tested a few devices similar to the Leimo, utilizing LED technology. We even filed a patent on our LaserComb design to incorporate LEDs. Our research was conclusive that LEDs did not influence hair regrowth or reduce shedding. We scrapped the LED project and only support Laser devices, such as the LaserComb, that have been proven to be effective. This is again absolutely misleading
and incorrect. The Leimo comes with a 90 days money back guarantee and
this can be extended up to 6 months. Similarly we have received numerous
orders from Hairmax users who are dissatified.
End of Hairmax Forum message
Our Conclusion Any "claims" that Lasers and LED is not working by a manufacturer that develops laser therapy device is a slap on their own face. It is our opinion that no manufacturer or company should conclude that red visible wavelength is better than infrared wavelengths in hair and scalp therapy without conducting any scientific and systematic research to prove such stated facts (and vice versa). It's the same with the coherent and non-coherent issues - LED Therapy. There are many professionals lasers manufacturers that produce LED devices for bio-stimulation applications. No where on our website did we never claim that other laser hair therapy devices do not work. On the contrary we quoted a few other clinical reports using various laser hair therapy devices including the Hairmax Laser Comb, showing the positive effects of laser irradiation on hair and scalp restoration. At this point of time we are of the opinion that no one company can conclude absolutely that lower wavelength RED lasers are certainly better than an infrared high wavelength lasers for hair and scalp therapy, and vice versa, without any systematic clinical research. What we did was to conduct our own clinical trial using 890nm on mice hair growth , and it seems that the results are satisfactory. ( see clinical studies ) Similarly , Satino and others [1] performed a LLLT test with a red 630nm device at 4.5mW power output, on 35 patients with androgen alopecia (28 men and 7 women) in 2003 and also reported satisfactory results. In 1984, Dr. Trelles showed in one study that patients with alopecia areata who were treated with He-Ne laser 632.8 nm showed a good response. In 1996 Professor Pekka J. Pöntinen established established the beneficial effect of laser therapy on hair and scalp showing an increase in blood flow by 54%, using a device at 670 nm. However we must acknowledge that devices used by Dr. Trelles and Professor Pöntinen are professional laser therapy devices of a higher power density output. The basic general guideline is also that the higher the power output the deeper the penetration level. For example , a laser with wavelength of 850nm , power output of 200mW will have a deeper penetration level than a laser with wavelength of 850nm but with a power output of just 50mW. Hence devices used by both Dr. Trelles and Professor Pöntinen although are at Red visible wavelength should afford a deeper penetration liken to an infrared device. The Leimo is designed for personal home use designed as a very low power output laser device. This lack of power density are off-set by the use of higher wavelength at 890nm. All researchers acknowledge the fact that hair started to grow on the laser-irradiated area does only indicate the relevance between low powered laser irradiation and the stimulation of hair growth. These trials can only provides the suggestion of the possibility of the use of lasers to treat hair loss. Indeed further research are still needed to find the effect of low-powered laser treatment on human hair growth and how the laser stimulates hair growth. In short we need to find out the biological and physiological effect of laser irradiation on hair and hair cells. Hence we cannot conclude that Red visible wavelength is better than 890nm or vice versa. What we did was to combine both LED Red 650nm and Infra 890nm to give users the best of both world - Lower wavelength of RED LED and higher wavelength of 890nm lasers. We also offer a chance for users to try and a chance to return after 90 days if results are not satisfactory.
1] Satino JL, Markou M. Hair regrowth and increased hair tensile strength using the HairMax LaserComb for low-level laser therapy. Int J Cosm Aesth Dermatol 2003;5:113-117 Questions or Comments ?
|
|
|
||
|
Copyright © LaserMedics 2004 - 2005 |
||
