Such a thing was done recently with the findings of one of the most poorly executed (and "spun") mock-studies I've ever seen in "Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, June 2009: "The use of low-level light for hair growth: Part I". The guys that did it could be very nice guys and were simply reporting their findings, but I'm going to show you why both the study is invalid and that they have brought their preconceived notions into it.
Here is the PDF for anyone to download:
...And I'll post the abstract right here:
Ok, ready for it? lol... I want everyone to pay attention to this because this might be my "memorable post of the summer".Bogus-LLLT-Study wrote:Background and objective: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a new therapy for the treatment of hair loss. It has received enormous media attention and tremendous marketing budgets from companies that sell the devices, but no independent, peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated its efficacy in this application. Here we investigate the effi cacy of LLLT in enhancing hair growth. Methods: A total of seven patients were exposed to LLLT twice weekly for 20 minutes each time over a period of 3–6 months. Five patients were treated for a total of 3 months and two were treated for 6 months. Videomicroscopic images were taken at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, and analyzed for changes in vellus hair counts, terminal hair counts, and shaft diameter. Both videomicroscopic and global images underwent blinded review for evidence of subjective improvement. Patients also answered questionnaires assessing hair growth throughout the study. Neither patients nor physicians conducting the study received any financial compensation. Results: The results indicate that on average patients had a decrease in the number of vellus hairs, an increase in the number of terminal hairs, and an increase in shaft diameter. However, paired t-testing indicated that none of these changes was statistically signifi cant. Also, blinded evaluation of global images did not support an improvement in hair density or caliber. Conclusions: LLLT may be a promising treatment option for patients who do not respond to either finasteride or minoxidil, and who do not want to undergo hair transplantation. This technology appears to work better for some people than for others. Factors predicting who will most benefit are yet to be determined. Larger, longer-term placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and demonstrate statistical significance, or refute them altogether.
This "mock study" is crap, and I'll tell you briefly why, but no one should need me to walk them through this because we are much too smart to fall for this. Anyone should be able to see that this is bunk for themselves -no matter how "impartial" it claims to be.
Let's start with the very first sentence:
Ok... LLLT as a treatment for hair loss predates the brand name "Propecia". That right there should tell you that you should put this piece of toilet paper down and walk away from it."Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a new therapy for the treatment of hair loss."
Want more? Ok... It was done on a whopping seven people - SIX OF THEM FEMALE:
Only one male! But now look at the timeframes:"Seven subjects were enrolled in this study: six
females and one male."
Obviously you can't even establish trends with that small of a number, and certainly you can't ascertain whether it's effective for MPB with ONE PERSON, but did you catch the time frames??? FIVE OUT OF SEVEN (71%) ONLY USED LLLT FOR THREE MONTHS, and who the hell would ever do a "study" on hair loss that had six out of seven (86%) females, and five out of seven (71% ) only using it for three months when even the biggest forum idiot knows that it takes six months for most people to get results?"Five patients [the "vast majority"] were treated for a total of 3 months and two were treated for 6 months."
Also, this is a pretty significant factor that would effect the outcome of any laser treatment...
They are only using it two times a week, when every single one of us in here knows that you have to use it for three times a week. They aren't getting enough treatments! Laser therapy is "dose dependent" -you've got to use it a certain time and a certain frequency to get the best results- and all things being equal, they are only getting only 2/3rds of the energy they need to be on par with the average user."Patients sat under the ‘hood’ device for 20 minutes twice weekly"
Three months.... They are using a treatment for hair loss and telling us what to think about it after THREE MONTHS. ...And it's three months of only TWO TREATMENTS a week.
....And after all of that, they make the conclusion:
Based on SEVEN PEOPLE -six females and one male- you are going to say that?? One male ...yet it "appears to work better for some people than for others." HOW can you even make a statement like that... unless you already know what conclusion you want to portray?"This technology appears to work better for some people than for others."
This is the kicker, though...
Oh my god! IT WORKED. After all of this... IT STILL WORKED! They *did* find "an increase in the number of terminal hairs, and an increase in shaft diameter", but yet it's not blah blah blah statistically significant -never mind that it's only after three months, with only two treatments per week, which is REMARKABLE."The results indicate that on average patients had... ... an increase in the number of terminal hairs, and an increase in shaft diameter."
Do you get it, and do you see what is going on here? You're being taken for a ride. It's AMAZING that after only three months -and even with inadequate treatment times- shining lasers on your head will START TO THICKEN UP YOUR HAIR! Nothing else does that like this! That's amazing, but yet it's spun to be [drumroll please]... "statistically insignificant". LMAO...
Also, this "mock study" did NOT have a control group:
...yet that's not in the abstract or the conclusion, just buried on page 6 out of 9 (which there are more pages in this study than people). A "control group" could have shown that those on placebo could have LOST HAIR during that time frame, but the LLLT users did NOT. That would have tremendously effected the interpretation of the study, now wouldn't it!"A major limitation of this study is the lack of a control group."
This part right here is just jaw-dropping:
They were on minox! Any legitimate "clinical study" done on any topic would NOT include people using anything else that could affect that particular topic they were "studying". How many of us have used minox for six months and your hair turns to %&$!? Most of us? lol... It even talks about:"All seven had a diagnosis of androgenetic alopecia, and were either on no medication or stable on minoxidil for a period greater than 6 months. We specifically excluded any patients who had recently started or stopped these medications to avoid the confounding effects that this might have created."
Lasers STOP itching. It was unclear what was the cause?? How did this even get published?! B.S... ...and she was given this "topical fluocinonide solution" -whatever the hell that is- that probably has zero data on how it can negatively affect hair, and yet she was allowed to stay in this "mock study" with an unknown variable?! This is just ridiculous. One person out of seven is 14%, so 14% of the study's participants was on an "unknown treatment" that was administered for the first time DURING THE TRIAL. So, their statement about avoiding medications that could potentially add confounding effects simply doesn't hold water."Another patient (JF) reported occasional slight itching of the scalp. It was unclear whether this was a result of the laser or the minoxidil which she was using concurrently. She was given topical fluocinonide solution to use as needed for the itching."
First of all, any legitimate "clinical study" done on any topic would NOT include people using anything else that could affect that particular topic they were "studying". But I do find it HILARIOUS that yes... the "study" -as ridiculous and bunk as it is- could be spun to show that MINOX IMPEDES LASER SUCCESS.
This is amazing! lol... I'm going to be laughing all day. Stay away from minox, kids. If someone is going to [erroneously] tell me that this "mock study" shows that lasers aren't effective, it equally shows that minox impedes laser results. If they are free to make their ridiculous "conclusions" on what little abstract "evidence" they show, then I'm free to do the same -and we have pretty much the exact same amount of validity.
Just wow.
Finally, this study was clearly looking for REGROWTH of new hairs, and didn't even talk about STOPPING HAIR LOSS. So, they are using a different definition of "success" compared to other treatments. So, because lasers don't do something fantastic in terms of REGROWTH -in three months- they aren't impressive?? But yet propecia is?? DOUBLE STANDARD!
So this is science? If this is science... I'm sticking to the forums.
This study to me is GOOD NEWS... I see it as proving our DIY laser helmets based on the protocols we poineered ARE the best laser devices ever made in the history of the world. Look at the success rates of devices built on our protocols -which obviously includes my helmet- and even after only four months there is an astounding success rate. Pardon the "touting of my lasers", though.
...But of course, if we want to eliminate the double standard, we really shouldn't be even talking about it until a YEAR, right?? Isn't that what all the minox/propecia people say on other forums?? "You need to give it a year before you assess whether it works or not"??
lol... The ole "double standard for lasers"! Good times! I hope everyone can see this for what it is. This is further proof that there is just nothing to gain with these studies, and that we can't trust others to provide us information. The stuff that these reports give us on anything to do with hair loss is far inferior to the daily discussion at hairlossfight.com! If you want to see the biggest test for LLLT ever conducted, it's here, and it's successful, and scores of people will tell you that.
So here's the rule... if an alleged "clinical trial" doesn't show effectiveness for LLLT, the problem is with the trail, not with the LLLT -which I think I showed (one guy, seven people total, three months -not "one year" like it should be, two times a week instead of the standard three times a week, a mystery solution applied to 1/7th of the studied group halfway through the trial, no "control group", skewed definition of "success" compared to other treatments, it showed improvements yet the "commentary" on it was negative when it actually should be positive considering the timeframe, etc., etc., etc.). That's not a legitimate anything, much less a "legitimate clinical trail".
So, junk science like this continues to get released, and yet we as "LLLT supporters" are expected to acknowledge it and have a "true debate" over this, and if we don't... *we* are obviously in the wrong. Hey, it's PUBLISHED. It must be true, right? If I -John Christian- ever attempted to release data like this on a forum -much less a "respected publication"- I'd be ridiculed, yet these guys have the backing of "established professionals" at Cornell and Tulane. The system is broken, baby! Don't be a sucker!
I hope that you take this a step further than just what this one study says and start applying it to other studies. Hmmm... maybe this whole "minox/propecia are 80% effective" thing should be looked at closer, huh?! Nah... that'll never happen, will it. Let's just stick to witch hunting laser therapy.
-O.M.G.