Laser comb: baldness cure or quackery?

Factual Questions
1

I saw a report on a hair comb-like product that emits a laser and has been approved in Canada as a way to prevent hair loss and even as a way to grow some back.

The Hair Max has costs $600+ (US) and about $1,000 CDN (after taxes). It has been reported on by Time Magazine, Times of London, and others.

http://www.hairmax.com/TIME.htm

A female friend in her 20s is loosing her hair and this seems like a wonderful product – assuming it works.

Have any dopers or their friends or family used this thing? I need a very honest opinon before plunking down all this money…

2

I don’t know anything specific about it. I could see where a plain plastic comb could be said to add “body, shine, bounce and density” to hair. Note that FDA medical approval has not even been applied for yet, which I suspect is a good strategy when something is not expected to achieve such approval.

Sorry to be negative, but I’d be shocked if it produces results even one tenth of what most users would hope for. I’m skeptical that it would do much (or any) good and not be better known, both in the scientific community and to the general public. Strikes me as the latest version of “Hey! This modern ‘gee-whiz’ technology will solve this centuries-old problem!” marketing, to be followed months later by widespread reports of disappointed users and, eventually, clinical evidence that it doesn’t do squat.

I’d love to be mistaken in my pessimism, but I would counsel healthy skepticism.

3

Well, they’re definitely lying about the “FDA cosmetic approval” nonsense.

  1. FDA regulations require lasers to meet certain guidelines when used in medical devices, but the guidelines apply to CD players equally well. I’d guess that this thing is a Class I laser, so low-powered that it doesn’t require a label.

  2. Cosmetic ingredients require no efficacy testing whatsoever; they must be safe, and I’d guess that a low-wattage laser aimed at your hair is as safe as anything. A good rule of thumb for evaluating extraordinary claims for cosmetics is “if it worked, it would be a drug.” There is nothing the FDA would have to say about something purported to produce “lustrous hair.”

  3. I also find it telling that their sole clinical experiment is an unblinded experiment run by the “Clinic Director & Laser Safety Officer” of the “Laser Hair and Scalp Clinic,” and published in the “International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery and Aesthetic Dermatology,” which is no longer active.

4

Combs with frikkin’ lasers on their tops?

5

Pure hype.

Putting a laser in a comb would also require a power source such as a small (AA?) battery(ies) and be unwieldy at best.

$600 wotrth of Roagaine would be money better spent.

If it sounds too good to be true it probably is!

6

However, Rogaine is not for everyone who is losing hair - you have to be losing it in a vertex pattern (i.e., there’s a bald spot, not a receding hairline, if I understand it all correctly). I’m not sure if this newfangled doohickey can be used on any scalp.

7

However, Rogaine is not for everyone who is losing hair - you have to be losing it in a vertex pattern (i.e., there’s a bald spot, not a receding hairline, if I understand it all correctly). I’m not sure if this newfangled doohickey can be used on any scalp.

8

Notice the Phrase:

Anecdotal evidence indicates that patients have seen improvements in hair quality and thickness with healthier scalps.

'scuse me? How about some double blind independantly verified stuff?

Also: If I recall, the FDA is in charge of Infra Red Lasers. That’s why the FTC can’t stop laser speed jammers, I believe. Anyhow, it’s hype. They’re like those penis enlargement pill sellers. They are expecting most to be too embarrassed to ask for a refund.

If you do, Card it. So you can get your money back easier.

9

Let’s put it this way: it won’t echo.

10

“low-level cold beam”??? I have three of those myself. They’re called laser pointers, for which I paid 2.50 each at the dollar store.

My answer

11

Thanks for the replies.

Could you have a look at this link:
http://www.dermalogix.net/news/candian.html

It is the press release from the company that makes the laser comb. At the bottom are the Health Canada documents that show it has been approved for medical use.

But the Health Canada form doesn’t confirm or deny their claims:

…certification by the Canadian Government as a Class 2 Medical Device for claims and indications to strengthen hair, prevent hair loss, and stimulate re-growth of scalp hair in men and women…

Their claim is pretty specific. Are you saying that there are straight-out lying?

12

I would suggest it’s easy to misinterpret what that license is telling us. From perusing the regulations involved (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-27/SOR-98-282/text.html), I gather that it’s more of a registration with the government than anything else.

Here’s the part about effectiveness. Note a lack of any actual standard of demonstration, much less proof, of said effectiveness:

*12. A medical device shall perform as intended by the manufacturer and shall be effective for the medical conditions, purposes and uses for which it is manufactured, sold or represented.[i/]

Later on, we see that in applying for the form one is to submit:

b) a list of the standards complied with in the manufacture of the device to satisfy the safety and effectiveness requirements;
c) an attestation by a senior official of the manufacturer that the manufacturer has objective evidence to establish that the device meets the safety and effectiveness requirements;

Presumably it’s up to the manufacturer to select the “standards” for b, and note that the “objective evidence” for c doesn’t have to be submitted – they just have to claim they’ve got it, and apparently don’t even have to specify what type of “evidence” it is.

Again, sorry to be the dasher of hopes, but I get the feeling that it’s pretty much a rubber stamp procedure to get this license. I don’t see any indication that the government agency involved makes any effort to verify the claims, only to verify that the application is submitted properly. In other words, we have bureaucratic oversight, not scientific oversight.

The tone and content of all the company’s claims I’ve seen so far are consistent with what is typically done with stuff that doesn’t really work. Innuendo (the government licensed it so it’s gotta work, right?), “scientific” nonsense (from your link – "natural, scientific process known as Photo BioStimulation " – gimme a break!), testimonials, patents – everything except verifiable evidence that meets commonly accepted standards. In my experience, when something new really works, the word gets out fast (cf. Rogaine) and the company doesn’t have to rely on this kind of weak, indirect support for their claims.

13

Standard technique for quack gizmos; quote compliance with official sounding standards and imply that compliance actually means approval by the relevant authorities. Usually the standards quoted have absolutely nothing to do with the claims they are making and the authorities mentioned have no interest in their product whatsoever.

14

It’s quackery. No doubt about it. A thousand fricking dollars for a gadget that shines red laser light on your scalp?

We should ask to see the manufacturers’ objective evidence referred to in the Medical Devices Regulations, section 32 (1)(c).

A long time ago, didn’t Mad Magazine have an ad about a laser razor? I say we put both of them in the same room and let them figut it out. :slight_smile:

15

Surely it would be better to combine the laser comb with a laser that also permanently removes hair. I can’t see a contradiction there.

16

So how would it work with a comb-over? :smiley:

17

Another good point is that the device “stimulates blood flow”. This has been the method of decades’ worth of quack baldness cures, and it doesn’t work, obviously. If you want to stimulate blood flow, put a hot towel on your head.

18

I received this e-mail from Health Canada in response to a question about what their approval of the Hair Max really means:

What do you think?