This makes sense to me, because laser primarily effects the upper portion of the follicle; unlike electrolysis that removes the entire follicle AND the entire apocrine gland.
I am also increasingly convinced that the mechanism in laser that does "something to the follicle” is NOT thermal (only)! I think laser effects changes in the (upper located) hair “bulge” where the stem cells are located. If laser effects the stem cells at a genetic level this answers why it seems to alter the growth-stage pattern (it reverses the whole thing). I have observed this over-and-over … and this could indicate a genetic change of some kind.
Further to this “evidence”: A colleague uses laser at sub-thermal levels to treat African-American beards (many treatments). Without causing any thermal damage at all, the beards are being “thinned out!” No thermal damage could indicate genetic/cellular changes?
And, here’s the thing: if laser is causing genetic changes in the follicle cells … what is it doing to other cells at a genetic level? The cells in the melanocytes, for example. Also, the blood is zapped by laser … nobody ever considers this.
I have computed that if legs, or a back, are lasered, then probably the entire blood supply is also “treated” by laser. (I talked to a physician who was instrumental in developing laser. I will not divulge his name for legal reasons. He thought I could “be on to something.” He also agreed that laser “resurfacing” could create an “aging effect” on the Fibroblasts. (By contrast, I think the harvesting of “young” fibroblasts from “left over” adipose is the right way to go.)
I am certainly not making any conclusions. All of this is pure supposition/conjecture and only the next few decades will uncover any potential medical difficulties with laser: this the one pointed out today.
Thanks for the update, Ms. Mumba!
I’d be surprised if it’s a genetic change. The reason is because the alexandrite laser is 755nm, still within the visible light spectrum (specifically red light), and the quanta photons can not generate enough energy to affect DNA. Now we know UV light affects DNA as the double bonds in the base pairs rearrange so that DNA no longer follows the typical bonding pattern (base pairs are conjugated systems which react very well under UV light – in fact, even in chemistry labs, some chemical reactions only proceed if you shine UV light on it.) However, all the current lasers are 755nm or greater, meaning the photon energy is much less than that of UV photons (in fact, the energy decays exponentially). Anyways, just a little physics for why LHR shouldn’t affect DNA.
Yes, this was discussed with me too. How do explain getting “hair reduction” with no thermal reaction?
Truthfully, I don’t know enough of the anatomy and structural composition of hair to make a well-reasoned argument for that. The best I can offer is the explanation for why visible/infrared light can not produce enough energy to affect DNA, which is what is needed to have a genetic change
All the time I find another reason to regret ever getting laser treatments. This risk however seems to be so small, and another added comfort to know is that people who have been treated 2+ decades ago aren’t reporting any such things.
I’m not sounding any alarms and in all likelihood laser will prove safe. But because of my background, I always look at things from an historical perspective. The history of medical practices is, well, stunning for it’s mistakes.
For the last 50 years, we have been assured that dental X-rays are harmless. Now, we know dental X-rays cause a specific benign brain tumor (check it yourself). Of course, dentists are quick to say that the “new” X-ray is safe.
From the mid-1920s until 1956, X-ray hair removal was performed. Advertising from the period (1930s) said that X-ray was a “natural part of sunlight and totally safe.” Some of us might be old enough to remember shoe stores with “fluoroscopes” left on all the time … so you could see how well your shoes fit. Sadly, everyone that had X-ray hair removal died from cancer (a good friend of mine lost his mom that way).
Dr, Chapple returned from a conference several weeks ago and … looks like the “safe” breast implants aren’t safe either! This news has not yet made it to the media; but I expect that it will. (Getting breast implants should be a serious matter … not just for “fun,” and certainly not for very young women.)
The thing about laser is that YES it is in the safe “visible” range of normal light. But what about “amplitude?” We are taking a specific narrow light frequency and amplifying it to the point of being able to burn the skin. Such light does not exist in nature.
Indeed, our science/technology is fantastic and the human mind is capable of stunning feats. Problem is, our bodies are “ancient” and have not evolved all that much in the last 50,000 years. We adapt, but we are discovering that we cannot adapt fast enough to keep pace with the levels of industrial pollution that now threatens our existence and the planet itself.
I only wish people did not have an almost religious trust in doctors and medical procedures. And in reality, if you have had laser you are part of a decades-long experiment.
BTW I had serious concerns about electrolysis too … but this post is already too long-winded. (I never seem to be able to keep it short. SORRY!)
Money is intoxicating!
Just a few more notes. I suppose I’m not in awe of doctors, because I have worked with them for 30 years. They are people just like everyone else. Skilled and smart yes, but still subject to the same “addictions” that can ensnare all of us: MONEY!
The guy I know that does “colonoscopy” bills about $2,000 per procedure and averages 30 procedures per week. $60,000 per week seems to be a nice income? (Not all the data shows this procedure is needed and it’s not necessarily safe. Look it up!)
Ten years ago, I had Lasic (laser/eye) surgery. I got the “side-effects”: ruined my night vision. And, the doctor, the best at the time, charged $5,000 per procedure. He averaged 25 procedures per day. Can you count that high? He’s retired. Surprised?
The doctor I used to work with owns a medical spa and has a few “gadgets” that he knows are pretty much worthless. He just built himself a 7,000 sq. foot house … I wonder if those gadgets will be going away any time soon?
Are doctors “crooks?” Well, not especially. They are, however, human and the lure of money can “mess with” your ethics.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, and in fact, I would encourage more people to critically analyze the information we have. I just want to point a few things out.
Perhaps there is another study that shows more of a direct link, but this is what I was able to dig up.
This is true, although interestingly, according to these two authors (one of whom is a PhD doctor):
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1494.htm
http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/cdc/xray.php
The dangers of x-rays were well-known. Of course, how one sought information back then differs greatly from today. Supposing only the medical community knew about the harm of x-rays today, if someone offered LHR with x-rays… my guess is that information suggesting the long-term harm of x-rays would be more than available. All speculation of course, but just a thought.
True, although my guess is that there is a mathematical model to suggest a maximum amount of power so that one can still be safe (imagine if there was no upper limit on these lasers – I would be far more concerned.) Actually, as luck would have it, there is a mathematical model:
http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/12649/1/2009BEE4530_Group6_FinalReport.pdf
Obviously, these are high-powered differential equations, and this is just a “model.” This is also a student project, but I would suspect that the people who worked on developing lasers did similar computations. Sadly, I can’t find any papers online detailing in greater detail the physics and mathematics behind LHR.
Ultimately Michael, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be more critical in our analysis of medical technology. I am at least more comforted knowing that physics is helping me to understand the safety of this technology. It seems the x-rays had less of a physics-based reasoning, and more of a “here is what we noticed happening so let’s create a market for it.” At least, that’s what I gathered from the small amount of researching I did. I could be wrong.
You sure are a GREAT kid Brenton: a real asset!
Good job all around! BRAVO!
We should all expect great things from you in the future. You “Go boy!”
Michael, just curious, what serious concerns did you have about electrolysis?
Super interesting!
Thank you Michael. I personally find the highest of praises to be when someone compliments my intelligence and expects great things from me, so this was very nice to read 
Well, ekade … you DID ask! So, here goes.
I have to say, “Poor Mr. Hinkel; I drove him crazy!”
My first “concern” was with the HF (Radio/High Frequency current itself). The radio waves (obviously) “cook” tissue; much like a microwave. My question to Hinkel was based on treatment of eyebrows: “couldn’t the HF ‘denature’ the sensitive tissues in the eyes, specifically the lens?” (This is the same concern sometimes voiced about cell and satellite phones.*) The evidence that this is NOT a problem with HF comes from the nearly 100-years use of thermolysis on the eyebrows. Conclusion: no problema!
(*A 35-year-old friend, a stock broker that is “on his cell phone all the time” developed a cataract on one eye … the side where he’s on his cell phone. His doctor said that he thinks this DID develop from cell phone use. A few more years and we might have a more definitive answer.)
Then a few “choice individuals” came up with an odd idea, during the original “electrology wars.” She said (not kidding here), that the LYE produced by electrolysis stayes in the body (blood) for a full hour and eventually causes LIVER and KIDNEY DAMAGE! I’m no expert in chemistry. However, even my simple High School Chem class taught me what happens when an acid and a base are put together. (Blood is somewhat acidic and, of course, lye is a base.) Lye remains in the system less than a few seconds … is my take … probably doesn’t meander much beyond the follicle. (I will defer, however, to our own resident chemist here … good old Brenton!)
Then of course there is this %$#@*&^ electrologist living near me that says “electrolysis/DC puts ACID in the skin and ‘hurts like hell’!” When I see such statements made by electrologists (on her website), I sort of “lose it!” I’m thinking of an adjective here … any suggestions?
Thank you Mike. I’ll go ahead and step in here for the chemistry perspective 
(actually, this is better suited for a medical specialist/biologist since the chemistry involved is relatively minor, but I’ll give it my two cents anyways.) It turns out blood is actually a little basic itself (it’s pH falls at about 7.4 – your blood has very little room for error and can only be ok if it falls between 7.35 and 7.45). In fact, what happens if your blood becomes too acidic? You start hyperventilating to get rid of CO2 (which in turn gets rid of excess carbonic acid in your body which caused the blood to turn more acidic.) The body 's blood has such an incredible regulation system that small changes we do to it have a minimal effect.
Now the electrologist is right that lye could probably cause cellular damage to the liver and kidneys IF lye actually got there (even if it got there, the damage it would cause would be minimal at best is my guess) – the liver plays a prominent role in detoxification, and your kidneys are so involved in removing waste from the body as well. In reality, the carbonic acid in your blood that serves as a buffer would probably neutralize the lye long before it ever got to your liver or kidney, and considering how little lye is being produced… I think people are going to be just fine ;). In fact, where the lye is being produced, I’d be far more concerned about skin damage.
thanks again! Nicely done.
I’m assuming that lye is WAY more base than the blood. Thus, would the blood have a neutralizing effect on the Sodium Hydroxide — even though still a base?
Brenton: experiment?
I have a guy coming in on Thursday for a 5-hour session (blend-DC/back). We could do a blood draw before the treatment and then a blood draw, say, 3 hours into the treatment … and, check the blood pH again. Would this be conclusive?
I wonder if we can do this with a “finger stick” or need to do a full blood draw. I will check with the lab. (Our “Nurse Ratchett” does this all the time … actually “Rose.”)
Thank you Mike.
Lye is WAY more basic than blood (of course, pH depends upon the concentration of your solution, but in general, yes lye will be much more basic – but even a weak solution generally hovers in the double digits). Normally we reserve neutralizing strictly for an acid neutralizing a base. When that happens, the two produce water and a salt. It’s not the blood itself that will neutralize the lye, but rather the carbonic acid in the blood.
I’m not so sure that the experiment is going to be conclusive on the account that blood is so highly regulated. The blood analysis can give you a pH reading (I keep writing PhD), that is true. The problem will be this: suppose lye does in fact get into your blood. You just made your blood a little more basic. Your body will automatically correct for this with two systems: respiratory system (slower breathing = more CO2 in you = more acid reproduced) and the kidneys which secret acids and bases to regulate pH. All you’re going to be able to see with a blood test are the starting and end points: essentially an unchanged pH, which would give the same idea that lye never entered the blood stream. Frankly, even if lye enters the blood stream, it will react with the carbonic acid so quickly to produce water and HCO3- which are naturally in the blood as a buffer anyways. Even if you saw a difference in the pH (which I assume will be extremely slight), what’s to say that the difference isn’t just a natural change throughout the day – remember, what you eat and drink affect your blood pH as well! Even more so, different places in the country have different tap water pH’s.
The most conclusive way (and probably the hardest way) I can think of would be this: the lye produced is from the NaCl in the body as well as with H2O in the body. If you’re interested in monitoring where the NaOH goes, you will need to monitor what happens to the OH (the Na and OH will “split up” very easily in the blood), but it’s the OH that is of interest. Normally in chemistry, if you want to track what happens to a chemical, you need to radiolabel it with an isotope. Tracking it is another interesting concept in and of itself. That would at least let you “see” where the lye is going.
Out of pure interest, you are more than welcome to try this experiment! I just don’t see one being able to draw many conclusions out of this.
Too funny … I just talked to the doc about this, and this was his answer:
“Michael, why don’t you take a vacation?” He usually says this when he thinks I’m being my usual OCD self.
Just for my own interest. What isotope would you attach to the hydroxide? I seem to remember something about “valences” … it’s been a long time since High School. And, I only remember making “stink bombs” for the girl’s guy!