Kalo by Nisim (WARNING!)

Andrea · July 17, 2002, 5:58pm

OK, this one has been a long time coming.

Kalo is an over-the-counter topical hair inhibitor by Nisim International, one of two Canadian companies that operate largely out of the reach of US Food and Drug Administration regulators (the other is Ultra Hair Away).

Kalo should be avoided by all consumers.

Below are a few of the unsubstantiated claims on the Kalo website: <blockquote>quote:<hr /> “Kalo safely and effectively inhibits unwanted body hair from growing back permanently. You will never need to deal with waxing, tweezing, laser or electrolysis again.”

“Kalo is a true permanent hair removal solution. Kalo does not need to be used for the rest of your life.”

“Eliminate unwanted body hair forever.”<hr /></blockquote>Kalo is a textbook case of a quack product, with three big red flags: Testimonials, Money-back Guarantee, and Pseudoscientific reports. Any one of them is a good indicator you’re dealing with a quack product, but all three together makes it almost certain.

1. Testimonials

Quacks know testimonials are powerful persuaders, so they almost always include them in their sales pitches.

Whenever you read a testimonial, remember that there are people who swear they’ve been abducted by aliens, too. Testimonials are extremely unreliable. You can’t verify them by contacting the person who made the claim, and even if you could, relying on this type of anecdotal information is not scientifically sound.

Quacks know it appeals to some consumers’ curiosity and vanity to disregard scientific evidence in favor of personal experience – to “think for yourself.” Those who think an unorthodox method works usually don’t intend to mislead anyone-- they are usually motivated by a sincere wish to help others. They just don’t realize how difficult it is to evaluate a hair removal product’s long-term effectiveness on the basis of personal experience.

Below are quotations from other consumer watchdogs about the problems of testimonials.

Comment on a diabetes consumer site:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> They provide no scientific evidence, only “testimonials” by people who have been “miraculously cured” or whose medical condition has been “dramatically improved” by the use of their product. Testimonials are not science and have no weight at all in the determination of whether or not a particular product has any medicinal use. <hr /></blockquote>From a diet consumer site: <blockquote>quote:<hr />
Quacks often use case histories, testimonials, and subjective evidence to justify their exaggerated claims. Quacks try to appear trustworthy by having well-known athletes promote their product. Testimonials evidence is by definition biased and unreliable. Scientists report their studies in reputable journals, where their work is reviewed and evaluated by other scientists prior to publication. Controlled experiments that can be confirmed by repeating the study are the best way to document the truth of the information. <hr /></blockquote>From the QuackWatch website <blockquote>quote:<hr /> We all tend to believe what others tell us about personal experiences. But separating cause and effect from coincidence can be difficult. If people tell you that product X has cured their cancer, arthritis, or whatever, be skeptical. They may not actually have had the condition. If they did, their recovery most likely would have occurred without the help of product X. Most single episodes of disease end with just the passage of time, and most chronic ailments have symptom-free periods. Establishing medical truths requires careful and repeated investigation – with well-designed experiments, not reports of coincidences misperceived as cause-and-effect. That’s why testimonial evidence is forbidden in scientific articles, is usually inadmissible in court, and is not used to evaluate whether or not drugs should be legally marketable. (Imagine what would happen if the FDA decided that clinical trials were too expensive and therefore drug approval would be based on testimonial letters or interviews with a few patients.)
<hr /></blockquote>2. Money-back guarantee

Picture this: You see a professional-looking ad on television or the internet with Testimonials (see above) with everyday people claiming how wonderful this new product is. You think, “Wow, it worked great for them, and it’s not that much-- I should order. Besides, they say I can get my money back if I’m not satisfied.”

You cannot fail to lose, right?

Actually, THEY cannot fail to lose.

There are three ways a quack company can win with a money-back guarantee:

Count on low rate of returns

Market research shows that very few of us actually bother to ask for our money back on a substandard product. The time and hassle is apparently too much for most of us. Con artists know this too and use the money-back guarantee knowing most people will most likely throw their product in the trash when it does not work.

Make the terms of refund impossible

Other fraudsters won’t leave anything to chance. They may offer a money-back guarantee, but then tell you must use the product for several months to see if there are any results. In several months time, their web site and contact details may no longer be valid. Alternatively, they may add clauses to the money back guarantee. Perhaps you must use the product following instructions to the letter. When the product fails to work the seller may claim you did not follow the instructions properly and so you forfeit any right to your money back. Some even give impossible packing instructions that void the guarantee if not followed to the letter. Of course, some of the worst ones may simply ignore your demands for your money back.

For more, check out:
Scams 101: Anatomy of a worthless guarantee

Still make money even with high returns

Let’s do the math.

Let’s say “Brand X” costs $20 plus $10 shipping and handling. Since this product is made with cheap, low-grade ingredients, there is little or no cost to make it and they only pay for packaging and promotion, probably about $5.00 in total per unit. They’re even making a little extra on the shipping (let’s say $5).

OK, so now they’re clearing $25.00 a bottle. That’s why these companies can offer commissions of $5 to $10 per bottle to people who do the selling for them. The makers still get $15 to $20 profit every time someone else does the selling for them, and they just have to convince other people they’ll make $10 every time someone clicks an ad on their website. Some even have tiered commission rates for recruiting other salespeople, which is just a kind of pyramid scheme. Soon, thousands of sites all have banner ads for an amazing new permanent hair removal spray.

Typical response rates on sales pitches are 1% to 2%, so if they only get 2000 visitors a day (which is extremely low), they’re making 20 to 40 sales. That’s $500 to $1000 in profit, per day, from a little website.

Now then, for arguments sake, let’s say that “Brand X” is absolutely terrible, but they honor their guarantee. 50% of the clients return the product, and they all get their money back.

Even in this absolute worst-case scenario, “Brand X” is still clearing $12.50 per bottle and making $250 to $500 in profit per day for a very small operation.

Some people would do a lot worse things than sell scam hair removal products for that kind of money.

One of the biggest hair removal scammers made $75 million in one year. The smaller quacks are happy to make even a tiny faction of that.

Greed is a very powerful force in some people’s lives, and a very corrupting one, too. Heck, there have been a few fleeting moments when I sit in my small apartment and think about how easy it would be to make millions ripping people off with some unproven product. Even a well-intentioned quack who thinks their product truly works often starts getting the money and starts making even more extravagant claims to make more sales.

Some even claim to have invented a spray that permanently gets rid of hair forever. That’s a claim that is simply not supported by any published scientific evidence. And that brings me to:

3. No published scientific evidence

Kalo promotes itself with an unpublished report commissioned by the manufacturer and allegedly conducted on 17 women far away in Russia.

This pseudo-scientific report is no substitute for a clinical trial performed by a third party and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

There are no objective quantified data-- the summary is a vague “subjective evaluation,” an arbitrary rating on a scale of 0 to 100. Worse, they don’t even explain what their 0 to 100 scale represents. Is it consumer satisfaction? Improvement? What?

The only quantified data they give is completely unscientific. Percentages are based on hair counts within an area the size of your pinky fingernail, which is far too small and area to get a statistically significant sample size.

There is also no control, meaning that they did no count in an untreated area for comparison.

Finally, there is no placebo area, meaning that they did not do anything to see if the improvement was caused by a placebo effect. A real scientific study would apply a product without any active ingredient to see if observers notice any difference. Hair growth is very difficult to measure, and without controls in place, it’s impossible to make valid quantified observations.

If they had controlled by testing the product against waxing alone, they would have found that consumers who wax show “a significant decrease in the frequency of epilation,” to use their term, even without Kalo or other doubtful products.

Ask anyone who waxes, and they will tell you it gets easier after the first time or two.

Conclusion: this is a completely worthless unpublished report paid for by the manufacturer. It would NEVER be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, because it is utterly without scientific merit.

Conclusion

Testimonials, money-back guarantee, and an unscientific report that would never get published in a miilion years. Add to that extravagant unsubstantiated claims that using it will be painless and permanent (always the sign of hair removal quackery), and you have a textbook case of a quack product.

The only topical preparation that has done legitimate scientific research is Vaniqa. Because it is made by a reputable company, they do not claim it will have a permanent effect after you stop using it. There is no proof that any product can do this.

Kalo is a scam, pure and simple. Until they back up their claims of permanent hair removal with legitimate proof, you are better off keeping your money instead of wasting it on these quacks.

[ July 20, 2002, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Andrea ]

jon · July 18, 2002, 6:54pm

no offense, but it doesnt matter what you say, i still believe kalo works/is working. all i know is that hairs grow thicker and faster when not using kalo after i tweeze/wax. actually, i can see some spots where the hairs arent coming back, and they usually come back within a week or two, its been a long time since they’ve returned at all. so we’ll keep seeing about this, you may be right but im not so sure just yet. also, about the money back guarantee, there is no time limit and you can use as much as you want. if it doesnt work just send it back and they give a your full money back(with the exception of s&h). if anyone else is having good results please post.

Andrea · July 19, 2002, 7:21am

No offense taken. My goal is simply to help consumers make informed decisions, and to point out how hard it is to tell if these things are working based on the short term experiences of individuals. It’s the cornerstone of a quack’s success.

My issue with Kalo is their claims of permanent hair removal that lasts forever are not supported by any data whatsoever, not even their unpublished report they promote on their site.

Luckily for them, there are a lot of people who think like you, so these doubtful products are almost assured success. That’s why they never totally go away.

Definitely keep us posted. As far as other readers:

Negative experiences:
-Ted Striker (member 18)-- he used to feel exactly like you.
-Teen (member 278)
-Anonymous (member 138)

Jury still out:
-Jon (Member 50) said in May he was currently using it and promised to report back.

Try to find someone who is still hair-free six months to a year after use. You won’t.

Part of the reason I put this site up is to show the trajectory with many hair rmeoval products: initial reaction and excited reports, followed by gradual disillusionment. Unfortunately, many people are too embarrassed to admit they were premature in reporting good results and never follow up. This lets the quacks keep on going.

I hope you don’t think I’m picking on you, or that I think you are stupid for trying. It’s very important that consumers see long-temr results, and I want to encourage you to share yours, no matter what they are. This isn’t about proving someone is right or wrong. It’s about an honest exchange based on respect.

My issue with Kalo is that I don’t think these companies are very forthcoming about long-term results. You’ll notice the companies I go after are the ones who seem to be misleading consumers the most.

Thanks for your posts, and definitely keep us posted, jon!

jon · July 18, 2002, 8:05pm

i agree. i dont want to anyone mislead by anyone who’s just out to get their money. and i must say…im not totally hair-free in any one area…yet. but i’ve been using for 4 months now i’d say, and i am seeing a slowing and reducing. i will say this…there were some hairs that i did on my arm when i first got the product. i maybe used kalo 2 times there and left them alone. that was in the 1st half-month. its been 4 months and they’re thinner than the rest. you can tell, and they’ve not grown quite as long as the others. i’d like to say kalo is permanent, but i cant yet. all i can go on is what i’ve seen and that’s promising enough for me to keep using. thanks andrea for watching out for people. and i can say that a lot of information on your site is very helpful. i’m glad you try to keep a positive attitude. thanks

Malanagaster · July 19, 2002, 9:28am

I find it really hard to tell if Kalo is actually working. I’ve had about 3-4 sessions on various parts of my body, but the hair is growing at different cycles, which makes it hard to tell how much I have. If I were optimistic I could probably say I was seeing results, but I’m very wary of posting results prematurely.

BTW this site is wonderful, I’m amazed at how much work you put into it. Thanks!

[ July 19, 2002, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Malanagaster ]

Andrea · July 19, 2002, 6:08pm

Thanks Malanagaster, and defintiely keep us updated!

RudeBoy · July 25, 2002, 5:42am

You’re wrong on this one. The stuff works. Seriously. It works. Read that last sentence oooone more time… it works. All of the information on your website, flaming this product, is dead wrong. You are the quack. Well, you are a reverse-quack, quacking about the quack, erroneously, and thus becoming the actual quack. You are once bitten, twice shy, because of all the bs products on infomercials, in walgreens, everywhere, for the last 10 or so years, which is totally understandable, and so you cannot comprehend that one of these products actually works. I’ll tell you the secret: herbs. It’s the herbs, baby. You don’t understand them, the cats in the white coats don’t understand them, who knows, maybe even the people who created this product don’t fully understand them, but they work. You know, you are trying to apply “reverse logic” to the situation. You’d probably do the exact same for penis enlargement (to make an analogy here), and be just as wrong in your assessment. You would say, “if it worked, then …” and you would invent all sorts of scenarios. Well, your reverse logic isn’t always going to give you the correct answer. Your arguments on trying to prove the product doesn’t work, by working backwards from the fact they have a money back guarantee (??? this is a ridiculous argument you are trying to make), that they don’t have the strongest research (fine, fair enough, you win here, at least for the time being – and, the attempt was there, it just doesn’t meet the American standard of credibility, which, as we all know, is so gloriously honest and trustworthy, especially in light of the fact that the nations industrial leaders are all showing themselves to be horrendous crooks), and I dunno, you criticized their verbeage or something, which is stupid because their verbeage is VERY GOOD compared to anything else out there I’ve seen, in terms of laying off the ridiculous claims. I mean, they are willing to admit that the product is very slow to act, and I think most of the other companies, like that epil-stop crap, are very much geared towared giving an impression that it works immediately, even though it does nothing but burn your skin. Anyway, why don’t you … why don’t you do this. Do you have any unwanted hair, or maybe, somewhat-unwanted hair, or maybe friends or family with unwanted or somewhat-unwanted hair? Why don’t you try it, or have them try it? You run a successful website. Is the fitty bones really that much out of your pocket? I mean, it is so silly, here you are, making strong, definitive, absolute comments about this product and you … haven’t even tried it?? Jeez, that’s silly. MFff. Actually, that’s totally ridiculous. Why don’t you put a disclaimer above all your statements, that says, “I haven’t tried this, so I’m just guessing here, based on reverse-logic”. Then, buy the stuff, try it, and if it doesn’t work for you, change your statement to be stronger, and say, “It didn’t work for me, so I don’t think it works, and even though some people in my forum says it does, they are probably lying”. I think that would be much more responsible journalism. I can’t agree with jon and say you have a nice website, since the only thing I looked at was wrong, so I’m skeptical about the rest of it having any degree of accuracy. Oh, by the way, this guy jon says it works, how do you explain that? Is he a liar? Is he hallucinating? Was he abducted by aliens and happened to be taken to a Laser Hair removal center ? Is it a login created by kalo salesman? Or, or, are you… are you… wrong? I know it’s the last answer, since, like I said in my email to you, I’ve tried the stuff, and it works, albeit slowly, but of course you won’t be able to accept that, because of it goes against your reverse logic, and you have your ego to protect – ego’s hate, I mean hate to be wrong. (which is silly, because in reality the thing that matters the most in any sort of research pursuit is the actual discovery of knowledge, and being wrong sometimes is a natural part of that process)

Aight, that’s it from me, but seriously you should put some disclaimers on your site clearly mentioning that you have not actually tried any of the products you are making definitive statements about… it’s so ironic it’s almost beautiful, wildly accusing someone of disseminating misinformation, then being dead wrong, resulting in YOU being the one who was disseminating the misinformation! Hehe

liirogue · July 25, 2002, 1:31pm

The stuff does not work over the long term. My whole family (mom, sis and me)tried this, used it for several months, and there has been no improvement! It may work for other people, but I’m sure some people have had success with Epil-Stop and the like as well.
RudeBoy - As for Andrea’s argument, you come out sounding like a highly defensive biased consumer. I find her logic for the most part, well, logical and succinct, and with cites to back it up. In addition, these cites are from well-respected web sites, not little podunk ones of doubtful origin. You want to believe it’s working, so if there are any hopeful signs at all, you’ll jump on it.
Until the claims of the company can be substantiated in a scientific way, the product should be regarded as doubtfull
After all, would you buy a car that is guaranteed to run for 100,000 miles, need no upkeep, is fairly inexpensive, and has a 5 star crash rating. Sure, I would too, but not if their claims hadn’t been proven in a lab setting, and they have “consumers” in the commercial trying to convince you that everything they present you with is factual and doesn’t need to be tested, because, after all, it worked for them! Remember, a gross number of these people are paid for this, just like any other model or actor.

Amy

Andrea · July 25, 2002, 4:38pm

Hi RudeBoy:

As I’ve mentioned many times here, I was sent some Kalo by Tom himself in April 2001 and found that it did not permanently remove the hair as they claim. The hair returned by three months after I finished the tube.

But you know what? I could never have used it and still be completely accurate in everything I’ve said. There is no proof that this stuff can cause permanent hair removal as they claim.

The issue at hand is their claims that use of this product will cause permanent hair removal. There is no proof of this. Pure and simple.

Amy Banu, the reason RudeBoy is so defensive is because he sells Kalo. It’s like asking a General Motors dealer if the Corvair is a safe car. Do you believe the dealer or Ralph Nader? Well, I’m Ralph Nader on this one, and Kalo is unproven at any speed. Guys like RudeBoy have to be defensive in order to justify selling people false hope and profiting from it.

Bottom line: I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to back up the claim that Kalo will remove hair forever as they claim.

RudeBoy · July 25, 2002, 5:13pm

Amy: well, fine, at least you tried the stuff, and so your argument is backed up with firsthand experience. So, I don’t know what to tell you… but as far as your statement that I am hallucinating that it works, well, no, I’m not, it’s working, I can see it working, so we are at a stalemate. It worked for me (and apparantly this guy jon, and probably lots of others), but it didn’t work for you, and maybe a few others. Who is right? Well, what is the question? I guess if the question is, does it work for every single human being, I guess the answer is no, but if the question is “does it work for x% people” , then the answer is yes, if myself and jon are not fibbing. Also there is a user forum on the company site, so maybe you could email others’ and try to “debug” why it didn’t work for you and your sister. By the way, you didn’t give many details. How long did you try it for? How often did you use it? Etc.

As far as trying to defend Andreas argument, whatever, don’t you find it a bit ridiculous for somebody to make strong, definitiive, absolute-sounding comments about something they have not even tried? I mean, c’mon, it’s stupid.

Epil stop??? I have no clue if that stuff works, because I threw it away because IT BURNT MY SKIN, for something like 12+ hours. If you didn’t find Kalo useful (and I’m waiting to hear the details of your usage), then you should at least vouch for the fact that it had no burning sensation and no foul stench which these products such as Epil Stop and Nair have.

RudeBoy · July 25, 2002, 5:37pm

“As I’ve mentioned many times here, I was sent some Kalo by Tom himself in April 2001 and found that it did not permanently remove the hair as they claim. The hair returned by three months after I finished the tube.”

So you are saying it worked, and slowed hair growth, thinnned the hair, etc, etc, but that after you stopped using it, the effects vanished and you were back to your thick stubble? So wait a minute, if this is the case, why aren’t you saying something to this effect, because THAT’S A BIG HELP. I mean, all I know, is that basically I’ve been using it everytime I shave for the past 3 or 4 months (I have the receipt somewhere), and it has seriously slowed the regrowth, and the area where I have applied it has a lot less hair, and it’s light and furry as opposed to dark and stubbly. Did you have this experience? If you did, then you should be plugging this product, and not badmouthing it, because a LOT of people would be very happy with those results, I know I am. I mean, to be honest, I dont’ really care if the effects are reversed after I stop using it, because you know what, I’m not going to stop! There’s no reason to. The stuff is dirt cheap for what it does. I still have like 3 months supply left or something. I dunno, I’m skeptical of your “studies”, something tells me they were half-hearted, and who knows, maybe you have applied so much other crap to your skin in that area that it’s already hosed.

“But you know what? I could never have used it and still be completely accurate in everything I’ve said.”

Right, or, you could have been completely inaccurate! In any case, having never used it, your statements would be absolutely meaningless, right? Anyway, I’m glad to hear you tried it, and I apologize for being so abrasive, that was the thing that was pissing me off the most. I wasn’t being defensive, just pissed at the apparant stupidity I saw, but it looks like that’s not the case, so, sorry.

“There is no proof that this stuff can cause permanent hair removal as they claim.”

Like I said, who cares about the “permanent” side of things. If you are admitting that it works, when applied, as it did for me, and apparently this jon guy, then you should seriously consider putting this on your website, instead of calling the product a complete dud!

“The issue at hand is their claims that use of this product will cause permanent hair removal. There is no proof of this. Pure and simple.”

No, the issue is not whether it will cause permanent hair removal, the issue is the whether the product works! Whether it slows hair growth significantly, and turns stubbly thick hair into fine, thin, and much less visible hair, that is the issue! That is VERY useful to people, it was certainly useful to me and has improved my looks and self esteem a lot. If you want to claim that it doesn’t cause permanent hair removal, whatever, I don’t know if it does or it doesn’t, I’ll tell ya in a year or so, k?

“Amy Banu , the reason RudeBoy is so defensive …”

Blah blah, woof woof. Look, the real crooks are the cats wearing nice suits, driving porsches, and on your telly with that beautiful re-assuring smile, not the scrubby scrubs like me posting on newsgroups. I’m biased, fine, factor my statements a little and take them with a grain of salt.

“Bottom line: I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to back up the claim that Kalo will remove hair forever as they claim.”

Actually, I will agree with you here, because I haven’t either. Actually I think they mention that it’s only after six months that you might get permanent results, and the main emphasis is on slowing the hair growth and thinning the hair, so if I am remembering wrong, or they changed their claims, and are promising immediate and permanent hair removal, then I will have to say that this hasn’t been true in my experience, and the effects are very slow to manifest themselves, and can only say that they may or may not be permanent. Still, and I know I sound like a broken record, because something tells me you won’t answer this satisfactorily: it definitely slows growth, in a significant manner, and definitely thins the hair, also in a significant manner. If you found this to be true (how long did you use it, by the way?), then you should post these findings to your website, because I don’t think as many people as you think are requiring permanent hair removal, I think a lot of people would be happy with this result, especially in light of the fact that it is completely painless, unlike the other products I’ve tried.

jon · July 25, 2002, 6:05pm

hold on now rudeboy, i only said it “appears to be working”. hairs are thinner and grow slower, thats all so far.

jon · July 25, 2002, 9:28pm

do you work for kalo rudeboy?

RudeBoy · July 25, 2002, 9:33pm

<<hold on now rudeboy, i only said it “appears to be working”. hairs are thinner and grow slower, thats all so far.>>

Ok, let’s define this a little further, this is getting a little fuzzy.

We have two seperate types of situations in fighting unwanted hair:

LEVEL I:

Level I is defined to be the following:

-Significantly slowed hair regrowth
-Thinner and lighter colored hair (it feels more like peach fuzz as opposed to feeling like stubble).

LEVEL II:

Complete hair removal, but only temporary, and the product must be continually re-applied to maintain the results. (What Kalo claims to eventually do, after prolonged continuous usage over six months or so, and what it is generally accepted that Laser can do)

LEVEL III:

Complete, total, irreversible, hair removal on the area, with discontinued use of the product. (I Laser removal claims to do this after prolonged usage over a few years, but not sure on this)

So personally, I have definitely, without a doubt experienced Level I with this product. From the sound of it, you have too. You say that “hairs are thinner and grow slower” (!!), but then give the disclaimer, which is stupid in my opinion, of “that’s all so far”. Dude, THATS PROGRESS. I mean, aren’t you happy with that progress? Doesn’t that tell you that, well, something is happening, and the product is actually working? And gee, no burning either. Wow, what an amazing product! And here we have Andrea, with an all caps statement “AVOID THIS PRODUCT AT ALL COSTS”, doesn’t that strike you as bad advice, given your positive results? What if, and I’m confident this is the case, your continued usage resulted in further slowing, and further thinning of the hair? You’d be pretty happy, wouldn’t you? How long have you been using it? How often are you using it? Are you using it in conjunction w/ shaving or waxing?

It sounds like you have basically got Level I results, but are expecting Level II results, and so you say it only “appears to be working”. I have to disagree, and say if you have Level I results, it’s working, it’s just not at Level II yet. I mean sheesh, I say be happy with Level I, and hope for Level II or III.

So, the million dollar question, do you recommend the product? Was it worth the money spent so far?

jon · July 26, 2002, 5:04am

WTF rudeboy, do you have to break down what everyone says? that really gets old. no im not satisfied. until i achieve permanent results i will not be completely happy. yes i am glad they’re thinner but i do have to tweeze every couple weeks on my hands, and maybe once or twice a month on my upper arm. i have waxed my upper arm and applied kalo…results may be a little better than with tweezing but not a whole lot. hairs are thinner on my arm with less applications than on my hands. and i would maybe recommend this product but i still need to see what its going to do. this is a hair inhibitor that claims permanence, not slowed growth. if they advertised slowed growth then maybe i’d be happy. take this one apart and i wont reply anymore rudeboy. not to you anyhow. THATS ALL FOR NOW.

RudeBoy · July 26, 2002, 3:34pm

Jeez, don’t get all emotional on me. The reason we are posting to this board is to exchange information and get to the truth about this product, no? So in that sense, I think dissecting people’s statements is actually important here.

Anyway, to answer your question, yeah, I have an affiliate link to Kalo on my website: www.ThaManual.com Part of the reason I created the website was because I was a bit flabbergasted at how effective this product was, along with a few other products on that website (cough, cough), so I figured I would try to do myself a favor and try to develop a side residual income stream, since that is a very good path to wealth over the long term (eg, buy high-risk stocks with that “free” money). But listen, even though I am an evil greedy capitalist, it doesn’t mean I’m feeding you lies… in fact, you yourself have made some pretty strong statements on the product (try scrolling up in this forum). Anyway, I think you will agree that the real crooks are the ones wearing suits and running your telco company, not the scrubs like me posting on newsgroups and the like. Yeah, I might be fibbing, due to economic bias, so just factor my statements with a grain of salt.

Well, I agree with your statement that the company is unethical if the usage of the product does not lead to permanent hair removal, but I don’t share the same lack of confidence, because from the looks of it, at least in my own case, I think it will probably give permanent results – I mean, my hair growth is really starting to slow down, as compared to say a month ago, and it wouldn’t surprise me if eventually it stopped altogether. But again, I really don’t even care if I have to continue using the product, to me it’s no big deal, it’s priced reasonably enough that I’d be spending like $150 a year on it, which isn’t much money given how much happier I am with my looks. (I’m using it on my previously excessively hairy back-of-neck). So in my mind, I think their claims are probably true, and with long term use it leads to permanent removal, but I can’t yet claim to have experienced that yet. (and again, don’t even care that much).

Oh yeah, you didn’t answer my questions! How long ya been using it? etc

By the way, the company has a user forum of their own, so maybe you could go there and post your concerns about not getting permanent results, yet.

http://www.nisim.com/kalo/messageBoard.htm

RudeBoy · July 26, 2002, 3:46pm

Andrea:

In my mind, every day you don’t post an answer to my questions about your usage of the product, you’re credibility will be spiralling downwards in my eyes. Even this 24 hour lag tells me that your confidence levels on your statements are quite low.

I would like to know exactly how long you used it, what part of your body you used it on, what other products you used on that part of your body, and how frequently you applied it, whether you applied it after shaving, waxing, tweezing, etc. Don’t think that these questions are too personal, because you are running a website about hair removal, and if you made some claims about a dud product, and claim to have actually used it, you should obviously post as much information about your usage. Your statements were a little on the unclear side (which I find extremely ironic given you are running a website trying to find the truth about these products), and you hinted at the fact that you got “some results”, but that the results reverted after three months usage. Please be more specific on what results you actually saw.

I’m going on vacation for a while, so please don’t my lack of response as an indication of being short of words.

I know how you are probably going to reply, and try to get emotional, call me names, and turn this into some sort of flame war, but I strongly discourage this, it’s stupid and completely meaningless.

Let’s hear your answers.

jon · July 26, 2002, 4:35pm

omg rudeboy you really are stupid. if you’d check out the rest of the site, andrea has quite a job here. now, i’ve used it for about 4 months. and i have posted on the message board there at the site with my questions, if you’d go there you might see them. nobody’s gettin emotional here, but you seem so fake its not even funny.

Andrea · July 27, 2002, 12:15pm

Hi RudeBoy–

As I said in my first post, the reason Kalo should be avoided by all consumers in my opinion are misleading claims like the following:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> “Kalo safely and effectively inhibits unwanted body hair from growing back permanently. You will never need to deal with waxing, tweezing, laser or electrolysis again.”

“Kalo is a true permanent hair removal solution. Kalo does not need to be used for the rest of your life.”

“Eliminate unwanted body hair forever.” <hr /></blockquote>These are completely unproven claims. If they were based in the US, I’d have the FDA on their permanent claims the way FDA got on Epil-Stop for the same claims.

I don’t need to own a Corvair to know that it can flip taking sharp turns, and I don’t need to own a Pinto to warn others that they can catch fire during rear-end collisions. First-hand experience is not the be-all and end-all. In fact, as I said in my first post, testimonials are a cornerstone of a quack’s success. Rarely do consumers like you understand how difficult it is to evaluate a hair removal product based on personal experience. That’s why my own experiences with Kalo are no substitute for the kind of rigorous testing they need to do to back up their claims that using Kalo means you will remove the hair for the rest of your life.

As for details of my own use, I used Kalo on one hand and wrist until the tube was gone. I used a rotary epilator on both areas as usual. Three months after I finished the tube, the hair had grown back at the same rate on both hands. There was no indication during use that the hair was inhibited, and the hair returned to its normal density and thickness on both hands.

Tell you what. Do a similar unscientific test on yourself. Choose a body area and do one side with Kalo and one without, then do the exact same hair removal methods on both sides at the same intervals. Whenever you complete your Kalo treatment, post here to let us know. Then post again at six and twelve months and tell us what you see. If you have permanent hair removal that never returns as they claims, I will be very, very surprised.

Keep in mind that your or my personal experinece is highly unscientific, which is why a legitimate company does tests involving hundreds of subjects. Even with a legitimate product like Vaniqa, the clinical tests showed that hundreds of consumers using a placebo with no active ingredient were observed to have reduction in hair. This is far more difficult to measure than you can do on your own. That’s why I expect companies to provide rigiorous scientific proof. First-hand reports of short-term results like yours are not science, they’re quackery. Unfortunately, many consumers think that this kind of report is believeable.

It’s like fad diets. You know how everyone was doing the Atkins diet a few years ago, where you don’t eat any carbs? I personally knew a dozen people who were swearing up and down about how great it worked and how much weight they lost. But if you check back with those people a year later, 95% or more will be at or above the weight when they started. You know why? Because their success was based on short-term observations. With things like weight loss and hair removal, short-term observations are worthless. Permanent means forever. That means they only was to judge true permanence is long-term observation.

Where are all the hairless people who started using Kalo when it came out and haven’t needed it for a year? I’ve never been able to verify a single person who has had this happen.

As long as Kalo makes promotional claims that they can cause permanent hair removal with no proof that this is true, they should be avoided. This is eceptive advertising, pure and simple. If they were in the US, I’d have the feds all over them.

RudeBoy · August 16, 2002, 10:42pm

Fair enough. The claims they are making don’t seem well supported. I agree that their literature should be re-worded and not promise “permanent removal” until it is demonstrated more clearly as such. What you said about a crackdown by the Feds if they were in the US is probably true. Just goes to show how much the Internet changes the rules of the game.

But to me, in my personal experience, the stuff actually works, and even if it doesn’t live up to their claims, I think the product has definite merit as a hair inhibitor. They have some scientific evidence of that with their clinical trial – which although was not done to the same rigor as Vaniqa – still shows something. I agree that a more rigorous and credible study should be done.

Whether it causes “permanent” hair removal – I have no idea, but it sure seems like it is going down that path. It’s taking the “oomf” out of my hair growth. My hair in the unwanted area used to be like a demon which I feared, growing back immediately and with passion, and now it is like a little imp, with all of it’s energy having been magically zapped.

I really don’t care if it leads to “permanent” removal, I mean, if I stop using it and the hair returns to its normal luster – I’ll just go buy some more and continue using it. If I have to keep rubbing this stuff on the rest of my life, so be it, as long as it works. The stuff is pretty cheap in comparison to how worthwhile the results are.

Well, maybe laser would be more cost effective in that case. The thing that worried me about laser though, which is part of the reason I was stalling to have it done, was that I was fearing a “black and white” result – where one day I am a hairy ape, and the next day I’m hairless, it seemed like it would have been “too obvious”. With this kalo stuff it has been a much more “stealth” hair removal process.

I find it interesting that you are suggesting placebo effect. I mean, on hair removal? That would be pretty amazing, but I’m sure that more amazing placebos have been recorded. Such as curing cancer, etc. Maybe it is a placebo, and that’s why you didn’t get results, you didn’t want it to work badly enough!