Kalo comments from Hairfacts

I’m updating some information on the other site, and I’m moving these archived comments about Kalo hair inhibitor here.


posted 07-28-2002 05:18 PM

I tested Kalo to see if it lived up to claims like these:
"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.’
Kalo did not live up to these claims.
As far as the money-back guarantee, this is a classic ploy used by questionable companies. Some even offer double or triple your money back, because they know they’ll still make a profit.
I discuss the win-win for promoters of money-back guarantees as item #2 here.
Bottom line: whatever you want to call it, Kalo has no proof that continued use will eventually lead to never needing to remove hair in the treated area again. That’s why I tell consumers to avoid your product. These sorts of claims are unfounded at best and fraudulent at worst.

Administrator posted 07-28-2002 05:26 PM

there are some problems with our message board. We recently went to a two server system to ensure that we never had down time. It seems to be making a mess of our message board. I will grant you that we do not have proof that the hair will be inhibited for ever. I dont think anyone can prove that. Our product does inhibit the hair that we do have proof of. As far as we can tell the hair will stay away for ever, there is no reason to believe that hair that has been gone for over 6 months will return.
I would like you to show me a company that gives double and triple your money back for a product that doesnt work. I could make money buying that product.
There may be companies that make such an offer but then never give your moeny back, (that isnt much of a guarantee.) We have never refused to give anyone there money back.
In fact any refunds we do have are provided promptly.
I will make a post at your site. Lets see how long my post lasts.hairfacts
unregistered posted 07-28-2002 05:35 PM

Tom writes: “I will grant you that we do not have proof that the hair will be inhibited for ever.”
Hmm, yet you promote your product with claims like:
“Remove unwanted body hair permanently, safely, and effectively.”
“Kalo safely and effectively inhibits unwanted body hair from growing back permanently.”
OK, so now you qualify and say that’s not really true, but maybe six months? I haven’t even heard of anyone who can go six months after using your product without having hair return in the treated area.
This kind of deceptive and unsubstantiated advertising is what gives the hair removal industry a bad name. You are selling false hope and profiting from misleading consumers. I wish I could make you understand how wrong that is.
As far as money-back guarantees, go to Google and type in “double money back” and “triple money back” and you’ll find all kinds of scams with these money-back offers.
The burden of proof to back up your claims with legitimate data is on you. you haven’t met that burden of proof, and consumers should avoid your product until you provide some legitimate proof that it works under controlled conditions, and just how well they can expect it to work.


“Remove unwanted body hair permanently, safely, and effectively.”

“Kalo is a true permanent hair removal solution.”
Look on the front page of their site for more unsubstantiated claims.
Oh, and look at the name of that domain. See where it says “hair-removal”?
The only thing I am against is unsubstantiated claims. I have plenty of good things to say about all the legitimate methods of hair removal. I have nothing against experimental products that are backed with published data, like topical soymilk as a hair inhibitor.
I know you will never understand this, but Kalo makes claims that it will cause permanent results, and there is not one shred of scientific evidence at this time that this claim is true. Consumers should demand proof. That’s all.
Joe mentions: “Who knows what the truth is, but I know this tho, not unless you try you will never know.” I couldn’t agree more. Unless you try a controlled experiment with a large group of subjects under scientific conditions to see its effects, you will never know. Individual consumer experiences are completely unscientific and are full of too many variables to make any valid scientific assessment.
Fortunately for Kalo, there will always be people like X3055 who don’t really care about things like facts and science. Swing by my site a year after you’ve finished using Kalo, and we’ll talk about your results.

Junior Member posted 07-29-2002 04:58 PM

Andrea’s previous post : “Unless you try a controlled experiment with a large group of subjects under scientific conditions to see its effects, you will never know. Individual consumer experiences are completely unscientific and are full of too many variables to make any valid scientific assessment.”
One thing that you must realize is that permanency is a relative term. There are myriad instances of hair returning after alleged “permanency”. These causes range from certain illnesses (kidney problems, thyroid disorders, and the like) to medications which trigger hair growth.
The fact of the matter is that hair follicles cover every portion of our body except for the palms of our hands and soles of our feet. Ostensibly, most people enjoy dormant follicles in what would otherwise be a socially unattractive place to grow hair.
(Some)electrologists are notorious for making permanency claims without knowing the science of hair removal, the consistency and regularity of visits, and the treatment of the hair and its follicle in the most crucial stage (anagen). In some instances, people see results with electrolysis and enjoy “permanent” removal. However, this is not necessarily de facto as people (whom I know personally) agonized through seven years of needle electrolysis with mediocre results and new scars.
Maybe electrolysis has the scientific data to validate their permanency claims, but just bear in mind that even the most time tested method of treatment doesn’t guarantee results for everyone. Your argument about the Kalo’s false claims of permanency may be accurate for SOME; however, for those who are experiencing results with Kalo and are truthful as such,
your claim is unfounded.
I understand your premise, though: Caveat Emptor. And to that, I am thankful for watchdog groups.

unregistered posted 07-29-2002 07:43 PM

I am one who has been using kalo for a whole year now.
It seems to me that you are just as passionate about getting ripped off as I am. Although, I believe you could stand to be a bit more studious.
Before I bought kalo, I did what I would consider a minimal amount of research on it. At no time did I believe that it was a hair remover.
The instructions say that it is to be used after hair removal to inhibit the hair from growing back. This was always the information given out, both on the site, by Tom, and others.
I also read the study that suggested that it works better on some areas then on others.
Other peoples reports seemed to confirm this, and, I quickly learned that it did appear to be quite true.
From reading your post on your own forum, you only used it for 3 months, perhaps improperly.
In my experience, that is no where NEAR enough time to make any kind of judgement on it. For me at least, kalo is a slow deliberate journey then a wonder product.
If I may explain.
Sadly, I am quite a bit hairier then most of the “hairless primates” on this earth.
I have tried everything I can afford. Starting with simple shaving, then moving on to the horrors of waxing. I became quite accustomed to tweezing… more then some folks would consider appropriate for a young male.
Again and again, I knowingly lept for the empty promises of television.
Twice have I been burned by Igia products, both literally and financially.
Electric tweezer wands, waxing gels, strips, and pads. Chemical depilators.
Transdermal gel/pad electrolysis…
Yeah, I’ve done that. Even home electrolysis with the little needle. The horror.
Then I found out about kalo while searching for hair removal. I wandered into, of all places, a transvestite forum.
I figured that these people should know what works, and what doesn’t. And they seemed adamant that kalo worked, and was permanent.
I waited a good long while before buying it. I decided to be patient. More patient then I probably should be, considering.
What they say about some areas working faster then others certainly seems to be true.
I use both tweezing and a rotary epilator to accomplish what I consider a total area session.
I have logged 26 complete hair removal sessions on my eyebrows (tweezer only).
… I am only NOW seeing a reduction in growth.
However, I have only completed 5 sessions on my arms, and am already very happy with the results.
8 Sessions on my under arms has started to show promise as well.
10 and 12 sessions below the belt have yielded very moderate results.
But only 3 on my feet have done wonders.
Only 3 sessions on my backside has shown a dramatic thinning of the hairs, and reduction in density.
But 5 on the area beside that has been less stellar.
5 sessions on my shoulders has certainly done some good.
Other areas have only seen 1 session each, as I need more kalo before I can
continue these new places, such as my back.
I know how quickly it takes for my hair to regrow, so I certainly know that it takes much longer for hair to regrow when I use kalo.
Perhaps if in another 2 years this doesn’t work, I will be on your side.
But for now, I shall stay the course. It seems to be working. Painfully slow and expensive? Yes.
A scam? From what I have seen on myself, I don’t think so.PettyRevenger
unregistered posted 07-29-2002 07:46 PM

Oh, and about deleting posts…
None of my posts have ever been deleted, though many probably should have.

unregistered posted 07-29-2002 11:26 PM

Hi Cloudbreak and PettyRevenger—
Thanks for your notes, and allow me to make a couple of comments.
I know this is long, but hair removal is a complicated issue.

  1. The unreliability of personal results
    PettyRevenger, I am aware that Kalo claims to be a hair inhibitor and not a hair remover, and that it is to be used in conjunction with a method of epilation. When I tried it myself, I used it after epilation using a rotary epilator on my hand and arms and applied it according to instructions. By the time I finished my 2-ounce tube, I had seen no inhibition in comparison to the area where I had not used it. But you are falling into the same trap that I am trying to get others to avoid: personal experiences are highly unreliable and completely unscientific when it comes to something as complicated as assessing a gradual change in hair growth patterns over months and years.
    For instance, a lot of women who have plucked their eyebrows 26 times have permanent reduction in the number of hairs, even if they don’t use Kalo. The only way to tell if your result is actually caused by the Kalo, or merely by repeated plucking, would be to have a few hundred women do this under controlled clinical conditions. That’s the only way to tell if it’s the Kalo or not.
    Even under controlled clinical conditions, it’s very difficult to assess improvement with a product that claims to inhibit hair growth. Let’s take Vaniqa, a legitimate product that backs up its claims with published data involving hundreds of women. Perhaps the most striking result was how many women in the control group (who used cream with no active ingredient) were observed to have less hair. Of 201 patients, over one-third who used a placebo were assessed by physicians as either "improved’ or "marked improvement.’
    This huge number of "false positives’ means two things for consumers seeking hair removal:
    -It’s really hard to tell if a new hair inhibitor is effective or not, especially based on the personal experiences of just a few people.
    -It’s really easy for quacks to exploit this difficulty and make overblown claims about products they promote.
    That’s why you should rely on large-scale controlled studies to determine if a hair removal product is effective.

  2. Electrolysis
    Cloudbreak, as I state on my site, I completely agree that electrolysis does not work for everyone, and I cite several published studies which bear this out. The two largest suggest about 90-93% of consumers will respond to treatment in a satisfactory manner. It appears from other published studies that those who do not respond to treatment are more likely to have a medical condition exacerbating their hair growth.
    In addition, the larger published studies were performed at clinics where electrologists had received proper training and had the experience and skill to ensure proper technique. Those who go to unskilled or inexperienced practitioners significantly increase the likelihood of scarring and poor results.
    One of the main reasons I began my site was because I had such a struggle with electrolysis myself. My practitioner, while a wonderful person, was not well-trained and was practicing in a state where there is no regulation. I picked her from the phone book, and when I went in, I thought you got your hair cleared once and you were done. My results were permanent, but since it took such a long time, was so expensive, and caused some scarring, I began writing up tips on how to find the best practitioner and get the most out of treatments.

  3. "Permanent’
    The other major reason I started my site was to help clear up all the confusion in the marketplace about the word "permanent’ as it applies to hair removal. That brings me to a couple of issues regarding semantics.
    Cloudbreak, permanency is technically not a relative term. Permanent cannot be declined as an adjective. There is no such word as permanenter or permanentest, because it either is or it isn’t permanent. There are lots or per- words in our language like this, such as perfect. Something is either perfect or it isn’t. That’s the reason the Federal Trade Commission has sued makes of gravestones for claiming their markers are "a permanent memorial to your loved one.’ Nothing is permanent in that sense.
    Technically, permanent hair removal is the complete and irreversible disabling of a follicle’s ability to generate a hair. This is a very tall order, since each follicle contains stem cells which can regenerate completely unless all the stem cells in the growth matrix have been obliterated.
    However, it is possible to completely and permanently disable a hair follicle. The difficulty is doing this without damaging the surrounding tissue. Laser and electrolysis can do this, but it takes considerable skill to disable a single follicle, let alone hundreds or thousands. And this does nothing for all of the dormant follicles. As you note, we all have dormant follicles that may or may not generate a hair in the future, depending on many variables.
    The marketers of Kalo are the ones claiming they cause "permanent hair removal,’ by which they seem to mean "permanent hair inhibition.’ Whatever term you want to call it, the issue at hand is that they claim your follicles will be permanently disabled after you stop using Kalo.
    This is the crux of my issue with products like Kalo. There is no proof whatsoever that you can expect this result after you stop using Kalo. These product have not been demonstrated to do anything that causes the permanent disabling of follicles.
    Anyone marketing a product that’s intended to manage or eliminate hair knows that the word "permanent’ will get a consumer’s attention. In fact, one of the easiest ways to tell a hair removal product is a scam is if they use they phrase "painless and permanent.’ That simply has not been proven to exist, but it moves product like you wouldn’t believe.
    Because the term "permanent’ is thrown around so much in hair removal, I have focused my energies on evaluating claims of permanence.
    Using Kalo for a year is obviously great for the manufacturer, but what I’m interested in is find all the people who haven’t used it in a year who have this permanent result they claim. Where are all the men who used Kalo in 1997 and haven’t shaved since 1999? Where are all the women who started using Kalo in 1998 and haven’t shaved their legs this century? Believe me, if they were out there, we’d hear about it, and all other methods of hair removal would be obsolete. In addition, a huge pharmaceutical would have bought Tom and friends out for a kajillion dollars and the stuff would be on TV even more than Vaniqa.
    Because Vaniqa is a scientifically tested product put out by a reputable manufacturer, they limit their claims to those they have proven scientifically. That’s why they only make claims about hair on the upper lips and chins of females. They have not tested it under other conditions.
    Perhaps most importantly, Vaniqa did follow-up clinical observation and noted that like all other topical products that affect hair growth (even products with the opposite effect like minoxidil), the result stops once you discontinue use. That is the hallmark of a reputable company. They only make claims based on scientific data. They do not say Vaniqa will lead to a permanent results, because there is not one shred of scientific data that any topically-applied drug or herb will cause a permanent result.

  4. Conclusion
    I am not saying Kalo’s claims of permanency are false. I am saying they are unproven by any acceptable scientific standard. That’s an important distinction. Who knows, it might work, but they have never subjected it to the kind of rigorous testing necessary to prove their claims of permanent results. Until they do, their claims are without any merit, and Kalo should be avoided by any consumers who demand that companies back up their health claims with legitimate scientific proof.
    That is my goal with my project, and that’s my basic argument here. As I’ve said before, if you decide to send your money to Kalo anyway, that’s fine. I don’t get paid either way. I’m just trying to help consumers make more informed purchasing decisions.
    Thanks again for your notes. It helps to understand how some consumers are influenced to purchase a product like Kalo, and your answers have helped me hone my explanation of this complicated consumer issue

Administrator posted 07-30-2002 07:03 AM

This is an interesting thread
Andrea you do make some valid comments regarding the depth of our clinical study and the relative impossibility of ever proving “permanance” I think the electrolysis and laser people consider permanent to be 3 months and this seems to be allowed. I hope some of our past users will read this tread and post the results that they have had over a long period of time. They are out there we just need them to post. Kalo is just as permanent as electrolysis or laser in fact in my own personal case it has been several years that the hair has been gone without coming back. For the record we have had many companies want to buy us, but we are not selling. We have a nice business, that we feel can grow to a very significant business over time.
We stand by our principal of make a good product, market it and then stand behind it with an unconditional guarantee.
So far that is seems to be standing up to the test of time.
By the way you will also notice that there are no people who have reported on this site that they used kalo had results and then 1 or 2 years later the hair grew back. Where are all of those people? hairfacts
unregistered posted 07-30-2002 04:07 PM

[rejuvenu dot com/ajames.asp]

We are offering a $1000 reward to the first person who gives information for the actual address of Andrea James of Hair Facts. We would like to serve her with a court summons and hold her accountable for the negative accusations pertaining to our products. As of this date, any information for Andrea James has proven fictitious.

We have chosen to address the many attacks of Andrea James against the hair removal industry on this page. We have tried not to lower our standards by becoming involved in the controversy she attempts to raise. However, when a company and industry are dealing with someone who resorts to terrorist tactics, at some point in time a response is warranted. There are many varied terrorist tactics throughout the world, some hide in caves, others hide behind the anonymous nature of the Internet. In truth, we are not sure that Andrea James actually exists or perhaps is a created entity for the sole purpose of attacking the no-needle hair removal industry.

We feel that the public and our clients have the right to know what Andrea James , transgendered male, professes via her own Internet websites:

  • She admits on her own websites that she makes her money in advertising, writing television and radio ads.
  • She is not a doctor and has no formal training nor education in hair removal.
  • She has never seen, used, touched, nor tried our equipment.
  • You can talk to us direct, but can you talk to her direct? Ask if she has used the Super Phaser Gold, and if so, when.

"I think the electrolysis and laser people consider permanent to be 3 months and this seems to be allowed. "

12 months after final treatment is the current position of the US government regarding permanence, which I think is reasonable for results with hair growth.

Richard Felten is currently the US Food and Drug Administration’s regulator responsible for lasers and light-based devices used for epilation. He recently supplied me with FDA’s definition:

"Permanent hair reduction is defined as the long-term, stable reduction in the number of hairs regrowing after a treatment regime. The number of hairs regrowing must be stable over a time greater than the duration of the complete growth cycle of hair follicles, which varies from 4-12 months according to body location. Permanent hair reduction does not necessarily imply the elimination of all hairs in the treatment area."

Mr. Felten adds that to receive this clearance, FDA requires that hair counts be measured "at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following the last treatment.’

As I’ve noted before, if you and Ultra Hair Away were in the US, I’d have the FDA all over you.

"By the way you will also notice that there are no people who have reported on this site that they used kalo had results and then 1 or 2 years later the hair grew back. Where are all of those people?"

They are often too embarassed to admit they had fallen for an unproven product. That’s how IGIA could make $75 million in a year and make millions more the next year. People like to talk about their successes, but they rarely want to talk about their failures, especially after being so sure it was working when they made their premature report.

Absence of negative long-term reports…

Absence of positive long-term reports…

Absence of scientific evidence…

Are you starting to see what I mean about your claims that Kalo is permanent, Tom? tom

Administrator posted 07-30-2002 04:53 PM

Well I dont think we would have any trouble with the 12 month figure. Perhaps we can look into having the people in the clinical study in Moscow tested again. Although this wont satisfy you because it was not a double blind test. I actually think people are more inclined to report the negative results rather than positive results especially on the internet since they can just sit back and fire negative comments without having to look anyone in the eye when they do so.PettyRevenger

unregistered posted 07-30-2002 05:24 PM

Well, you can bet for sure that you will hear from me in 2 years if it all comes back.

Both of you…

But, hopefully, it wont take that long to get rid of.hairfacts

unregistered posted 07-30-2002 07:18 PM

I’m not sure about the positive/negative feedback ratio-- most consumers on my forum are posting with a recommendation rather than a warning.

Tom, I’m hoping you’ll find a reputable lab that can do the kind of testing Vaniqa did and submit it for publication and FDA clearance. Believe me, with that kind of reputable data to back you up, you’d make way more than you can imagine.

Consumers take a gamble on your product every day. If you are certain it works, why not take a gamble and put your money where your mouth is with some real testing by a legitimate lab or university that will publish the results in a journal? joe

unregistered posted 07-31-2002 01:15 AM

Tom maybe you guys should do a another test

both for men and women. Then if using kalo

stops hair growth forever, the company will

make lot of money. Every product can be improved, so same is with kalo. It can

be improved if the company continues with the research. Then maybe the company can do

test with that new product and prove it’s product it’s worth buying.

What I’m trying to say is you guys should go for it! Do another test, get approval from

FDA. What you guys have to loose. Prove Andrea that it works. Also it will be whole lot great if the spray bottle of kalo got bigger. It’s to thin and

does not contain enough for large areas. Hope you guys will do that.

I’m using kalo and I will post my results

(negatives and positives). tom

Administrator posted 07-31-2002 07:28 AM

Well… it is not that easy. The kind of study that a Merck or a Proctor and Gamble does to get FDA approval is very very costly. It is not something a small company can do easily. I know it sounds like the obvious thing to do, but we really do not have the funds to conduct such a study then to market it properly after you have conducted it. The big drug companies spend hundreds of millions of $ marketing a product in hopes of getting there money back in the long run. In the short run the benefit because the stock goes up. We dont have these advantages.X3055

Junior Member posted 07-31-2002 09:50 AM

Hairfacts wrote: "I know you will never understand this, but Kalo makes claims that it will cause permanent results, and there is not one shred of scientific evidence at this time that this…"

I really take offense at your condescending comments, "I know you will never understand this…". Any further posts from you will be ignored. Have a nice day. hairfacts

unregistered posted 07-31-2002 04:31 PM

Tom writes: "I know it sounds like the obvious thing to do, but we really do not have the funds to conduct such a study then to market it properly after you have conducted it."

That’s exactly what it all comes down to. A company can either test the product first and then sell it based on the results, or they can start selling it with no testing and no proof that it can work as claimed.

Consumers must make a choice as to whether they demand proof of health claims or not. Given the massive market for herbal concoctions, it’s obvious a lot of consumers don’t really value scientific data and are willing to rely on home remedies, folk medicine, etc. It’s a kind of faith, a less extreme example of those who refuse any medical attention and rely on prayer alone to cure problems. Faith is simply belief in something for which there is no proof. Everyone is free to put their faith in whatever methods they choose. It all comes down to how much proof you demand.

Ask yourself that question: do you have faith that the folks selling Kalo have come up with the first "painless and permanent" solution to unwanted hair, or do you expect scientific proof before you send them your money?tom

Administrator posted 07-31-2002 06:33 PM

Dont forget we did condut a clinical study although not to the rigors of the Vaniqa study. I am not aware of any other companies that sell similar products that have any kind of clinical study or offer the kind of guarantee and open message board system we do.hairfacts

unregistered posted 07-31-2002 11:27 PM

Money-back guarantees and message boards are no substitute for published clinical data. They don’t prove anything about the effectiveness of Kalo’s active ingredient, and they don’t lend any scientific merit to your claims.

You still make a huge profit even if every other consumer returned your product, and you and I both know what your return rate is. Most people don’t bother returning the tube even if they get no results. I didn’t. It’s not worth the effort.

As we’ve discussed, the absence of any long-term reports from consumers on your message boards or anywhere, whether pro or con, shows once again there is no proof backing up your claims that consumers will have a permanent result.

I commend you for being more open than your competitors, but ironically, it lulls consumers into thinking that guarantees and message boards must mean Kalo works. That’s simply not the case. It has not been proven by any valid scientific measure whatsoever.tom

Administrator posted 08-01-2002 06:48 AM

I am not going to keep going over this but it has been proven in a clinical study. I would hope you wouldnt return yours since we sent it to you for free.hairfacts

unregistered posted 08-01-2002 07:45 AM

Your clinical "study" lacks scientific rigor. I have seen better-designed experiments at grade-school science fairs. It proves nothing because it is so flawed. It would never be published or accepted by the government because it is devoid of the methodology scientists require of a legitimate clinical trial.

It’s just a commissioned report that is unpublished and unpublishable. It proves nothing.tom

Administrator posted 08-01-2002 08:20 AM

I beg to differ, it was conducted on humans by top doctors in the top Dermological facility in Moscow. It was arranged by our now Russian distributor for the sole purpose of verifying that our product worked before they decided to begin to distribute it. It was not conducted on mice like the study you site. I think we have been down this road before.hairfacts

unregistered posted 08-01-2002 08:28 AM

There is nothing in your unpublished report that suggests Kalo can achieve permanent hair inhibition. There is no control and no follow-up. To claim that your unpublished report proves your product is permanent is misleading to consumers.jon

Member posted 08-01-2002 09:05 AM

they’re not trying to win a science fair here…if the study is enough for most consumers to go on and they buy kalo and are happy with it thats all that matters. im still satisfied with kalo and the results for now. hairfacts

unregistered posted 08-01-2002 09:36 AM

jon, I wouldn’t say their unpublished report is enough for most consumers to go on. It’s just enough for most consumers who do not require proof of claims before buying a product.

Here’s the standard pattern of consumer experiences with products like this:

  1. Initial enthusiasm

  2. Reports that “it’s working”

  3. Completion of bottle and additional purchase(s)

  4. Gradual concern it may not be reducing the amount of hair after all

  5. Discontinuation of the product

  6. Return of hair

Let’s hope this isn’t your experience, but this is the standard pattern. I hope you will still be checking back in next August, and a year after you stop using Kalo. The permanent claim is the one that’s of most interest to consumers.jon

Member posted 08-01-2002 01:31 PM

not that it matters or anything, but i’ve not even finished my first bottle of kalo and im pretty well satisfied on all the areas i’ve treated. i dont know how many more i’ll actually need to purchase. lets just hope the success keeps up, if not all the boards will know maybe that wont be the case though.joe

unregistered posted 08-02-2002 09:01 AM

It has been over a week when I used kalo

and it seems the treated area is still

hair free, but I think I need to wait more.

I have done lazer treatment before and it took one month before I saw

hair growing back. I just used kalo first time and after more than a week I still

see no hair. If I’m still hair free that area for another week or so, it will be great. That will tell me that kalo is working. At this point it is hard to tell if kalo is working but normlly I should have seen hair growing. I used kalo by fallowing the instructions. I will post my results a week later.

This is for Hairfacts, did you fallow the instructions and used kalo the correct way? If you did, are you telling me that kalo did not work at all or you saw some results? tom

Administrator posted 08-02-2002 10:36 AM

Joe, Please post here with your results, but dont expect to see too much until you have used Kalo for 3-4 sessions.hairfacts

unregistered posted 08-02-2002 11:57 AM

Joe, I finished a two-ounce tube on the back of my right hand and wrist and saw no difference between my right and left hands during or after treatment. They still the exact same hair amounts today.

My personal experiences are not important, though. They tell you nothing scientifically valid. Whether I had results or not can’t tell you or anyone else what they might expect. The only way to know what to expect is to find out first what results they found under controlled clinical conditions. There is no way individual experiences can tell you whether a product like this works or not. One in three people who tried a fake cream in one published study were observed to have had hair inhibition. And these were doctors who observed them.

The only way to tell if Kalo can make a significant difference is to test it under controlled conditions on a few hundred people.jon

Member posted 08-02-2002 12:50 PM

was that example true? if one in three did with that type of cream that’s still good, to me at least. the fact that there was some inhibition is really good. however, the fact that it wouldnt work for everyone is disappointing.janice

unregistered posted 08-04-2002 12:51 AM

After reading through this whole message board my only thought is this: I am a 21 year old girl who has lived with a horible facial hair problem since I was 15. To someone who hasn’t experienced this before, I think that goes in one ear and out the other without a second thought. To myself and any other woman who suffers from this problem, hearing the term “facial hair problem” means embarrassment. It means hiding behind long hair, feeling insecure about someone touching your face, crying becasue you know its the reason a guy doesn’t want to be with you, jeolousy seeing a gorgous girl with smooth hair free skin with short hair or a pony tail and wishing you could do that. Thats what I do, I wish I could have a pony tail. Sometimes I cancel plans with friends becasue I feel I should wait till after my next waxing before I let them see me. I plan waxings around events I know I need to look good at.

I am writing this for both Tom and Andrea. Both of you have seemed to lose sight of the real issue hear, which I hope is to help people like me. Not just woman who want to shave their legs less often. I would trade having to shave my legs every day to not having the kind of facial hair problem that I do.

Tom I give you a thumbs up for trying to create a solution to a problem that so many don’t understand. I only hope you understand the people you are trying to help. I hope you realize that when someone like me sees an ad like yours it’s not about getting rid of the hassle of shaveing my legs less, its about being able to feel normal, attractive, and confident. It’s about changing my life! Don’t send false hopes becasue you have no idea what permanent hair reduction means to me. I’ve done electrolisis, epil-facial, waxing, tweezing, creams, and I’ve been scamed many times. I understand how hair growth works and i know it isn’t an easy thing to cure. The fact is though, even if your product doesn’t work permanently. It seems that it does infact slow results. I wax my face every two weeks. If your product can turn that in to waxing every three weeks, you have done more for me then any other product so far. My point is, if your product does that and that alone, to me it is still worth trying. You don’t have to pump it up with words like permanent and painless. If those words are true then fantastic, but don’t throw them around carelessly.

Andrea I thank you for putting thoughts on the table for those of us who are so desperate for a solution that we fail to think about the negative points that should be questioned. I myself feel I want to try the product with the hope that it will just slow the regrowth, and if that is all it does that is a step, if I end up with permanent results then I think I might be dealing with a miricle. It is truethat when I am searching, the word permanent and painless do jump out at me, but so would a gaurentee that it would at least just increase the amount of time I have in between waxing sessions. Thats a word I never see, increase. Thats is what I want. I want increased time between meetings with the woman who does my waxing. I am sad to admit I know her quite well becasue I am there so often. I am sorry for the length of this, I just wanted to refresh peoples minds of the reason we are looking for a good product. not for guarantees of money back, not for good clinical tests…for help.The Advisor

unregistered posted 08-04-2002 10:39 PM

Andrea heres one for you

If personal experience is to be ignored then what are we supposed to go by when you consider that the clinical trials have been successful.

I have found that with any problem i’ve had personal experience is the best way of finding a solution - people giving you their personal story have no hidden agendas - they just tell it like it is.

You on the other hand seem to have a personal agenda - you are so anti Kalo that you won’t even consider the possibility that you could be wrong - just maybe this is what we have all been waiting for.

You say that there is no proof that it gives permenant results - yet when people post here to say that it has visibly reduced the amount of hair growing on their body - you still put the blinders on - one guy has been using this product for over a year with successful results. Yes it is a slow process but i don’t expect to miraculously be hairfree from 1 application. I don’t think you used the product for long enough to get successful results.

So let me get this straight you want me to ignore this guys personal experience but believe yours when you have only used the product for 3 months.

So im taking your advise and ignoring YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Tom you have the patience of a saint - Keep posting you’re doing a great jobhairfacts

unregistered posted 08-05-2002 02:31 AM

jon, in the Vaniqa study, one in three women used fake Vaniqa (a placebo cream with nothing in it) were observed to have had hair inhibition. They were in what is called the control group in a legitimate scientific test. In other words, one in three were obeserved to have improved, even though they didn’t use anything. That’s what I’m trying to say about how hard it is to judge if a hair inhibition product is working or not. Even fake products often appear to work, even though it’s just an illusion on the part of the observer. That’s why you have to do a large controlled test with a lot of consumers.

janice,I think Tom and I have the same goal: to help consumers (at least I hope we both do). The difference is in our philosophy. I believe that a consumer product making health claims should have scientific proof to back their claims before they start selling it to consumers. Kalo believes their product works without such proof. They use all sorts of other unscientific evidence, which they say proves their claims. I say the unscientific stuff is a smoke screen and proves nothing.

People who invent new products and innovations obviously help consumers. However, in the case of manufacturers making health claims, sometimes products are promoted with claims that aren’t based on scientific evidence. For instance, St. John’s wort was considered a cure for depression and was sold as such. However, recent published clinical data showed the herb had no effect in treating those who have significant depression.

Kalo is in the same boat. They claim that topical saw palmetto (or whatever herb they use) can reduce hair, but this has not been demonstrated under controlled clinical conditions. I’m not saying it does or doesn’t work. I’m saying it hasn’t been proven to cause a permanent result as they claim. In fact, it’s hasn’t even been proven to show the temporary result they claim.

My belief, and the belief of other consumer activists, is that consumers should demand proof of health claims rather than rely on promises from the manufacturer’s salespeople. Some consumers do not feel the same way, and I will not be able to convince them that proof is a good idea. Consumer activists feel that a company offering help for a condition without proof is really not helping. They are selling false hope with promises of results that aren’t documented.

It’s just a question of philosophy. You can demand proof or not. But as a consumer activist, I can tell you that Kalo has no scientific proof it can cause permanent or even temporary results.

The Advisor, personal experiences are not scientific. It is extremently difficult to make valid quantified and objective observations about hair growth patterns on an indiviual basis. Controlled clinical trials with observations of hundreds of patients correct for the unscientific nature of trying to assess hair removal on individuals. As I mentioned above in the Vaniqa study, one in three patients using nothing but an inactive cream were observed to have had improvement or marked improvement. Obviously, there’s a huge margin of error and a massive amount of false positives when trying to assess hair growth patterns. That’s why someone “telling it like it is” may be completely wrong. It’s very hard to make an accurate assessment, even under controlled clinical conditions. When you add in that everyone who buys a product wants it to work, the number of false positives is always going to go up even higher.

I am not anti-Kalo per se. I am pro results. Kalo has not shown any legitimate scientific proof that their product can work as claimed. I’m just pointing that out.

People have been able to go one year after final treatment with laser and not had to remove hair in the treated area. The same is true for electrolysis and flash lamps.

I am not aware of one single consumer who has been able to go one year after completing Kalo treatment and not have hair return in the treated area.

I know you are upset because I am challenging a cherished belief of yours, The Advisor. I do not expect to change your belief that Kalo works despite the lack of scientific evidence. It’s like trying to convince people who believe in astrology or faith healing that there is no scientific merit for their beliefs.

My goal is to help consumers who want to think critically about things like this. I can’t help those who have put their faith in something that isn’t proven. They are not open to rational discourse, as evidenced by some of the consumers who get so defensive here. If you’re not open to rational discourse and don’t demand proof, I can’t help you. By all means, go ahead and buy Kalo, and keep buying it-- lots of it. Tell all your friends to buy a few hundred bucks’ worth, too. That’ll really put me in my place.


unregistered posted 08-12-2002 01:34 AM

I have read this thread with great interest. Indeed Andrea is absolutely correct, there is no substitute for scientific evidence. That is the bottom line.

Both Tom and The Advisor claim that the clinical trials have been successful. But huge doubts hang like dark clouds.

In relation to the clinical study Tom said…"…it was conducted on humans by top doctors in the top dermological facility in Moscow. It was arranged by our new Russian distributor for the sole purpose of verifying that our product worked before they decided to begin to distribute it".

This raises serious questions about a conflict of interest, impartiality, neutrality and professionalism. Obviously the now Russian distributor may have had a vested interest in this product. There is a clear lack of transparency and professionalism.

I read the clinial study several months ago and have always wondered why the study was done in Moscow. Surely you have dermological facilities in Canada…we do in Australia. What is going on? I’d love to ask the Russian doctors but they’re a whole world away.


Junior Member posted 08-18-2002 10:25 PM

I feel it neccecary to relay my own experiences (as well as my close friends’) with Kalo… I am not meaning to take sides in the debate; But simply relay the truth about the product as I have found so far.

I tried Kalo for a period of seven months in combination with waxing. I must admit that the product unfortunatly did not work for me: It made almost no difference at all. My friends and family have tried different hair removal methods as well: my mother and two of my close friends tried Kalo with me on their legs. My mother and one of my two friends used it for about 3-4 months, noticing no difference just as I did. My second friend used it for six months and noted that the hair grew back slightly slower, but otherwise the same. I continued using it for the longest, hoping that it just simply would take time, since (although I am a little embarassed to admit) I had faith in the claims. Unfortunatly, the product did not live up to the claims made by the company at all. It is possible however, that me, my friends, and my mother are just some of the few that are unlikely to experience good results… realistically, no product can work for everyone. I have not seen the effects of Kalo on anyone else besides us four, and would not be able to truthfully claim "it doesnt work." I can say however that with my current experience, the product appears have a very low rate of success.barejane

Junior Member posted 08-19-2002 04:44 PM

Andrea could you give me your address? I could use some extra cash.


This company isn’t taking your criticism as nice as Tom.


unregistered posted 08-19-2002 06:32 PM

hehe barejane, I know.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of getting the $1000 from these Rejuvenu guys is probably about as good as the odds that their device will cause permanent hair removal.

Rejuvenu is really sweating it because they know I am going to help run them out of business in the next year or so. Rather than attacking my facts, they attack me personally. I discuss their personal attacks here:


I discuss their violations of federal regulations here:


Kalo’s claims may be without any scientific merit, but I do agree that Tom is civil, even though we have a difference in philosophy about marketing products making health claims. Yay Tom!

I also see Tom is working with "Kitty" at the Consumer Beware site to do another completely unscientific and unreliable "test" instead of looking for a reliable lab that will do a real clinical study under controlled conditions.

“Kitty” is an old-school quack and scam artist, involved with similar tests and sales of bogus electric tweezers. Despite the fact that “Kitty” personally caused many consumers to lose thousands of dollars on this scam, she still doesn’t get that consumer tests are very unreliable.

Unfortunately, consumers will likely be swayed by this sort of information. The question Kalo consumers need to ask is this: where are the people who still have reduced or inhibited hair six months or a year after final Kalo treatment? Some short-term test of a handful of consumers is no substitute for longer-term results of those who are supposedly "done" using Kalo.

Maybe Tom could offer $1000 for the address of a consumer who is still hairless one year after using Kalo… :pbarejane

Junior Member posted 08-19-2002 09:27 PM

All of this is illuminating but I would rather just have your address and the $1000 already on the block. You have hairfacts.com listed as a business name on your legal papers to the FDA agency. Where is this business registered? You are maybe telling the truth so why don’t we combine forces and you give your address and I collect $1000.00? he hehairfacts

unregistered posted 08-19-2002 10:07 PM

barejane, they already have my address.

They’re just trying to create a smoke screen to hide the fact that their product is being promoted in violation of federal regulations. Alyssa

Junior Member posted 08-19-2002 10:51 PM

I don’t like taking sides in a dispute, but this should be pointed out…

Tom works for Kalo… therefore, he is biased. He makes money from the selling of this product, and even if he knew it didnt work, he couldn’t admit it on this board. He would either loose alot of money, or be fired by his superiors (or both)!

Andrea is selling nothing. What does she have to gain? I’m sure she is simply trying to get the truth out. My experiences with Kalo over the last few months have done nothing but prove andrea’s point.

We cannot trust Tom as a source of information. I’m not calling Tom a liar… but I mean, seriously… would you badmouth your own company on its own message board if you valued your job even in the slightest? I’m also not saying Andrea is totally correct just because she is unbiased… as I noted in my previous post no product can be sucessful for everyone. Admitttedly, though, from my experience its unlikely that andrea’s claims are false. I’ve never seen Kalo work for anyone who’s tried it. But… a bunch of personal “it worked for me’s” and “it didn’t work for me’s” on this board mean nothing… I don’t care how many. We dont even have a way of knowing if the company is or isnt posting the infamous “wow its increadible” testimonials themselves on this board! What Kalo needs is hard, factual evidence from accurate studies, with true and provable claims. Hardcore, verifiable, and non-sugarcoated data. If Kalo had something like that behind them, then this debate would have been long over.Cat

unregistered posted 08-20-2002 04:45 AM

They called you a terrorist, or did I misread that?hairfacts

unregistered posted 08-20-2002 04:55 AM

That’s right, Cat-- Rejuvenu thinks my efforts to educate consumers are the same as the terrorist activities of al Qaeda operatives hiding in caves.

People like this try my patience, but I know truth will prevail in the end. As I mentioned before, at least Kalo and I can disagree about philosophies in a constructive and respectful manner.

Rejuvenu is just showing their true colors. Nothing from these people surprises me any more.tom

Administrator posted 08-20-2002 08:46 AM


Regarding the Moscow study this was conducted before our distributor signed on. I dont think Doctors and Hospitals will be bribed into creating false studies, they would last very long.

To everyone else. Please lets keep this discussion to issues at hand and not attack each other on a personal basis.


unregistered posted 08-24-2002 12:48 AM

yo tom , look here now that you guys have brought out this product, there are many that are critisizing, but there are many that have hope. We are with u tom, but plzz dont let us down. Kalo better work.jenni

unregistered posted 08-24-2002 12:51 AM

yo tom , look here now that you guys have brought out this product, there are many that are critisizing, but there are many that have hope. We are with u tom, but plzz dont let us down. Kalo better work.Hairquest

unregistered posted 08-30-2002 01:14 AM

This is to both Tom and Andrea, I’ve been reading your message boards for the last hour, and I do have to comment. This may be short, atleast I’ll try to make it.A company making a product like this, isn’t a bad thing, it’s a good thing. Andrea how many companies out there do you know, that actually have a hair inhibiting product…very few. How many have really bothered about making hair elimination a number one issue??..none, as far as I see.

The hair removal products, for example waxing, or laser, are there to maybe give a temporary hair free moment. most of these companies/"laser workers"…have $$$ first in their minds. None of them actually are willing to spend their own money, and maybe come up with something original. They see how they could/can make a good dollar first…(this is an obvious fact, if people agree or not).

Now coming to Kalo, give this company some credit for trying, I mean this product ain’t cheap…I’m not saying that, but they’re doing something. If people don’t want to buy, it’s entirely up to them, I’m sure Kalo never forces these people, the people come to them.

I’m glad this products not sold in the U.S actually, because this would mean that someone trying something different would be stopped, because hair looks like a complex for some, easy for others, issue to deal with. Everyone would have to spend money on those high kits, laser. Even if Kalo works or doesn’t work, it’s different. UHA is another competitor of Kalo, they function the same way…but Kalo is more open, therefore it’s a plus.


Now Tom, I don’t know about you, but think about it, you said Kalo is been in business for 10 years now. Why is the product so expensive still??, I mean atleast half of the people can’t afford it, but may like to use the product really bad. I think the way to start off making a big customer base is to start bring your prices down, I mean if there is a confidence in the product by the Nisim company, then why not just give it a shot. If more people like it, more people would want it, and eventually you can go for a real test some day, like that drug Vanique, I think it’s called. Andrea at the moment, there is nothing out there that can claim to stop hair growth, but Kalo says it does, and true or not, atleast there is a product.

Andrea by the way, keep up the good work, people do need critics like you, it does open people’s eyes, in the various products out there. You come with a good knowledge, and no you’re not being Anti-Kalo, it didn’t work for you, so you’re skeptical, and that’s normal. Everyone has a different hair growth style and system in their bodies that work differently. At the moment there isn’t a product out there, that can work wonders but we’ll have to wait and see… Keep posting

Tom and the webmasters, you have to let the people talk here, no matter how their comments are, and that’s what would make Kalo successful. That’s what you’re doing now, good job. I know people have their views, some see the product as a “WHAT???”…“hair away for good, impossible”…others just want to try the product first. I’m glad that there is a product out there, that has a diffent approach to hair…and I speak for every individual out there, including Andrea…that wants originality, hair to be gone for good, keep working and researching for something new. A product that can eliminate hair, and give results. By the way Tom, price can really go a long way to make something successful, I’m sure you knew that already, and hope you do think about it ! Hope

unregistered posted 08-30-2002 12:33 PM

Hey guys,

Just my 2 cents. Andrea, one thing to understand about this is some of us do realize their in no scientific proof and choose to buy anyway. I am a 30 something female who has have been dealing with this problem on my face neck and body since my teenage years. It started off slowly at 13 and got progressively worse (much worse) over time. I saw an ad for inhibitors and figured it probably wouldn’t work but was willing to trade my money on the off chance it might, because my problem was so bad. Now using this logic I have lost money on scam product, but I don’t spend more than I can afford to lose.

My results: Well it was the worst on my neck. The strands were so thick and wiry if I shaved I had stubble in a matter of hours. Epilating would last only 3 or 4 days before hard stubble showed up and then I would need to bleach every other day (which took 2 hours) for a week until it grew in long enough to start the process over again. The strands were so wide they could be seen while still very short. The hair on my face was somewhat finer so I could go a full week there before starting the bleaching. Don’t even ask about the rest of my body. If I could hide it under clothes I just left it alone.

I started using a hair inhibitor (not Kalo, another brand) in early 1998. What I noticed in about 6 weeks was things slowed down enough I could go the full week in between Epliation and the start of the bleaching cycle on my neck. Even adding just those 3 days of freedom was nice. Then over the next 6 months or so the hairs started coming in fine enough I could get away without bleaching in between cycles. It just wasn’t as obvious anymore. Being able to get rid of that 2 hours chore I did every other day for a week was wonderful.

Things continued to very slowly improve and after about a year I didn’t need the epilator. The hairs had reduced in number so that tweezing about 15 min once a week did the job. At this point I couldn’t get the other product any more and switched to Kalo. Finally after over three years (two and 1