More on Kalo

Controversial & Unproven Methods Nonprescription Topical Preparations
#1

As many of you know from the earlier thread, I have tried Kalo and found it did not remove hair permanently as they claim, and it didn’t even cause a reduction in hair growth when I did a little comparison test.

Now, here’s the part that a lot of consumers don’t understand: you don’t have to try a product to say they haven’t proven their claims.

My entire project is about forcing these companies to back up their claims with some real proof. In the case of Kalo, there has been no proof that it can remove hair permanently as they claim. I don’t need to try it for that to be true.

Personal consumer experience is a highly unreliable method for determining if a product works or not. I cannot stress this enough. It is the cornerstone of a quack’s success, and it’s one of the hardest misconceptions for consumer advocates to dispel.

My information is written for consumers who understand the importance of legitimate scientific data and empirical evidence to back up health claims. That’s why I’m affiliated with QuackWatch and other consumer sites seeking to educate consumers on evaluating health claims.

I know I will never be able to convince all consumers, and to be honest, that’s fine. If someone reads my information and decides not to heed my advice, I’ve done as much as I can. It doesn’t matter to me if you want to buy an unproven product. I’m sure there’s nothing I could say that would stop you if you’re the type who is susceptible to this kind of quackery.

I don’t write for gullible people, I write for you, the informed consumer who wants facts before they make a purchase.

Someone told me Kalo was censoring a lot of posts, so I put up a test comment inviting their readers to come over here and see what we have to say:

[nisim dot com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000850.html]

Let’s see how long it lasts!

Update: It seems to have gone bye-bye already! Let’s try another one, a response to an existing thread:

[cd dot nisim dot com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000905.html]

#2

My name is Tom, I work for Nisim International the company that manufactures Kalo. I was reluctant to post here, because I dont want to get into a shouting match with anyone. Andrea posted on our message board

[cd dot nisim dot com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000905.html]

so I decided to post here. First of all we did not delete her message. We did lose some messages (they should be recovered next week) This was due to the fact that we just started hosting our site on two servers at the same time and the web techies didnt think of the problem associated with the message board.

Any way the reason I am posting here is to provide our side of the story. We are not a scam company. We have been in business for almost 10 years. We have never had a complaint with the better business bureau. We have always guaranteed our products with a full money back no time limit guarantee. (we actually refund money the same week that the product is returned) The consumer can even return the product for ANY reason. We have done clinical studies on our product that show that they work. The studies are on our websites [kalo dot ca] and [kalo-hair-removal dot com]
The studies were not double blind and they were actually commissioned by our distributor in Russia who wanted proof that the product worked before they started selling the product there. We didnt do studies initially because we felt people would see results quickly and we offer a guarantee. In fact we have another product with a solid clinical study that prevents hair loss [nisim dot com]. No one believed that study so we didnt want to go to all the trouble and expense for a study for Kalo.
Andrea can say what she wants we have hundreds if not thousands of satisfied customers. We give the money back to those that are not satisfied and we have a message board where anyone can post anything as long as it is not vulgar or attacks another person directly.
We dont delete messages even if they say our product is not good.
We NEVER post under assumed names on our site or any other site.
If you think our scam product is worth a try check it out at [nisim dot com/store]

#3

Don’t worry, Tom, this won’t be a shouting match.

Originally posted by Kalo Employee:

Any way the reason I am posting here is to provide our side of the story. We are not a scam company. We have been in business for almost 10 years. We have never had a complaint with the better business bureau. We have always guaranteed our products with a full money back no time limit guarantee. (we actually refund money the same week that the product is returned) The consumer can even return the product for ANY reason.

As I have discussed here, the price point on these products is low enough that most consumers don’t even bother returning it when it doesn’t work. It’;s not worth the hassle for most of us, and Kalo is literally banking on that.

We have done clinical studies on our product that show that they work. The studies are on our websites [kalo dot ca] and [kalo-hair-removal dot com]
The studies were not double blind and they were actually commissioned by our distributor in Russia who wanted proof that the product worked before they started selling the product there. We didnt do studies initially because we felt people would see results quickly and we offer a guarantee. In fact we have another product with a solid clinical study that prevents hair loss [nisim dot com]. No one believed that study so we didnt want to go to all the trouble and expense for a study for Kalo.

The unpublished report on the Kalo site is not a clinical study and would never be published. It is completely subjective and without any scientific merit. If you tried to get that published or presented at a medical conference, they’d laugh you off the stage.

Here’s what it all comes down to. They claim their money-back guarantee means it works. That just means they have a money-back guarantee.

Reputable consumer-products companies like Johnson & Johnson or Procter & Gamble are constantly testing substances for new applications in the consumer market. I’m sure they have done tests with whatever Kalo’s secret ingredient is. My tube lists “herbal extract” as the magic ingredient. Pretty vague, huh?

As Tom says, if you think it’s worth gambling $45 to $55 on something with no proof it can work as claimed, go for it. I recommend avoiding products like this unless there’s proof, but it’s your money. I don’t get paid either way. The only people with something to gain around here are the folks who sell Kalo.

If you do decide to buy it, please report your results here, where they will have a permanent home.

#4

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Originally posted by Andrea:
<strong>

Reputable consumer-preoducts companies like Johnson & Johnson or Procter & Gamble are constantly testing substances for new applications in the consumer market. I’m sure they have done tests with whatever Kalo’s secret ingredient is. My tube lists “herbal extract” as the magic ingredient. Pretty vague, huh?

</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Suppose you came up with an effective hair retardent solution based on a phytochemical or combination of phytochemicals. You can’t patent it, because you can’t patent phytochemicals. Would you publish the ingredients?

Those companies you mentioned know that they cannot patent phytochemicals. I would guess that they don’t typically waste too much of their time messing with them. If there is a clear cut case where a single phytochemical had a single active ingredient – which was effective and could be easily synthesized – they might look into it. If you have a large group of phytochemicals with many different active ingredients, working in concert, then it’s going to be very difficult to isolate the active ingredients that could be synthesized into something which would be patentable.

If you are a VP at Proctor and Gamble and you go to your boss and say – “hey, this Kalo stuff seems to be effective at hair retardation, my wife used it and she never has to shave her legs anymore! you wanna spend 18 months of researching the active ingredients? then spend another 6 months performing clinical trials? then spend the money patenting it. then get the marketing machine going. then wait for all the money to roll in?”

Guess what he’s going to say?

I’d put a pretty good chance on NO. I mean, the risk/reward factor is just too slim. In the end, even if they suceeded, they would still be competing with Kalo – which will still be on the market, and contain every ingredient that this hypothetical synthetic agent would have. Sure, they will have the advantage of the clinical trials and all that, BUT, are they going to be able to beat the price? Synthesizing things in labs is not necessarily cheap, especially as copmlexity and number of ingredients go up. Picking plants and grinding them up is much cheaper. So basically, if you are a consumer and you see this new stuff “Kalex” on the market, selling for 2 times the price as Kalo, and due to the Internet Rumor Mill you heard that Kalo is basically the same stuff as Kalex – which would you choose?

There is nothing new or magic about phytochemicals having effects on the human body. If you don’t believe me, go take a walk down the forest. Whenever you see a mushroom, pop it in your mouth! Some will simply make you healthier. Some will make you see all kinds of weird stuff. Some will make you drop dead. In the end, phytochemicals can have very potent effects on the body. Along those lines, I don’t find it surprising that certain phytochemicals are able to reduce hair growth.

#5

1. Patenting phytochemicals

Really? You can’t patent phytochemicals? Go to the link below and type in phytochemical, for instance:

US Patent Office search

Companies like Archer Daniels Midland hold thousands of patents on phytochemicls.

The ADM main page currently has two stories on patents they were awarded for isoflavone compositions. Here’s a link .

They even talk about phytochemicals specifically:

ADM: Phytochemicals

2. Big companies won’t bother doing the research

Now, let’s take your big company example. Johnson & Johnson is doing work on soy isoflavones and hair inhibition right now as you read this. If a product has a legitimate use, I can assure you that big companies will be interested in looking at it.

3. Active ingredients

Big pharmaceuticals are constantly finding the active ingredients in organic compounds. Taking your mushroom example, they can tell you the exact chemical that causes its effect on humans:

Psychogenics:
Psilocybin - (C12 H17 N2 O4 P)

Poisons:
Muscarine, Isoxazole Derivatives (Muscimol, Ibotenic Acid, and relatives), Amanitin (Amatoxins), Gyromitrin, Orellanine

Flavorings:

H3C (CH2)5 C = O
|
CH3

You’ve been hanging out with herbalists too long. There’s a legitimate scientific way to develop, test and market herbal products, and an illegitimate one. One involves isolating active ingredients, testing them under controlled clinical conditions and bringing them to market with claims based on this R&D.

Then there’s the Kalo way.

Consumers should demand proof of claims. There is no scientific proof that Kalo has any permanent or temporary effects on hair growth. Vaniqa works on shaved hair-- why doesn’t Kalo? I’ll tell you why. Because the effect on hair you attribute to Kalo after epilation would probably occur whether you used Kalo or not. Epilation alone often appears to make hair grown come back in finer. However, it has been shown in published studies that this optical illusion is merely a temnporary effect.

The burden of proof is on Kalo, and they have not met their burden of proof. Until they do, consumers should avoid Kalo for any use-- temporary, permanent, anything. It’s likely that any change in hair growth is merely a placebo effect. If Kalo really worked, you could use it on shaved hair like Vaniqa. And if it really worked, the big companies would have isolated the active ingredient and would be selling millions of dollars’ worth.

[ August 25, 2002, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Andrea ]

#6

kalo does work on shaved hair. not permanently but it does slow it down, for me at least. that’s one thing that helps keep my hopes up with it. i can tell a notable difference when i use it and when i dont, but it doesnt matter to me really on my face. my upper arm is still pretty good too where i had done some work with it, yea some hair has come back but not near as much. looking good on the chest area too, i used it on the left and not the right, and the left is much thinner than the right. this keeps my hopes up, and we’ll see in the long run how it works out.

#7

Thanks for the preliminary report, jon, and we will definitely look forward to future reports!

#8

Well it’s a gray area. Certainly you wouldn’t suggest that I could go out and patent Ginko Biloba and sue everybody else who was distributing it would you? OTOH, it looks like it’s possible to patent artificially derived strains from a plant, like Cannibus Sativa (search “constitute patentable subject” on http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/ch5.html#END_REF28),,) but with something Ginko Biloba, the only known surviving species of the Ginko family of ancient trees – good luck.

As far as your reference to the company patenting the soy isoflavones, it looks like they are basically patenting the combination of phytochemicals at specific percentages in order to treat a specific problem. It is definitely intellectual property, and is obviously the culmination of a fair amount of work, so it deserves a patent. So basically I will still maintain my original statement that it is not possible to patent a phytochemical, such as Ginko Biloba, but it seems that it is possible to patent a complex combination of different phytochemicals to treat a specific problem. I still think in terms of “patent strength” this is pretty weak, as opposed to a patent for someting like Viagra, which is a single synthetic compound and anyone selling this other than Pfizer would get a slam-dunk lawsuit. Patenting specific concentrations of unpatentable phytochemicals seems a bit weak. Most companies would be very hesitent on embarking on research that would end up with a patent like this.

As far as Johnson and Johnson doing work on Soy Isoflavones and hair removal, that’s fine. Your point was that – if Kalo worked, some big company, would have already discovered it. Therefore Kalo doesn’t work. My counterpoint was that research of phytochemicals for something like hair removal is probably very sparse, if not completely non-existent, due to the financial risk and uncertainty involved. You gave one counterexample, where one company was researching one type of phytochemical – fair enough, maybe the research isn’t non-existent, but I still think it is sparse. Given the immense amount of phytochemicals out there, and their combinations, I don’t think Johnson and Johnson’s research is exhaustive by any means. I think even if they have been looking, and are still looking, there are so many different possible solutions that it’s feasible for some other company to find a different solution that proves to be effective.

>There’s a legitimate scientific way to
>develop, test and market herbal
>products, and an illegitimate one.
>One involves isolating active
>ingredients, testing them under
>controlled clinical conditions
>and bringing them to market
>with claims based on this R&D.

>Then there’s the Kalo way.

Fair enough. I agree that the Kalo way – whatever way that was – was probably more like alchemy than science – but remember it was the alchemists who invented gunpowder!

Maybe “legitimate”, but definitely not easy or cost effective. Phytochemicals are really, really complex. They have all sorts of acids, oils, whatever else. I have no idea, they have a lot of stuff. It is not easy to “isolate the active ingredients” as you suggest. Let’s just suppose there was a clinical study done on Kalo that was convincing enough for a dermatologist to undertake research. She is convinced Kalo works, has used it on herself, and now has a solid clinical study to back that up. She works for some big company who wants to take the market and put Kalo out of business. Her boss comes in the lab, gives her a tube of Kalo, plops it on her desk, and says “find out what makes this stuff work”. She first tries to find out what’s in it. Literally, hundreds of different plant-derived phytochemicals. Hundreds of acids, gums, alkaloids, this, that, and whatever. How is she going to isolate the active ingredients? Take one of the myriad of ingredients, spread it on her skin, and wait three months to see if hair growth is retarted? 350 years later, maybe she will come up with a solution, but by then she’ll be dead and the market will have shifted dramatically. Nanotech will have little machines that target and destroy hair cells with perfect accuracy and zero side effects.

As far as Kalo only working when you epilate, wax or tweeze – that is simply not true. If you read their website it simply says that you should get optimum results if you do any of those, but it is still effective after shaving.

As far as illusions and placebo effects – well, the placebo effect is definitely possible. There are some really amazing things possible with placebo effects, and this would be another example. I agree that the clinical study they have is very weak, was never published, and does not hold much credibility (especially in the U.S. where nobody speaks Russian and can easily write a letter or call those involved), so in that sense they have done very little to rule out a placebo effect. And as far as the results being an illusion, I don’t think this is as likely as a placebo. I think the postive testimonials you see floating around are either due to

(1) effectiveness because of placebo
(2) lying due to financial bias
(3) lying due to attention or troll factor (to get a kick and fuel arguments)

or of course

(4) the product actually worked and they are reporting factual results

But to me the idea that any people giving positive testimonials are experiencing illusions or hallucinations is hard to swallow. Some people have really ungainly situations where their excess hair is a source of tremendous amount of embarrassment to them. They are watching their areas very closely and with scrutiny, and I think there is little chance they would mistake a non-result for a positive result. I mean, I saw one testimonial on the Kalo forum by some woman who was very passionate about her results from using the product. I would say she might fall under (1) or (2), but to say that she was imagining the result seems really unlikely.

#9

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Originally posted by RudeBoy:
<strong>As far as your reference to the company patenting the soy isoflavones, it looks like they are basically patenting the combination of phytochemicals at specific percentages in order to treat a specific problem.

So basically I will still maintain my original statement that it is not possible to patent a phytochemical, such as Ginko Biloba, but it seems that it is possible to patent a complex combination of different phytochemicals to treat a specific problem. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>This is what Kalo could do.

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>I agree that the Kalo way – whatever way that was – was probably more like alchemy than science – but remember it was the alchemists who invented gunpowder! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>The only way alchemists find things is to use scientific methodology: keeping records, testing percentages, and being able to repeat a result. Many discoveries occur by accident, but then they are subjected to scientific methodology. Repeatable results under controlled clinical conditions are the only way to determine a health benefit. If you don’t eliminate variables, it could be any number of things.

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Maybe “legitimate”, but definitely not easy or cost effective. Phytochemicals are really, really complex. They have all sorts of acids, oils, whatever else. I have no idea, they have a lot of stuff. It is not easy to “isolate the active ingredients” as you suggest. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>It’s not easy, but that’s what science is all about. There is scientific evidence that phytoestrogens can affect the body in beneficial ways. Researchers have demonstrated this in published studies. Kalo is formulated on the hypothesis that phytoestrogens applied topically can slow hair growth. The only way to test this hypothesis is a controlled clinical study. It may work, it may be worthless. Right now, we don’t know, because they have not demonstrated these products cause repeatable results. Until they do, Kalo and other hair inhibitors have not met their burden of proof. In fact, the FTC requires claims be substantiated with reliable scientific data. Kalo and others don’t have that.

The active ingredient has already been isolated. Kalo just didn’t do any testing before they started making unsubstantiated claims.

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>As far as illusions and placebo effects – well, the placebo effect is definitely possible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>It not a placebo effect technically, but a false positive. It’s an attribution of a real or perceived change to something that may or may not have caused that change.

</font><blockquote><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>quote:</font><hr /><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>I think the postive testimonials you see floating around are either due to

(1) effectiveness because of placebo
(2) lying due to financial bias
(3) lying due to attention or troll factor (to get a kick and fuel arguments)

or of course

(4) the product actually worked and they are reporting factual results</font><hr /></blockquote><font size=“2” face=“Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif”>Positive testimonials are not scientific, because it’s extremely hard to judge something like hair inhibition. Permanent hair removal is easier. If the hair doesn’t return after a specified time (say a year), it’s probably gone for good. But how do you gauge something like changes in hair? You have to do a huge controlled study, like Rogaine or Vaniqa did. Only then can you make any valid assessment about results.

Anything else is speculation and should be discounted by discerning consumers.

If someone used Kalo on one arm for a year and not on the other and noticed a significant difference, that would be of some use, because there’s some control to the test. If Kalo was serious about helping consumers and finding out how well the stuff worked, they would be doing testing to find the optimal treatment parameters. As it stands, they’ve pulled their protocol and forumlation out of their butts.

These people make a lot of money and have enormous profit margins. They should emulate legitimate companies and put some of their cash in to research and development.

Unfortunately, that ain’t gonna happen.

#10

I should also add that your post was a really good one, RudeBoy. I am always happy to discuss these matters when people have smart things to say and they say them in a respectful tone. :smile:

The difference here is a question of philosophy. I feel that any product making a health claim needs scientific substantiation. So does the FTC and FDA. In fact, both agencies were created to combat the kind of marketing we see Kalo doing.

A lot of people think I’m anti-this or anti-that, when I am actually just pro-results. You have something that affects hair growth? Prove it. That’s all I’m saying.

I think it would be great if Kalo worked. They just need to prove it works. Until they put their money where their mouths are and prove it, they’re just another company making money off unsubstantiated claims.

#11

Nissim and Tom are having a great party on consumerbeware message board.
After few month with no one to mention kalo they are trying to get the attention over there buy conducting another “test”. They sure are hungry for the $$$$$$$$.

#12

Hello All,
I am new to this site, one of my TS clients/friends told me about this site and I think it is great!
On the matter of Kalo, It is very hard to tell how well it works as if you test an area that area could have more or less hair naturally so you cannot judge it that way and it is hard to tell if you are using other type of hair removal that reduce the growth as well.
My sister has been using kalo on her Bikini line that she has been waxing for years and has said that it is fantastic and she has not had to do anything to her bikini line since.
I think what also need to be taken into consideration is the type of hair growth if the hair has been there a long time? If it is a hormonal growth? (if so that issue needs to be addressed before trying products of this nature) I think that these products are not expencive and if your hair growth concerns you it is worth a try!
I have been using a body lotion on and off for some time called “bio depiless” that makes that same claims as all the others and I have seen no difference in my hair growth.

#13

quaterman, “Kitty” is a quack, so she’s going to jump at the chance to add legitimacy to Kalo’s unsubstantiated claims. Quacks like “Kitty” are often well-intentioned, but they fail to understand that their unscientific “tests” add nothing of merit to Kalo’s claims, and in fact only serve to confuse the issue.

Legitimate products that alter growth of hair, like Rogaine or Vaniqa, have shown in published data that there is a very high rate of false positives, meaning people notice a change in hair growth even when using a product with no active ingredient. That’s why individual assessments are scientifically worthless when judging a product like Kalo.

Nevertheless, some people will try anything that marketers put in front of them, figuring “it’s worth a shot, what do I have to lose?” Unfortunately, these people simply end up rewarding this kind of unethical marketing behavior and encouraging even more unsubstantiated claims from the quacks who operate this way.

Obviously, someone like “Kitty” is never going to wise up and demand that companies like Kalo subject their products to the kind of rigorous testing performed by legitimate companies. What “Kitty” and people like her don’t understand is that they are only perpetuating ignorance among consumers rather than using consumer power to force companies to market products with scientifically substantiated claims.

“Kitty” and her ilk are part of the problem, even though they like to think they’re part of the solution. It’s a shame, too, because they are usually well-meaning, just woefully out of touch with how legitimate companies market legitimate products making legitimate health claims. Being a quack is sort of like a religion-- it’s a fundamental part of their worldview. It’s very hard to convince someone who is a quack that scientific proof is more reliable than personal experience. People like “Kitty” think seeing is believing, and once they’ve decided on something, no amount of science or fact will ever convince them that their personal experience might not be reliable.

It’s as frustrating as it is sad. Kalo may or may not work, but we’ll never know until there are some clinical studies performed. Twenty people on a quack forum won’t tell us much of anything. Something like this is far too difficult for someone like me or “Kitty” to assess on our own.

Unfortunately, the “Kitty test” will be enough for the consumers she’s misled. All I can do is offer up the alternative viewpoint and hope that consumers see why scientific tests are necessary.

#14

Beauty therapist, are you saying that your sister no longer needs to remove hair at her bikini line? Is she still using Kalo? If not, when did she stop? What methods of hair removal did she use in her bikini area?

I ask all this to get some specific information. As you know, second-hand reports from anonymous posters are not the most reliable information.

#15

Those of you interested in reading the Kalo/“Kitty” collaboration can check out the following thread:

Consumer Beware: Unscientific Kalo “test”
[consumerbeware dot com/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=493&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=1]

#16

Hi Andrea,
My sister has very dark coarse hair and I have been waxing her bikini line for herevery three weeks for a good few years now, since she has been using kalo (only for a few months) I have not been waxing her anymore she has been plucking. I have not seen the area, but she is pleased and that is the main thing. BUT I do think the claims that manufactures make are OTT and they do not always live up to there claims. I have not been very sucessful with products I have tried

#17

Beauty therapist, one of my main goals is to get consumers to be more specific, and I generally discourage second-hand reports.

You stated you sister “has been using kalo (only for a few months).” You said at first:

“She has not had to do anything to her bikini line since.”

Then you changed that to:

“I have not been waxing her anymore she has been plucking. I have not seen the area.”

Would it be possible to have her report here directly? My concern is trying to get the most accurate information on these boards, and there’s a lot of discrepancy between your two second-hand reports.

What would be especially useful for consumers is if you kept a record of the dates she epilated and the amount of time spent plucking at each session. While still unscientific, it would be helpful, especially for evealuating their claims of permanence when she discontinues use.

The more specific we can be with dates, time, etc., the more useful the information will be.

#18

hello again Andrea,

Between my two post I sore my sister and she said that she had plucked her bk line. She has now stopped using Kalo as we are in the uk and it is a pain to get hold of.
We are both going to try something called bio depiless concentrate as it is easier for us to get hold of.
Also I have told her to come online and tell you her experiences and she is sick of me asking her so many questions.
Has anyone tried bio depiless con?
If so what did you think?
I have tried the body lotion but was a bit slack as it did not smell all that nice.

#19

Thanks for the update, beauty therapist. Generally speaking, reports of success with products like Kalo are based on preliminary information. I am not aware of anyone who has reported a permanent result one year after final treatment.

I am not aware of anyone who has used Bio-depiless with success.

#20

There’s usually a REASON for the labelling of ingredients in products–i.e., because consumers can very well have allergic reactions to things, and so they should be able to see at a glance whether what they’re allergic to happens to be in the product.

Which is why I’ll never use anything that gets into this ‘natural botanicals’ or ‘herbal extracts’ hogwash. I want to know what it is. A truly superior product? Can survive even if an imitation is introduced into the market.

I find it amazing that this Tom fellow would claim a study… and then come out and say that it wasn’t double-blind? It’s no wonder people didn’t believe it. No study on the treatment of anything is effective unless it’s double-blind. Otherwise, it’s completely subjective.

It won’t surprise me at all if some natural product is, at some point, proven to work as a hair inhibitor. Nature’s produced some powerful stuff, after all. I do wish, though, that places like this wouldn’t muddy the water.