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:

quote:

---

“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 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:

quote:

---

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.

---

From a diet consumer site:

quote:

---

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.

---

From the QuackWatch website

quote:

---

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.)

---

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:

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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 ]

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.

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!

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

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 ]

Thanks Malanagaster, and defintiely keep us updated!

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

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

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.

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.