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:

Kalo Forum: my test post

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:

Kalo Forum: another response

[ July 28, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Andrea ]

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 http://cd.nisim.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 www.kalo.ca and www.kalo-hair-removal.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 www.nisim.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 www.nisim.com/store

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

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

We have done clinical studies on our product that show that they work. The studies are on our websites www.kalo.ca and www.kalo-hair-removal.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 www.nisim.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-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?

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.

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 ]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.