Feedback from patients to this point is a big fat NO... We have had to give away many free treatments because of the lack of results this Zerona machine has given

Paul

Borderline vodoo....

From my expierience it has been great, I lost 2.5 inches of my belly area. I am not obese I was a 34 waist and am back in my 32's. The doctor I seen did explain this is a medicla procedure, and that patient complience was crucial...meaning I needed to make the every other day appointment, stay hydrated and do moderate exercise (10-15 min walks a day). The reaserch on Zerona is far superior to other devices as seen on thier website. My wife has had two treatments so far and we excited to see how it turns out, I will let you know.

Chad, from your post it sounds as if you are not in the medical profession. If you are not in the medical profession then please do not comment on the quality of the Zerona research. If you were in the medical profession you would realize that it is absolutely some of the worst research I have ever seen.

Signs of crappy research and questions they have not answered and will not try:
1) The research has a very small n (number of patients involved). They only had 16 patients involved in the study.
2) Short study - they only went 2 weeks after the last treatment. What happens at 4 weeks, 6 weeks etc?
3) They have never done research that compares the patients with Zerona and all the diet and exercise against a similar group not using the laser but doing the same diet exercise and vitamins.
4) They have research that apparently shows the fat cell membrane to be "temporarily" disrupted. So the next question is how long is it disrupted? They have not tried to answer this.
5) There own research shows that the laser works better on someone that has had tumescent fluid placed into the fatty areas to be treated.
6) Who is the ideal candidate? They are doing nothing to help identify and give answers to many questions.

LH, We must be looking at different research. I read a paper on thier site that was 67 patients, and it was a double blinded, multi site, placebo controlled study. I read on another site this was the gold standard for proving a device, not my opinion but I have no reason to argue against it. The fact that you are calling it crappy research leads me to believe you are defending something else which I am sure is a competitior of Zerona. I wasn't trying to put down other products but Zerona was the only product of the three I researched that had done a placebo controlled study. I certainly would encourage anyone who is thinking of doing this type of procedure to do thier own research and consult with a physician.

Bottom line it worked for me, and early signs for my wife are encouraging. Take it for what its worth.

Actually Chad. I am not defending any of them. You can ask many of the others on this site. The research you are talking about is not published in a peer reviewed journal. It is something that is being thrown out by the company that makes Zerona. Which basically at this time tells us that the research has not been thoroughly evaluated. It also came from a physician that is stating the fat "cell dies". Which is 100% false. So does he understand the technology? The cells do not die they develop a pore in the cell membrane that closes up again. So again, how long does that "inches loss" last?

First, a n=67 is a very small number. So still too small. Dr. Roche also does not go into detail of what he required the patients to do as far as exercise etc. He states the the patients were randomized into 2 groups but does not say more. He needs to state if the 2 groups are the same as far a sex distribution BMI etc. Did he require both groups to exercise etc? So my conclusion is that this is a poor quality study.

Also, if you look very close at that study only 62.86% of the patients in the treated group achieved more than a 3 inch COMBINED loss. So that tells us that 37.14% of the treated patients FAILED to lose more than 3 inches. So do we consider this a 37% failure rate?

So now I will ask is it worth $2500 to $3500 for a 3.22 inch loss when measured from 4 areas and then added up? Is it worth that kind of money for something that has not been proven to be effective for more than 2 weeks after the last treatment?

So until Zerona has peer reviewed double blinded placebo controlled studies published in good quality journals then it is not worth the money. I am just trying to hold these companies to a higher standard. Some of the companies in the aesthetic market promise a lot but deliver very little. In my region i am the leader in laser and light technology and at this time I will NOT place my reputation at risk with this technology.

I assume that you work for Zerona as the article you are talking about is not readily available and the only way I got it was form the company. The article does not mention that it is a multi-site study so the only ones that would know that if it is true is someone with the company that has seen the white paper. The white paper is not available yet.

So as all of the others on this site know. I do not work for any companies. I have never taken a dime from any of the technology companies. I want to find a non-invasive technology that works and has long term benefits for my patients. I do not want to talk them into a sham. Go on to realself.com and look at all of the negative responses. This should give you some idea of how well it works.

LH, Again you are either not seeing or dont care to look at it so I have added a link www.erchonia.com/research-articles, go to the bottom of that section it was published in a Jounal called Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, is that not peer reviewed? You mentioned I shouldnt comment on research as I am not a medical professional but I seem to have done alot better job finding the reaserch then you, and no you dont have to be an employee of the company as it is right on thier website for the world to see. THE PAPER IS AVALIABLE. GO LOOK!!!!

My only point was it worked for me and seems to be working for my wife and you seemed to take offence that I was commenting on the research I read that finally convinced me to try the procedure.

You aksed if it was worth $2,500 to lose 3 inches...well to me it was. I certainly would understand if someone spent that kind of money and did not get a result why they would be upset.

What I am puzzled by is why you are making this argument with me if you are not supporting something different? I got a good result, I was happy with my doc, I read what I thought was good research. I never mentioned this works for eveyone and am not trying to convince anyone to do anything without looking at the research.

If you dont think it works thats fine you are entitled to your opinion.

Hey Chad,

I want to believe you, I really do. Can you provide us with some before and after pictures of you and/or your wife? Also, what doctor did you see? I would like to believe that there are really patients out there that would pay $2,500 for 3 inches lost overall, because in my neck of the woods the Doc. and I would be crucified for charging that much for a few inches lost overall. For example, if one has a BMI of over 30 (85% of all our patients) and they see an inch lost in the abdomen, they will undoubtably be lining up at our door wanting their money back. Also, by all means tell me the city you live in because I would like to jump ship from where we practice and set up shop there. Just think about all the money we could make by actually performing services that produce significant results! If I could add something positive about the Zerona marketing team though, it would be they have done an excellent job getting the word out to doctors. There isn't a week that goes by, where we don't receive some sort of direct mail or an email telling us to invest in Zerona. However, I know I will be unable to sell this to our paitients due mainly to price. If Zerona starts offering what I believe the suggested price should actually be, which would be around $1,000 to $1,500 for a package of 6 sessions, then possibly the patients wouldn't mind parting with their funds for the 3 inches overall. If you have noticed over the last year or two, the price of liposuction has went way down. In my opinion, the only way these non-surgical fat melting devices can be marketed to satisfy our patients is to provide them at less of a cost than liposuction. This way, the patients can lose their few inches and not be out too much money. Then if they want a more dramatic result, choose liposuction. As we all know in this business, the key is to perform services that make the patients happy so they will come back and refer their friends and family. As LH has mentioned, the feedback on RealSelf shows the patients responding are for the most part not happy. It is up to the Zerona people to find a solution to this problem...

Chad,

I do have to apologize as I did not know that the article had been published. The last I had read was that it was waiting for review. I also want people to understand that I am not saying that the physicians involved in the study did anything wrong with my evaluation of the article. I just think that the company is over marketing the product and charging way too much.

My critique:

1) The first thing they teach you in medical school on how to evaluate research is who paid for the research. In this case the sponsor of the research and article was Erchonia the company that makes Zerona.

2) Who wrote the article? In this case the article appears to have been written by Ryan Maloney. Who is Ryan Maloney? He not only is the medical director of Erchonia he actually has ownership in the patent of the Zerona. Other than that you do not know his background. We know he is not a PhD or physician otherwise it would be behind his name under the authorship of the article. He has a direct financial benefit to write the article in a positive light.

3) 8 Individuals did not have final measurements. The first question is why? 4 were from the treated group and 4 were from the placebo group. At first that seems OK, but when you look further into they kept all of these test subjects included in the study. What they did is they took the last measurements for those subjects and carried them forward. Again seems Ok at first but when you start to look at the trend of circumferential loss at the 2 weeks post treatment the measurements are trending back toward baseline. So if you include these patients last measurement (which by the way is the best overall average circumferential loss during the treatments for the treated group) and carry them forward they will artificially lower the true values two weeks post treatment. All 8 of these subjects should have been eliminated from the study.

4) There is no assessment of cosmetic benefit. To have this be worth something you would need before and after pictures that are reviewed by a group of individuals that are blinded to which treatment the individual participant received. So in other words is a 3 inch loss aesthetically significant.

5) They do not state if participants are male or female. So the question is left, does it work as well on males as it does on females? This could be very important as males tend to have thicker skin so does the laser penetrate as deep in men?

6) the study was limited to patients with a BMI of 25 to 30. Now I think it is fine to have this limitation as you have to start your research somewhere. But the limitation is that the article is implying that it will work for all BMI's. What about the thinner female patient with a BMI of 20 but has a small lower abdominal pooch? Or what about the patient that has a BMI of 35? This should be stated in the conclusion but Mr. Maloney seems to forget this.

7) They also do not state if the patients received their treatments for free or if they were compensated for their time. This is only important for the portion of the study that talked about the patient satisfaction. We need to understand that patients will put a value on the treatment because if something is free their expectations are much lower. their expectations are much higher if they paid $2500 for the treatment. So if this was free to the patient and you have 30% of the treated group that are dissatisfied or neutral what would that mean to a clinic if the patients are paying for it. I would guess you will have a much higher dissatisfied group that either wants their money back or free treatments. I do not want something in my clinic that has a 30% failure rate.

8)They do not discuss if either group was asked to change their diets. This should be stated up front in the methods portion of the article. They also do not mention if there were any dietary supplements required such as niacin. Most clinics using Zerona are having the patients take niacin even Erchonia recommends it.

9) They set the standard for success to be an inch loss of 3 inches or greater. Only 62.86% of the treated group achieved success. So this translates in to a 37.14% failure rate. Again, not something that I would want to stake my reputation on.

10)Now what do the numbers mean? If you look at the numbers the patients baseline combined measurement average was 120.31 inches. At week 2 of treatment (the best measurements achieved) the average was 116.79 inches or an inch loss of 3.52 inches on average. This sounds pretty good until you look at the true numbers. Using the numbers from the study this equates to a 2.9% inch loss as measured over 4 areas. Is this clinically (visually) significant? I do not think that most individuals will be able to see a 2.9% change or if they can it will be meaningful.

11) Lets take a look at the 2 weeks post treatment measurements. Remember, these are not true numbers as 4 patients had their best numbers included in these measurements pulled forward and included here. (I think all of their measurements should have been puled out). At 2 weeks post treatment, you see a 0.31 inch increase from the circumferential measurements at the 2 week treatments. What this equates to is an 8.8% increase in inches in only 2 weeks. So what happens at 4 weeks? 6 Weeks? So if it were a perfectly linear increase it would only take about 20 weeks or so to be 100% back at baseline. That is if it were linear and I highly doubt it is a linear response and if i had to guess most patients will be back at baseline measurements within 6 to 10 weeks and this is why there are no long term studies. The company has had ample time to produce longer term studies they apparently do not want to.

So as you can see, there are a few issues with this article and how it was analyzed and written. The first and foremost problem is that the article was authored by an individual with direct financial interest in the product. The ASLMS journal never should have published this article due to the authors conflict of interest or it should have a disclaimer prior to the abstract. I have no vested interest in any of these non-invasive technologies and would love to see something like this work and have long term benefits for the patients. I think this technology may have better long term benefits on cholesterol etc. I have heard that there are some interesting studies coming. I just hope they are not written by Mr. Maloney. And for others reading this I assume that Chad works for Erchonia or the marketing company that is selling this thing to anyone they can including chiropractors.

Sincerely,
Lornell E. Hansen II, M.D. (LH)
www.LazaDerm.com

p.s. Sorry for being so long winded but I could not help myself. I want these companies to be held to higher standards. I think the ASLMS should have higher standards as well.

+1 to your commentary, LH.

More science & less hype!!

@LH, thank you for this kind of thoughtful comment. You should write for the main blog. I'm emailing Jeff.

Thanks for the support. I just want these expensive pieces of equipment to work and I truly wish that Zerona worked as it would make my life easier. I could charge about the same as liposuction and have to do a lot less work. I could literally have my staff do all of the work and I could reap the rewards. At his point, I still think that liposuction is the only way. I have been watching the Zeltiq and also the ultrasound based units. I will let you know what I come up with.

Thank you LH for the evaluation and contribution to this valuable forum.
I was so tempted to try the Zerona and the Zeltiq Cryolipolysis machine. I hope these machines deliver better results than the cellulite body treatment machines such as the controversial syneron vela shape/ vela smooth line of body contouring products. I can't believe that even the prominent Mass General Hospital physicians M. Avrum have jumped on the band wagon to write articles and get them pubrlished on Lasers in Surgery and MEdicine (ASLMS) for Zeltiq Aesthetics. Physicians endorsing laser machines is a quick way to make a few bucks but will end up hurting the reputation of their practice or their institution Wellman MGH in the long run if the machine ended up as another hype or fad. Only time can tell whether these machines will stand the test. Hope this is does not end up as another Thermage / Fraxel hype.

kw,

I am not sold on the Zeltiq at this point but it has better research than teh Zerona. They at least have studies that extend 6 months post treatment not just 2 weeks. If you look at the studies Rox Anderson has been involved. At this time I feel that Rox is not a sell out so I trust his research more than many.

Responding to LH. I am a fourth year medical student awaiting for my acceptance into a general surgery residency. I am a proactive student and I have begun researching non-invasive equipment because I believe that these modalities will be the future of cosmetic medicine, and I also know that as more and more physicians are allowed to perform cosmetic procedures, plastic surgeons will no longer retain the honor of being the sole provider of beautification procedures. Moreover, I had a clinical rotation with a plastic surgeon this past semester, and he asked me to conduct a literature review of all non-invasive devices available, as he planned on diversifying his practice. I needed to present the clinical data to him and his medical director so that they could properly assess which device works best. I made no suggestions nor was I allowed to make any suggestions. I could not look at non-peer reviewed sites, only clinical data of a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind nature. I found ONLY ONE study! That is it. It did not make for a good paper. I could not believe that the medical community would allow devices to enter the market or their practice for that matter without reading a Level Ib trial. The articles that have consumed or saturated the market are only observances, Level IV trials, these mean nothing. So when a doctor discredits a level I trial such as LH, and quotes from realself, you have to questions their motive. As I do in this response. I do not care about Zerona or any of the other current devices, because when I am able to practice these devices will be gone. But, I am saddened of the state of the cosmetic community, it has changed drastically from when my dad was a plastic surgeon. Doctors have accepted horrible class IV trials as adequate forms of literature, and when finally a product is available with a class Ib study, it is mocked, destroyed, and questioned. At times LH, it appears you did not even read the article, you state that items are not mentioned when they clearly are; so, I have provided you with quotes. Also, not once did you mention statistically significant values, that is essential for determining if a product is efficacious or not.

LH, "The first thing they teach you in medical school on how to evaluate research is who paid for the research. In this case the sponsor of the research and article was Erchonia the company that makes Zerona."

They actually do not teach you how to evaluate research articles in Medical School, I should know, I am a fourth year at the University of Arizona. The drug companies that cater our lunches talk about clinical studies, and the first thing they mention is placebo-controlled, randomized, double blind, multi-centered clinical investigations, and quickly belittle their competitors because they do not have appropriately designed trials. I do not care about Ryan Maloney, he is just the co-author, plain and simple, but as the acknowledgement states a third party investigator performed the statistical analysis, and last time I checked a p-value of p<0.0001 cannot be argued against. I plan on pursuing a career as a plastic surgeon (match day is in a few weeks!), I will look for statically significant trials as a clinician, not the pilot investigations or observation studies that have saturated the market. You can argue many things with the Zerona, but you cannot argue the organization of their clinical study and you cannot argue that another device has a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, multi-centered clinical study.

2) LH "Who wrote the article? In this case the article appears to have been written by Ryan Maloney. Who is Ryan Maloney? He not only is the medical director of Erchonia he actually has ownership in the patent of the Zerona. Other than that you do not know his background. We know he is not a PhD or physician otherwise it would be behind his name under the authorship of the article. He has a direct financial benefit to write the article in a positive light."

Again, who cares about Ryan Maloney, all journals publish with an author that has some tie to the research or product. The important item for all to recognize is that the researchers performing the trial and the independent regulatory agent conducting the statistical analysis were not financially compensated. Who cares who writes the article, as long as the data was not tampered with and was conducted by an independent party. The data are the data, it can't be spun if it is or is not statistically significant! Moreover, the authors call for further studies assessing the long-term benefits.

3) LH" 8 Individuals did not have final measurements. The first question is why? 4 were from the treated group and 4 were from the placebo group. At first that seems OK, but when you look further into they kept all of these test subjects included in the study. What they did is they took the last measurements for those subjects and carried them forward. Again seems Ok at first but when you start to look at the trend of circumferential loss at the 2 weeks post treatment the measurements are trending back toward baseline. So if you include these patients last measurement (which by the way is the best overall average circumferential loss during the treatments for the treated group) and carry them forward they will artificially lower the true values two weeks post treatment. All 8 of these subjects should have been eliminated from the study."

Eight individuals did not have two-week post-procedure measurements, I do not know why, the authors did not state that, but the patients were evenly distributed across the placebo and test groups, so the statistical values would have not been altered. Moreover, they were measured at two-weeks post and the average reduction was -3.5 in. for the test group and -0.68 in. for the sham group (p<0.0001). As I plan for my career, I am more interested in the fastest and best results. I do not want to wait three months for 2.0 cm reduction, that is absurd! We are in the business (hopefully) of making people beautiful in as little time as possible, if I can make someone 3.5 inches slimmer in two weeks, great, I did my job. What the patient does from there is up to them. There are two things I need to observe when assessing a trial, was it placebo-controlled and was there a statistically significant difference. I am not going to use websites like real-self, where sales reps. are posting all day making up names and results to suppress their competition and boast their product. These websites do not serve as an appropriate barometer for a devices' effectiveness. My education has taught me a few things, but one in particular is to embrace evidence-based medicine, and that can only come from placebo-controlled trials, not real-self.com or pilot trials.

4) LH "There is no assessment of cosmetic benefit. To have this be worth something you would need before and after pictures that are reviewed by a group of individuals that are blinded to which treatment the individual participant received. So in other words is a 3 inch loss aesthetically significant."

I believe the authors said the FDA provided the 3 inch loss as being clinically meaningful, in fact, I will quote the sentence, " The overall study success criterion, established by Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was defined as at least a 35% difference between treatment groups, comparing the proportion of individual successes in each group. It was determined by the FDA that a reduction of at least 3.0 inches was clinically meaningful. In addition to the analysis of circumferential reduction as a means to determine a clinically meaningful outcome, participants were asked to assess their level of satisfaction pertaining to their overall change in body shape at the completion of the treatment administration phase." Before and after pictures are worthless, the perception can easily be altered to demonstrate a significant result or pseudo-reduction. For me, although I feel we have advanced beyond tape measures, the way to measure now is 3-D analysis.
5) They do not state if participants are male or female. So the question is left, does it work as well on males as it does on females? This could be very important as males tend to have thicker skin so does the laser penetrate as deep in men? Who cares! The results shows an average reduction of -3.5 in.

6) LH" the study was limited to patients with a BMI of 25 to 30. Now I think it is fine to have this limitation as you have to start your research somewhere. But the limitation is that the article is implying that it will work for all BMI's. What about the thinner female patient with a BMI of 20 but has a small lower abdominal pooch? Or what about the patient that has a BMI of 35? This should be stated in the conclusion but Mr. Maloney seems to forget this."

Last time I check, subcutaneous fat is the same, whether you have a 20BMI or 35 BMI, care to educate us on the difference?

7) They also do not state if the patients received their treatments for free or if they were compensated for their time. This is only important for the portion of the study that talked about the patient satisfaction. We need to understand that patients will put a value on the treatment because if something is free their expectations are much lower. their expectations are much higher if they paid $2500 for the treatment. So if this was free to the patient and you have 30% of the treated group that are dissatisfied or neutral what would that mean to a clinic if the patients are paying for it. I would guess you will have a much higher dissatisfied group that either wants their money back or free treatments. I do not want something in my clinic that has a 30% failure rate. "

I do not think you read the article, which amazes me because you are so confident in you sentences. This is a quote from the paper, " Subjects were not offered any form of compensation to participate in the clinical trial, nor were they charged for the cost of the laser procedure or related evaluations. "

8) LH "They do not discuss if either group was asked to change their diets. This should be stated up front in the methods portion of the article. They also do not mention if there were any dietary supplements required such as niacin. Most clinics using Zerona are having the patients take niacin even Erchonia recommends it.

Again, did you read the paper? " All subjects deemed eligible for participation in this clinical study satisfied each of the following inclusion criteria: subject is candidate for liposuction of the waist, hips and bilateral thighs; willing and able to abstain from partaking in any treatment other than the study procedure to promote body contouring and/or weight loss throughout the course of study; willing and able to maintain regular diet and exercise regimen without effecting significant change in either direction during study participation; and were between the ages of 18 to 65 years. "

9) They set the standard for success to be an inch loss of 3 inches or greater. Only 62.86% of the treated group achieved success. So this translates in to a 37.14% failure rate. Again, not something that I would want to stake my reputation on.

That is a statistically significant difference, I would mention that. Good thing you don't have a reputation.

10) LH "Now what do the numbers mean? If you look at the numbers the patients baseline combined measurement average was 120.31 inches. At week 2 of treatment (the best measurements achieved) the average was 116.79 inches or an inch loss of 3.52 inches on average. This sounds pretty good until you look at the true numbers. Using the numbers from the study this equates to a 2.9% inch loss as measured over 4 areas. Is this clinically (visually) significant? I do not think that most individuals will be able to see a 2.9% change or if they can it will be meaningful."

Two percent loss of fat across the waist, hip, and thighs, that sounds pretty good. Losing a total of 2 % across that entire zone is pretty meaningful.

11) Lets take a look at the 2 weeks post treatment measurements. Remember, these are not true numbers as 4 patients had their best numbers included in these measurements pulled forward and included here. (I think all of their measurements should have been puled out). At 2 weeks post treatment, you see a 0.31 inch increase from the circumferential measurements at the 2 week treatments. What this equates to is an 8.8% increase in inches in only 2 weeks. So what happens at 4 weeks? 6 Weeks? So if it were a perfectly linear increase it would only take about 20 weeks or so to be 100% back at baseline. That is if it were linear and I highly doubt it is a linear response and if i had to guess most patients will be back at baseline measurements within 6 to 10 weeks and this is why there are no long term studies. The company has had ample time to produce longer term studies they apparently do not want to."

Long-term results, that is a funny concept. Most doctors like to send their patient's out into the world confident that they have long-term results. Well, I am sorry to say, and perhaps your medical school training did not provide you this bit of information, but if they underlining cause of the overweight or obese appearance is not addressed, guess what, nothing is permanent. Even liposuction, something I will perform on a regular basis, is not permanent. Sorry to say, but pre-adipocytes differentiate into adipocytes; thus, the hypertrophic state can reoccur. We need to advocate diet modifications for any procedure. Therefore, the term or phrase "long-term results" should no longer apply, we should promote "life-long results," and that can only come if every physician practices preventive medicine.

Jillian,

I am not sure what medical school you go to but I was trained in my first year to look at journals and evaluate the validity. We had "journal club" throughout medical school and were required to evaluate articles. Just because they are published does not make them indisputable. And yes you can argue the orginazation of their clinical study. It is not the physicians it is the person actually writing the article that included information that should have been left out of the evaluation. Remember the person that wrote the article is the part owner of the patent to the Zerona. The article was also funded by Zerona.

So let me get this right, an research article funded by a drug company and then written by one of its scientists is not OK to believe but an article written by the Zerona company and funded by them is OK and is 100% above board? I think you need to review your logic. There is no difference between this article and the article from drug companies you so easily dismiss.

If you think statistics can not be spun then you need to go back to undergrad and take a stats course. He spun this thing like a web. If you belive you have a good grasp on evidence based medicine and you believe all of the hype associated with Zerona then you are going to have a tough career. You need to look deeper into an article than p values.

You are not reading my comments all you can come up with is "who cares". Actually, I would guess that most of the real physicians that are on this website care because we are the ones that take care of the patients. I did not ask if the patients were compensated I asked if the patients had to pay for their treatments. Remember something that is free has a lot less value than something that cost you $3500.

I can not believe that you think a 2% loss of fat measured over 4 different areas is meaningful. that will not be seen by the naked eye. that is why I asked of the patients had a cosmetic benefit. This should have had pre and post standardized photos with 2 or 3 blinded evaluators. That is the reason patients want to do this procedure is for the cosmetic benefit so if the inch loss can not be visualized then was it worth it?

Under section 9 I did not say anything about statistical significance. I am just stating a fact that it has over a 37% failure rate using the FDA definition of success. Do you want to be 1 of the 37 out of 100 that pays $2500 or more and get nothing in return? That is a very high failure rate and my reputation is based on that. I do not want to charge someone that kind of money and then look them in the eye and tell them that is the way the ball bounces. I have a reputation to my patients and their respect. Hopefully someday you will have the same respect for your patients.

In the last paragraph you are basically saying "who cares" again. That is not the answer you should give What I have said is that I want to see long term studies. Would you start a person on a blodd pressure med or diabetes med that only works for a few weeks. I hope you would not.

The next thing I would like to point out is that most of Jillian's comments were more directed at my character than at my actual comments. In this case she seems to think that she can discredit my character more easily than my comments. There is not one statement made by Jillian that would make me withdraw any of my comments. My assumption is that Jillian is more likely a Zerona rep than a med student. I know when I was in medical school I did not have time to be looking at the internet blogs and arguing with them.

And as we all know on this site my evaluation has a lot more credit than Jillian's, as I have a reputation on this blog and she does not. Most of the individuals that are consistently on this site know who I am and know that I have never taken a penny from a laser or technology company. I have been asked to speak at conferences but make them understand that I will tell the participants exactly what I think even if it is equipment from another company. It is then that they do not want me to participate as I refuse to be owned by any laser company unlike many of the individuals writing these journal articles.

I got to this post doing a serach on Zerona and Zeltiq thinking I could get some impartail data, and I cannot belive what I am reading. The arrogance of poster LH amazes me; I get your are a docotor and think you are smarter then us normal folk. You comment that somone who not a physician shouldnt comment on research, and a medical student challanges your post you make a statement like most of us real physicians...how can you be so deamaining to people without thought.

For you doctors out there please dont take this the wrong way, but its people like this Dr.Hansen that really raise the hair on the back of our necks....This Godlike attitude that if you dont agree with them you are somehow misinformed, or stupid has to be kept in check.

Will someone other then LH please let me know your unbiased opinion of Zeltiq, Zerona or any other option that will help me loose a few pounds and inches.

LH save your post, I am sure because I dont agree with your pompass ways you will claim I am in your opinion somehow tied to one of these companies....Lets end the suspense, I am restuarant owner that eats to much Pasta that needs to shed a few pounds that is looking for an option that doesnt require surgery.

I guess that is the good thing about being a MSIV, you get to relax a little and enjoy some rotations that are easy, and enough time to challenge those clinicians that are so far removed from the scientific community that it borders ridiculous.
I viewed clinicaltrial.govs, and guess what, the FDA accepted their clinical data, now are you questioning a government institution, are you smarter than the federal government?
Spun, I do not understand your definition, the author clearly states that there are eight patients, both placebo and test that are " Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)," that is a common practice in clinical trials, that is what happens when the participants reach the study endpoint, which 67 out of 67 reached the endpoint, and a few drop out during the follow-up visit.
That is a common occurrence in clinical trials, participants drop out, even during the treatment administration phase, much more frequently during the follow up. That is expected, that is why LOCF exists!
What is your argument 2-week post-procedure assessment aside. What flaws are there for the circumferential reduction measurements during the treatment administration phase? What argument do you have about the outcomes that were set by the FDA?
Do you understand the process. This is what I learned outside of medical school. Those companies wishing to secure FDA clearance can submit their trial to the FDA, this is called Pre-IDE submission. The FDA will then regulate clinical outcomes, so that they will have an easier time making the decision whether or not the outcome is worthy of FDA clearance. Meaning, the outcomes are not set by the company, some arbitrary number is not established by the manufacturer, but by an independent source (the government).
The same holds true for the pharmaceutical industry that treat me to lunch every week. Yes they fund the study, yes their doctor's names are on the article, but guess what, a third party, you guessed it, the FDA analyzes their trial. This company has gone through the same process.
I do not care about Zerona or the other companies, but I care when a doctor is providing misinformation, such as yourself. I wish the government would regulate physicians such as yourself.
They are the only company that has gone through the FDA process, and observers such as myself can watch the process on clinicaltrials.gov. Look up any other product, zeltiq, ultrashape, they do not have two armed studies, just pilot investigations. I am sorry to say, but that is wrong. Why are you not breaking down these companies, why are you not raging against all cosmetic medical devices?
You are motivated, I am not sure why, but it is a shame. Have you even tried the device?
As I stated earlier, I am just an observer, I do not care about Zerona, nor will I, because by the time I practice as a plastic surgeon 8 years from now, this device will be gone.
But to those who read this blog, Zerona is the only company with a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, multi-centered clinical study, that is why the four plastic surgeons I worked with for several weeks acquired three devices. I do not care who writes the article, my job is to assess the data, to ensure it was assessed by a third party, and make an educated decision from there. There were 64 citations in that article, to me, that is an article that is well written, and I can refer to other peer-reviewed publications when something is not clear. That is not an opinion piece. The company and product was mentioned once in the methods, it was not laced throughout the article.
Again LH, tell me what was wrong with the treatment administration data? Sixty-three percent reached three inches or greater without modifications to diet, without lymphatic stimulation, without a single adverse event reported, without hydration, without any lifestyle changes where 6.0% of sham group participants reached a reduction of 0.6 inches. That's not bad in two weeks and that is good insight that device worked, otherwise, we would have seen a greater reduction in the sham group.

I love fourth year! Besides, how are you posting, don't you have patients to see?

Wow,

This blog seems a little heated! I do not know if I want to throw myself into the fire, but here goes. I had Zerona treatments of my waist and hips. I lost 4.5 inches in two weeks. I thought that was great. I wasnt sure about the whole thing, you know, light can do what? :) But the doctor showed me data and the company had a garauntee on results. Heck, I went for it. I loved the results. I started to walk during the process and I am continuing to walk, so in some ways it helped two ways, slimmed me, YAY, and motivated me, double YAY!

Just wanted to add some sunshine on a nasty debate. Oh, you go Jill! Sorry a little biased! :)

I read the New York TImes piece comparing Zerona and Zeltiq. I am 45 years of age and do not want liposuction. I have started to compare the two, Zeltiq and Zerona, they seem to be the most popular lately. I looked at clinicaltrials.gov per Jillian's suggestion, although only a medical student, little nervous trusting her judgement, no offense. She was right, I do not know much about clinical stuff, but I do understand when someone takes a sugar pill and gets a result that is due to the brain thinking it is getting better.

None of the other devices have a sugar pill if you will, a fake device. How could you ever test whether or not it was the device or just the patient thinking they are getting the device and walking or dieting during the study. I have contacted a doctor in New York to set up a Zerona appointment. I think it is worth 3000.00, I have a bathing suit I have to fit into in a couple of months, and few inches now will go a long way.

Good luck with the debate. It is kinda funny, an old doc against a young med student, I guess sign of the times. Anyway, I went with the fake tested device. Ant.

Wow. I cannot think of a better example of the famous line from Hamlet ... "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

For someone to write this extensively about such a worthless product as "ZERONA" unless he or she is somehow involved with the company -- is hard to imagine. SOmething is obviously rotten in Denmark...

AND to have the audacity to besmirch the integrity and reputation of the incomparable "LH"!! I have read Dr. Hansen's astute and professional comments on this blog for the past 2 and 1/2 years and I have found him to be one of the most intelligent and competent aesthetic pratitioners in the world.

Without wasting anyone's time any further on this, just a couple points:

1. Just try to imagine how what this company is doing (blatantly marketing and selling a questionable device cleared only for "pain reduction" for a totally unrelated indication -- "body contouring" (via the disruption of the adipocyte membrane) has even been ALLOWED for the past six months??

2. Remember that this laser has a max output of only 17 milliWatts (like a laser pointer!!);

3. Note that their "study" published in the December ASLMS journal boasted about 57% of the subjects achieving at least a 3 inch reduction in measuring the TOTAL of the following circumferances--

a. Waist
b. Hips
c. Left thigh
d. Right thigh

Try measuring yourself with a tape measure some time and see how easy it is to obtain significantly different readings each time, how easy it is to "intentionally" pull the tape tighter when desired AND how hard it is to actually measure the "hips" (over the bubble butt or not?);

My total measurement for al these areas is about 120 inches, so a 3 inch change from one measurement to the next represents a difference of only 2.5%. If you think anyone will be happy paying $3000 for that you are out of your mind.

This is another great example of "Much Ado About Nothing".

P.S.-- Tony: Don't forget that what ALL of these lipolysis procedures -- from liposuction all the way to Zerona--- have in common is that they are NOT for weight loss. They are for working on the "resistant areas" such as "love handles" and "saddlebags" that diet and exercise won't eliminate. There is no easy way out! You need to exercise daily and eat right!!!

Ooohh,

An anti-feminist. Welcome!

So you think I talk too much, and that my knowledge does not compare to the infallible Dr. Hansen. You have read his blogs, great, any peer-reviewed work that he has, I would love to see him write on a professional level.

Oh wait, he has no peer reviewed publications, not that I could find anyway. But please do not hesitate to correct me, I am just a girl who talks way too much. You are impressed by his blog writing, a 10 year old has a blog!

I am sorry to say, but when compared to all competitors of the Zerona, they are the only company taking measurements in inches not centimeters. What does that say about the other companies?

Again, I have no financial involvement in the company, I am just a good citizen who is trying to reestablish ethics back into the scientific community. Again, disinformation, read the article before you commitment with such conviction and prejudice undertones. The study had an assessment investigator, the cosmetic surgeons participating, and they had a treatment investigator, the staff. Meaning, the patients did not measure themselves, the doctor measured them, and I am sure they employed proper technique. Why are you making figures up, 57%, why lie?
Also, the FDA obviously agreed with the measurement technique, because the study proceeded.
I know this is a blog, but please do not bring your prejudice, anti-feminist comments here. Your demeanor is unprofessional and unwelcomed. I will be writing the director of this blog and citing your remarks.

The funny thing about this entire thing from my arrogant and "pompass" views. No where did I say that the Zerona does not work but is it worth $3000 for a 2% loss in circumference and a 37% failure rate. I also want to know of the results are long term or not. So go ahead and trust a 4th year medical student rather than a physician that has been in practice for 13 years. It does not bother me. I have stated facts about the research and by the way I teach these things to the medical students I instruct. Oh yeah, I am a clinical professor of medicine.

So I do not really care what you think or say. I was just trying to save some poor souls $3000. If they can prove that it works long term and improve on the failure rate of 37% I will be on here discussing the positives of this treatment. I am also looking for the "holy Grail" of non-invasive fat loss and I wish that this was it because I would have had it in both of my clinics in a heart beat. As of this time the "holy grail" has not been found and the Zerona is not even close at this time.

So again all of the comments have nothing to do with the studies they are just attacks on my character. I still stand by ALL of my comments. They are 100% accurate so take them for what they are worth.

Jillian,just because a trial is under clinicltrials.gov does not mean much. They are mainly concerned with safety of patients involved in the studies. There are many poor quality studies that are given government approval. Also, the FDA has no authority over physicians use of technology in medicine. The only authority they have is over how products are marketed and advertised. It is different for meds than it is with devices. So as you can see the at this time the only FDA approval for Zerona is pain reduction and I do believe it has FDA approval for wound healing. It does NOT have approval for weight loss or body contouring at this time.

med spa guy, thanks for the support as he knows who I am and we have been discussing the good and bad of laser technology for a number of years.

Allow me to end the debate.

Dr. Hansen, I have never met you, but I have no disrespect for your opinion and this blog deserves your comments. I only ask, that you are truthful regarding the data and any clinical trial be it Zerona or any new product. You have mentioned you will wait and see about ultrasound and zeltiq, their pilot trial has been available for years (clinicaltrials.gov), a non-controlled trial non-randomized trial, how is it you cannot be truthful and comment on those trials; yet, you are reserved and offer no opinion. The lay person does not know that data is available for all of these products, and the lay person does not know the importance of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial, but we do. It is our job, not to endorse a product, but to support proper clinical trials. Every author on that paper has a reputation on the line, even the statistician, and I am sure they would never let the data go unless it was flawless. To make such unique remarks that information was spun or manipulated is a farce and simply dishonorable. Physicians become so polarized in this discipline that an inspiring physician like myself loses sight of the ethics that must be the foundation of all physicians.
Your experience does far exceed mine, and that is why I must look to you in order to observe an ethical and professional demeanor so that I may craft my professional career in the same manner.
Kindly, Jillian

That is the problem right there with LH. You started off saying the data was corrupt and spun, and then end by saying in my opinion it is not worth 3000.00 that is all I am saying. Do not offer your opinion on cost, if it is not worth it the company will go under, that is economics 101, so demand, no supply. Also, you fail to mention the GARAUNTEE for all patients, if it does not work, they GET THEIR MONEY BACK! What other company does that! Professional, I like that Jillian, I would be proud to have you as my doctor, it is ashame you are teaching medical students LH. Ant

Jillian,

You have now questioned my ethics? I was 100% truthful in my opinion of the study and stand by it. You continue to attack me and I am not sure why. I did not say anything about the Zeltiq at this time and I am in the wait and see mode for it. It has multiple studies but still needs more research. It has some studies that are longer term even up to 6 months that show some promise. I also have been in phone contact with some of the physicians that have worked on both the Zerona and Zeltiq.

I also think you need to go to some of the posts on this blog site and there you will see many complaints about researchers and physicians that sell some of this technology. They have a vested interest in the sales of the technology. Some of these so called "experts" will say anything when they are paid to do it. You state that physicians should not endorse a product but if you look there are many that do and you will see many negative comments on this board about them.

Another funny thing is, I think all of the physicians involved in this study were up and up and did their job well. I did not make one negative comment about their qualifications or standards. I just think it is how the information is presented and by whom the article is written. That is the issue.

It still comes down to the question (this is my beef with this laser) is it worth $2500 to $3500 for an average of 3.22 inch loss when measured over 4 areas and has a 37% failure rate according to their own study. Also is it worth it if you have a 5 inch loss that lasts only a few weeks. It may be worth it for the person trying to get into their wedding gown etc. If patients are going to pat for this thing they should go in with their eyes wide open and understand the failure rate etc (even using the companies own research).

So now lets see who we want to listen to:
1) Paul Meek - 17 plus years experience in this industry having set up many medspas (he is not a physician) throughout the US
2)TF - a board certified plastic surgeon
3)Dermgal - I believe she is a physician that has been in the industry for a number of years
4)med spa guy - another individual with 20 years in this industry

OR

1)Chad - we do not know who he is because he disappeared
2)Jillian - a 4th year med student that has never had to ask a patient for a penny
3) Anthony - again we do not know who he is and only is an attack dog

Don't forget me, the girl who just wanted to put a little positive vibe on everything. I am not a physician, just a happy patient who who got a great result and really liked the garauntee!

Kim,

I completely respect your input and I am very glad you got decent results and I hope that you will be able to maintain the loss long term. I wish that every patient would have your results at minimum. How long ago did you complete your treatments? I would love to have a post on here every 2 weeks with consistent measurements. That is the information I want to know. Are the patients achieving long term results? Remember for every 2 of you that respond there is 1 that did not respond.

LH

Tony,

There is nowhere that I said the research is corrupt. What do you mean do not offer my opinion on cost? That is what this entire site is about. We as physicians are trying to discuss and evaluate technology for the benefits as well as limitations each has. We need to not only look at our cost but also the cost to our patients. Do you think is fair to take $3500 from some one that is saving their pennys and have them do Zerona and get no results now they can not afford liposuction?

Also , there is no guarantee that you lose inches or you get your money back. Some of the medspas have been offering this to combat the negative publicity on the Zerona. If you look some are offering 1/2 of the money back because the company will have to pay a significant portion of that to Zerona whether the procedure works or not. Zerona makes no guarantee to the physician OR the patient. So please get you facts straight.

I just thought it was funny how you would say one thing, then Chad, whoever he is corrected you, and then you would say another thing, and he would correct you.

Let's see:

You: Only 16 patients (wrong)
Chad: 67 patients (right)
You: Works on Tumescent Fluid (wrong)
Chad: The study was looking at the Zerona as an independent modality (right)
You: They do not define the difference between groups (i.e. BMI) (wrong)
Article: They statistically compared the two groups, no difference for BMI!
You: Until Zerona has a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial it is not worthy
Chad: They do have a placebo-controlled trial, it is on their website
You: 67 oh wait, but not published (wrong)
Chad: Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (right)
You: I don't know where 3.0 inches came from (misinformation)
Article: the FDA
You: It did not say if patients were compensated (misinformation)
Article: It says patients were not compensated
You: They didn't change their diet (misinformation)
Article: They were prohibited from changing their diet

This is a long list, one would say without knowing you, you either talk before being properly informed or are unethical and do not care that you are misleading. Curious isn't. From the support of your colleagues you must be having a bad blogging day. Oh well, tomorrows a new day.

The company SBMI offers full garauntee. Another misleading statement that Jillian forgot to point out.

Get your facts straight. They offer a garauntee to the patient and the physician. Since you did not know anything about the product this morning I imagine you know nothing about the product this evening. Kim

I have their contract on my desk and they do NOT offer a 100% money back guarantee unless they have changed it because of pressure from physicians.

Contact them.

KIM,

I will. The next question is why do they feel they need to make a 100% money back guarantee? Do they have over a 37% failure rate.

How would you feel knowing that the results are garaunteed, pretty good. The physician can focus on what he or she needs to do, and the patient can embrace a procedure without the worry of money because they know the company stand behinds their product.

I WILL USE CAPITALS FOR MY POST SO YOU CAN SEE MY COMMENTS. I AM NOT YELLING.

I just thought it was funny how you would say one thing, then Chad, whoever he is corrected you, and then you would say another thing, and he would correct you.

Let's see:

You: Only 16 patients (wrong)

THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ARTICLES USED BY THEM USING ONLY 16 PATIENTS. THE OTHER WAS UNDER REVIEW AND I DID NOT REALIZE IT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED. SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT ARTICLES.

Chad: 67 patients (right)

DIFFERENT STUDY. WHEN I REALIZED WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT STUDIES I APOLOGIZED AND READ THE ARTICLE.

You: Works on Tumescent Fluid (wrong)

THIS COMMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY REVIEW OF THIS ARTICLE. SO PLEASE STOP PULLING COMMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT. ACCORDING TO THEIR RESEARCH THE 635NM LLLT(ORIGINAL ERCHONIA LLLT) WORKED BETTER WHEN THE AREA WAS INFILTRATED WITH TUMESCENT FLUID. PLEASE LOOK AT ALL OF THE ARTICLES AVAILABLE. THIS IS THEIR OWN STUDY.

Chad: The study was looking at the Zerona as an independent modality (right)

YES, MY ABOVE COMMENT ABOUT TUMESCENT FLUID IMPROVING THE BENEFITS OF THE ERCHONIA LASER HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REVIEW OF THIS ARTICLE.

You: They do not define the difference between groups (i.e. BMI) (wrong)

BMI IS THE ONLY THING THEY DID. AS THOSE OF US WHO PRACTICE REAL MEDICINE, BMI IS FRAUGHT WITH ERRORS. YOU CAN HAVE A 6 FOOT TALL 225LB MALE WITH A 6% BODY FAT COMPOSITION AND IT WILL LOOK LIKE HE HAS A BMI OVER 30. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO GO BY DIRECT FAT COMPOSITION. THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS BY SUBMERSION IN WATER AND LOOKING AT DISPLACEMENT. THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO TRULY RANDOMIZE THE PARTICIPANTS.

YOU CAN NOT SIMPLY SAY YOU RANDOMIZED THE PARTICIPANTS YOU NEED TO DEFINE HOW YOU DID IT. THEN I NEED TO ASK WHY 35 RANDOMIZED TO THE TREATMENT SIDE AND 32 TO THE SHAM TREATMENT. WHY NOT 34 AND 33 RESPECTIVELY?

Article: They statistically compared the two groups, no difference for BMI!

AS YOU CAN SEE IF YOU HAVE ALL MALES IN ONE GROUP AND ALL FEMALES IN THE OTHER IT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I DO NOT THINK THEY DID THIS BUT IT SHOULD BE DEFINED BETTER IN THE ARTICLE. BY DEFINING THINGS LIKE THIS IT MAKES IT SO THAT GUYS LIKE ME CAN NOT ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS.

You: Until Zerona has a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial it is not worthy
Chad: They do have a placebo-controlled trial, it is on their website

I DID NOT KNOW IT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED THEY ONLY SENT ME THE REVIEW AND NOT THE COMPLETE PUBLISHED ARTICLE.

You: 67 oh wait, but not published (wrong) I DID NOT SAY "OH WAIT"
Chad: Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (right)

I THEN WENT AND FOUND THE ARTICLE AND READ IT.

You: I don't know where 3.0 inches came from (misinformation)WHAT?
Article: the FDA

YOU WILL HAVE TO SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS AND IF I DID SAY IT IT WAS BEFORE I HAD READ THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE.

You: It did not say if patients were compensated (misinformation)

WRONG, I DID NOT ASK IF THE PATIENTS HAD BEEN COMPENSATED I ASKED IF THEY HAD TO PAY FOR THE TREATMENT. THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE.

Article: It says patients were not compensated

BUT DID THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? AGAIN SOMETHING THAT IS FREE HAS A LOT LESS VALUE THAN SOMETHING THAT WAS PAID FOR ESPECIALLY $2500 TO $3500.

You: They didn't change their diet (misinformation)

I DO HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE. THEY DID ASK THEM NOT TO CHANGE THEIR DIET. I MISSED THIS ONE ON THE REVIEW.

Article: They were prohibited from changing their diet

NO THEY WERE ASKED NOT TO CHANGE THEIR DIET OR EXERCISE REGIMEN. THERE WAS NO EVALUATION OF THIS IN THE ARTICLE. SO DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT CHANGE THEIR DIET AND EXERCISE REGIMEN? YOU DO NOT KNOW UNLESS IT IS ASKED AND EVALUATED.

This is a long list, one would say without knowing you, you either talk before being properly informed or are unethical and do not care that you are misleading. Curious isn't. From the support of your colleagues you must be having a bad blogging day. Oh well, tomorrows a new day.

THE ONLY MISINFORMATION I SEE IS COMING FROM YOUR SPIN. YOU ARE TAKING PIECES OUT OF A PREVIOUS POST THAT I HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED WHILE I WAS TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER ARTICLE. I EXPLAINED THAT TO CHAD. THIS TELLS ME THAT YOU NEED TO BE TAUGHT HOW TO EVALUATE A RESEARCH ARTICLE. EVEN IF IT IS POSTED IN JAMA IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS INFALLIBLE. YOU HAVE VESTED TOO MUCH ENERGY AND EMOTION IN YOUR EVALUATION AND YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE WRONG. THE WAY I CAN TELL YOU ARE WRONG IS BY THE WAY YOU ATTACK MY CHARACTER AND ETHICS. YOU HAVE NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST MY OPINION OF THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION SO YOU ATTACK ME AND TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT.

YOU NEED TO LEARN TO TAKE EMOTION OUT OF YOUR REVIEWS AS WELL AS ALL VESTED INTEREST AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE PATIENTS. YOU APPEAR TO HAVE TOO MUCH EMOTION INVESTED IN THIS TOPIC AND YOUR RESEARCH ON IT. YOU HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS THING WORKS AND HAVE LIKELY NEVER EVEN SEEN IT USED. SO WHEN YOU HAVE SEEN 100,000 PATIENTS IN YOUR CAREER AND HAVE HAD TO MAKE THOUSANDS OF LIFE AND DEATH DECISIONS THEN YOU CAN CALL MY ETHICS INTO QUESTION. SO I HOPE THAT THROUGH THIS DEBATE I HAVE TAUGHT ANOTHER MEDICAL STUDENT TO QUESTION WHAT IS PLACED IN FRONT OF THEM. YOU SEEM TO BE FINE AT QUESTIONING ME BUT NOT THE ARTICLE. JUST BECAUSE IT IS IN A JOURNAL DOES NOT MEANT HAT IT DOES NOT HAVE BIAS. ALSO, I WILL BE SENDING MY REVIEW OF THIS ARTICLE TO THE ASLMS OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER. THE QUESTIONS I ASKED ARE APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED OF THE AUTHOR/AUTHORS BEFORE THIS WENT TO PRINT.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE SAME ASLMS JOURNAL THERE WAS A STUDY ON ZERONA BY ASIAN RESEARCHERS THAT CONCLUDED IT HAD NO EFFECT ON PATIENTS OF THAT ETHNICITY. I WILL TRY TO FIND IT AND PLACE A LINK TO IT IF POSSIBLE. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT WILL NOT WORK ON EVERYONE.

The Asian article was using Ultrashape, get your facts right!

Again, you threw in a sentence laced with misinformation. The study you are referring to is "The use of focused ultrasound for non-invasive body contouring in Asian." Lasers Surg Med (2009);41(10):751-759

A little lesson for you on photonic energy, ultrasound is not visible laser energy, the electron volts within each photon places them on different ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. I do not understand how you can state such false claims in CAPS! Take the emotion out of the equation, put in knowledge and be respectful and ethical.
Ultrasound is different from laser energy. I will wait for your apology, but really you summed up the whole conversation in that last sentence. Thank you, truly.

I will be emailing the director of this blog to highlight your misrepresentation of research on behalf of Dr. Shek, Dr. Yu, Dr. Yeung, Dr. Kono, and Dr. Chan who studied ultrasound on the asian population

Apparently this website cannot be trusted. Typical blog format. For all those readers who are in search of a treatment, whether it be Zerona, Ultrashape, Zeltiq, or any other non-invasive modality, speak with a doctor in your area personally, schedule a consultation and make the right decision based on the clinical data and what your doctor feels best. Do not trust these sites and the doctors on these sites, they are saturated with false and misleading claims. You are empowered, find the procedure that is safe, effective, and right for you.

Obviously you are all weak individuals, I am blocked because I identify the truth. That is sad Jeff. Real professional too. Jillian.

I will be sharing with my classmates the language used on this website, also will be sharing with the patient's of LH the kind of language he associates himself with. Because LH was caught being misquoted again Jeff had to step in and fight his battles.

One last thing before I am removed again! LH lied, he said a peer reviewed article was published highlighting that the Zerona was tested on the Asian population and was ineffective.

That was wrong, plain and simple. Why should I be reprimanded for pointing that out? Stand up for yourself and defend science and mistruths that are presented. I provided the volume, journal, and page like a professional, he made a statement that was wrong and said he would find the quote later. If you are trying to establish a blog for doctors to speak with other doctors, perhaps you should establish some regulations and implement standard ethical policies. Do not come in and use inappropriate language because one of your doctors was identified as misrepresenting peer-reviewed data. I wish you all the best. Kindly, Jill

Hello, when I seen this blog I was shocked how any one can say that Zerona does not do what it says it will do. I am in the entertainment business so I need to look really good I used Zerona and I am very pleased well worth the money. I would much rather pay this money than have something so barbaric like lipo which is very expensive and very risky. I think today people are looking for more non-evasive ways of having procedures done. Getting back to Zerona it worked wonderful just like they said it would. Many of my friends in the industry have or are going to be getting the treatments as well. Sounds like this doctor missed the opportunity himself of thinking of this wonderful product. We need more non-evasive procedures bring done so kudos’s to the company’s that develop them.

Dear Suzanne: If you go to the realself.com web site and type "zerona" into their search engine, you will see that you are in the distinct minority. The vast majority of respondents said the treatments did not work as expected, that they were disappointed, etc. We never believe what a single person says about a procedure as they could easily be employed by the manufacturer or one of the clinics offering the procedure. Majority rules. Nonetheless, I am happy that it appears to have worked for you. Or maybe it was the diet and exercise you tried simultaneously??

Good to hear Suzanne! I posted a couple times regarding my perceived science of Zerona, and I love to hear good stories as I am fan of science transitioning from bench to bedside.

However, I hope Suzanne that you are a real person. There are a lot of individuals who go on websites and post false blogs, even realself.com.

Realself only has 30 some patients, so I do not feel that is a good barometer for the procedure. For any patient contact your doctor that has the device and ask for their success rate, that is the best way to go, do not trust some posts because we do not know if Suzanne is a real person. But we hope.