Trying to avoid brand name, but here are a few pics of the working end of the tool. It's similar to a flea comb, actually...
It's a remarkably effective grooming tool, getting down to loose hair in the undercoat which simple brushing doesn't always reach.
But every time it's been mentioned in the past several years, someone chimes in with a claim that to be that effective it must be cutting hair, or pulling it out. However, nobody seems to actually have a trustworthy citation for that claim.
Running it through my own hair certainly doesn't seem to snag or cut, but of course humans don't have an undercoat and that's what the device is specifically designed for.
So what I'm looking for is something that will convince me these claims are actually well founded. My own experience says they aren't, with the possible exception of folks who massively overgroom their cats.
I'm not saying. "put up or shut up" -- folks are entitled to opinions in the absence of clear evidence -- but I'd sorta like to see us reach some consensus on this question if possible. My experience says that it's a good tool being slandered, but that's only one non-scientific data point.