LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: | |
| David that looks so sore, you look amazing now and i think you were very brave to post your photos publicly. | |
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: | |
| Peter, I do not want to get into the argument side of these posts but as a matter of interest I noticed in your long post you mentioned converting to tubes as opposed to LED, are you saying you are having better results this way than LED?? AS LED looks a bit fierce?? | |
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: | |
| Peter, yet another question, as I am really looking at this product.
I went to the Dermalux site, it mentions the work done by Tony Chu with acne patients, it details the effect of the lamp on acne which is bacterial in origin, but I was surprised to see Dermalux do not mention Rosacea. Because we have a disease which is vascular in origin, which creates a hypersensitive skin are we not more at risk from damage than an acne patient? Please do not think I am taking sides in the argument, I would really would consider using this!! |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: | |||
Hi Marpusbean I have only recently started reading old threads in the Forum for information on red light because it had been something that interested me for some time. Actually I started looking into blue light first and discovered red light was the better choice. Other than having an interest in light therapy, I had been reading up as much as I could about the actual cause of Rosacea. I figured, that if the cause could truly be found, a cure wouldn't be far behind. Amongst other theories I had running around in my mind, I read in more detail about the inflammatory process and the fact that red light therapy was purported to have an anti-inflammatory effect on the skin. The cause of Rosacea is not known. Is it a skin disorder, vascular disorder, inflammatory disorder? It's even called a disease. So bearing this in mind, for any company to claim that their product will cure someone who suffers from Rosacea, could well be construed as irresponsible. Heck, we all know of hundreds of web sites that claim to have the absolute miracle cure for Rosacea! Isn't it a more responsible approach not to lay irresponsible claims, especially since we don't actually know for sure what causes Rosacea? On another point, red light is something that has been introduced to us by every day people who suffer from Rosacea for no other reason than it has worked for them. Sure, there may be people that it doesn't work for but we all know that what works for one Rosacean may not work for another. I'm not saying that you should rush out and buy a new machine or make one yourself. I am most certainly considering it and from what I have read so far, apart from the first few posts in this thread (which I am highly skeptical of...I have my reasons) I think it is something worth considering. I might suggest, that this thread was not created to talk about the pros and cons of red light. I believe there was an agenda at hand and this is why there has been some 'politics' involved because people feel so strongly about the underlying issues at hand. Anyway, I for one am going to read more about this option because I think it has merit. Red |
|||
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: | |||
Hi Perry Just to clarify (and I just re-read the entire thread, other than the posts that were deleted today, with only one reference left to them) there has been no claim of a "cure" in this thread. It may work for some, it may not. But I believe that it is worth considering and spending more time reading about. My personal feeling is that when someone mentions something that is working for them, you give it a once over. If it looks interesting, you take the time to read more about it. This Forum is not the only source of information available to Rosaceans. Whenever I have decided to consider something new, I do take the time to read as much as possible on that subject. Bit like my reading on the inflammatory process. Red |
|||
Joined: 01 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: | |||
Thanks for explaining that Dr. Crouch. Wow, Forensic Medical Examiner, now that does sound interesting! |
|||
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: | |
| As I previously posted:
BTW, I have checked out how to purchase a commercially made machine from the company mentioned. There is no little box that asks for the name of the person referring you to them. How in the heck is someone going to know if I buy one or not? I’m not going to put a post up advertising my name and when I purchased it, so that someone can ring the company and get commission for my purchase. Come on, it’s absolutely ludicrous to even suggest this! |
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: | |||
Diane, I agree with your sentiments. I'm afraid they might have gotten lost in the crossfire. Let's face it, there is so much about this disease that we don't understand. Some, like myself, have had excellent results with accutane and others can't tolerate it at all. There are those who benefit tremendously from lasers, some who are laser "resistant" and others like Natalja who, unfortunately, suffer severe setbacks as a result of treatment. But does anyone really know why? I can't tolerate Zinco but others swear by it. And so on. In spite of the fact that David and I don't always see eye-to-eye, I am thrilled with his results and believe that he is sincere in trying to help others. Likewise, I think Geoffrey is sincere in trying to warn others that red light treatment could be harmful to rosacea skin. But these "debates" are so laced with animosity that they painful to read. Such intelligent, passionate, and dedicated people, it's a shame. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: | |
| This discussion has, at least, given us the expression, 'heart of a physicist.' I am very grateful for that! (This is not to impugn the author, who does sterling work elsewhere).
Are we saying that the therapeutic benefits of red light (in other afflictions) are attributable solely to its tendency to increase blood flow? (Surely a chap riddled with wounds could sit in front of a fire if this is this case? Or does this prompt only superficial blood flow?) Or, has red light properties which are healing per se? Dr Nase, when you touch down in Blighty, be assured that Scrumptious has promised to pick you up and ferry you about. Safe travel. |
|
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: | |||||
Callien and Redhotz, I have been placed in a situation which is a tough one. Whether I like it or not, many rosacea sufferers come to me with their personal experiences with all sorts of treatments. I receive 300 to 500 emails every day on different subjects. I never asked for this position and it is not a very popular position. My role in the rosacea community is 99% posting information about promising new treatments, clinical study results that no one has access to way before it is published (9 to 15 months sometimes), performing clinical studies now, and letting people know about potentially dangerous treatments. I have never focused on just one treatment for rosacea because there is no such thing as one treatment for rosacea. I discuss topicals. orals, medications, treatments, lasers and many over the counter treatments with potential. Most rosacea sufferers know that it is just as important to stay away from aggravating treatments as it is to find the proper treatments. Is it my job to report or recommend that something may be dangerous if there are four or five bad reports on it. No. How about around 110 to 125 reports where some are physically burned. Yes, I do think it is my job. Let me ask you one question. If you received all of these long three to four page emails that detail the pain rosacea sufferer are now in, would you report it to other rosacea sufferers so that they know they should be careful. If you received well over 100 reports would you not post anything. Seriously, would you? Or would you just let it go because you knew that two or three people would start an endless debate with you. People come to me for help and also to release information. I never asked for that position but when you are given the degree of information that I am given, I feel that I have a responsibility. To the best of my ability I have posted accurate information from people I have known for years. People who I trust and now are in pain. Let me just give you one example of the situation I am in. Dave Flemming has been touting a DMSO + Fluconazole cure for over two years. Topical DMSO on rosacea skin and eyes is as caustic as diluted hydrochloric acid. In my lab we use two pairs of thick gloves whenever we use the DMSO ampoules. NO ONE reported the dangerous side effects for over a year. Not one person. The main reason -- anytime a person even hinted that DMSO may be dangerous he would post long rebuttals that would tear the person down. So everyone stayed away from warning all unsuspecting rosacea sufferers from this bogus cure. I even kept my mouth shut because I did not have the energy to deal with the aggressive debates that would ensue. Freakin shame on me. Three people have damaged their corneas with two confirmed corneal melts which will require major eye surgery. I said nothing and I feel responsible for doing nothing. I always try to start out any debate in a constructive fashion. That is how I was trained and its the best approach. But after the first couple rebuttals, things never stay constructive. That is the real problem -- on both sides. Someone figure out how to debate over the Internet and that will solve a tremendous amount of angst. _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||||
 |
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: | |||
I heard that! 
Sadly i have no car, sorry. |
|||
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: | |||
GJ, Be gentle with me. Blighty???? I am trying to learn from my friends as quickly as possible. The LLT and LED have two mechanisms of action that are proven: 1. Increases blood flow to the area under exposure 2. Heals individual cells One thing that is absolutely fascinating is using the treatment for diabetic ulcers in the feet. These are open wounds that sometimes go down to the ligaments or bones and never heal. They just stay open. Treatment with these systems does a great job at healing these cells -- after 4 to 6 weeks of treatment the hole in the foot actually has a matrix of skin over it. Further treatment combined with copper peptide technology helps grow skin and close the hole. Now, you can easily measure skin blood flow in the foot and in diabetics there is very little blood flow. When you use these devices blood flow increases by 400% to 600% and stays that way for many hours. Hope that answers your question. Blighty?? _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||
| |
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: | |||
It’s a relic of British India. It comes from a Hindi word bilayati, foreign, which is related to the Arabic wilayat, a kingdom or province. Sir Henry Yule and Arthur C Burnell explained in their Anglo-Indian dictionary, Hobson-Jobson, published in 1886, that the word was used in the names of several kinds of exotic foreign things, especially those that the British had brought into the country, such as the tomato (bilayati baingan) and especially to soda-water, which was commonly called bilayati pani, or foreign water. Blighty was the inevitable British soldier’s corruption of it. But it only came into common use as a term for Britain at the beginning of the First World War in France about 1915. It turns up in popular songs There’s a ship that’s bound for Blighty, We wish we were in Blighty, and Take me back to dear old Blighty, put me on the train for London town, and in Wilfred Owen’s poems, as well as many other places. In modern Australian usage, Old has been added, as in Old Country and Old Dart, as a sentimental reference to Britain. |
|||
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: | |||||
Allright Scrumptious -- I need the truth from you. Did you get that out of a book or did you just right that off your head. If you did it off the top of your head you are in the wrong business -- move over one sector to travel please.  _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||||
| |
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: | |
how i wish that was from my head 
Out of an online encyclopedia, its just a slang term for Britain basically. Always good to know these terms origins though  |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|