LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: | |
| Geoffrey
Ok lets get this thread back on track to your first post where you made some very serious allegations about me. Do not underestimate that these are very serious. Since that first post you have been challenged to provide evidence but nothing has been forthcoming. To me: No evidence = No proof = Allegation void Simple equation really. Below is a statement from Adrian Warburton - Director of Dermalux who has kindly given me permission to post this on the Forum. You may remember in the past when you made similar allegations against me I gave you his address and telephone number but you have never made contact. When I spoke to Adrian today he had never heard of you. I think the first line of his statement is very pertinent. ----- Original Message ----- From: Adrian Warburton To: Peter Waters Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Can you help please ! Dear Peter What a tirade! most unscientific and not helping the situation at all - why is he so vindictive? I cannot recall any unit that has been returned from a Rosacea sufferer either a tubed or LED version. I can also state that as a Company we have never asked you to promote our products or that you have ever received any payment for same. We have tried to help people who have contacted us with the best of our knowledge and experience. We always point out that there has never been a Clinical trial done with regards to Rosacea although, I seem to recall that Tony Chu is about to start a trial with redlight (it might be worth having a word with him) The problem with the argument about Rosacea is that the cause has not been defined with absolute certainty. Simplisticly it it appears to be an exaggeration of a natural condition that occurrs normally as the result of embarassement which dialates the capilliaries in the surface of the skin to cause a blush I know that some researchers think that its cause could be p.Acnes manifesting itself in a different way As you know we have never pushed the DermaLux as a treatment for Rosacea but lots of people suffering from the condition seem to be getting benefit by using all red versions. The Red LED unit was developed as a wound healing unit for recalcitrant leg ulcers. We have only sold a relatively few all Red LED units for Rosacea to people who wanted to try them and they seem to be doing OK. They will certainly tell you that the quality of their skin has improved which may be a cause of the improvement in the Rosacea but untill we have a controlled Clinical trial on any system of treatment we can only go on peoples experiences. The understanding of light Therapy is growing fast but it is all relative. I once spoke to a Nobel Prize winning Proffesor of Medicine who told me that the sum total of the knowledge of the functioning of the human body is 15% and most of that is mechanics and plumbing so we have a long way to go with the biochemistry. That is the reason that some treatments in all facets of Medicine work for some cases and not for others. So the only advice given must be if it works for you use it if does not don't regards Adrian Warburton Director DermaLux Over to you now Geoffrey but please keep this thread fixed back to theme in your original post. You are very skilfull at avoiding the issues when it suits you. Lets have the evidence please ? Thank you Peter |
|
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: | |
| I have been intrigued by the LED arguments, and by the note from Adrian
Warburton. The problem is we are in no-mans land!! I have no doubt that when people say red light has helped, that it has helped them, but there are so many variables in rosacea!!!! People with papules, and even pustules, others with extremely red peeling skin, others with erythema, others withs skin so sensitive even water stings!! Adrian does not market this product for rosacea, nor does his company have insructions or a protocol for treating rosacea, how should the lamp be used for aparticular sufferer?? Playing devils advocate, I can see people deriving benefit from the lamp, and equally some users damaging their faces. The sooner qualitative tests are done , and these are published, and some kind of protocol established the better. |
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: | |||
For the love of god, man! Where are these people? What machine did they use? What are the specifications on the machine--wavelength, energy output? You continue to refer vaguely to "people" and "devices" but have 0--yes, that's right--_ZERO_ specific citations, studies, or information for us. You are seriously undermining your credibility by continually avoiding producing anything to back up your claims. Please, show us some proof here, or stop scaring people. It's disgraceful. If you call yourself a Ph.D., surely you know what specific evidence is and what the standard is for evidence to be acceptable. If people are not smart enough to understand what scare-tactic claims are, and what evidence is, then they deserve what they get. This is silly, Dr. Nase. David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject: | |||
Okay. So these are devices you are familiar with.  What is the energy delivered by the red light devices used to help diabetic ulcers? What wavelength is used? How long, and how frequently, are treatments administered?
Thank you, David |
|||
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:15 am Post subject: | |||
Thanks Scrumptious -- anyway you gathered the info. is great. Everyone now has a fair amount of information to make a decision -- the possible side effects and the possible benefits. That's all we are here for. I have a crunch time for the clinical rambazole study on rosacea sufferers and this debate has long been over -- please everybody, use common sense. _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||
 |
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||
| Common sense and facts are the best choice, I think.
For the record, if anyone has been scared off by Geoffery's recent posts about those burned by red LLLT, consider this chronology of his related quotes: June 11
August 6
January 9
January 21
January 21
January 23
Just a few questions, then. Geoffery, if your post-doctorate degree was in Biophysics, why didn’t you tell the us the information you posted after January 21st, during the period June 9th – January 9th? If that was your post-doc degree, surely you would have been aware of the dangers of LLLT all along? On January 9th, you seemed playful and unconcerned about LLLT. Then, amazingly, between January 9th and January 21st you received between 110-125 personal emails from rosacea sufferers, ALL telling you that they had been burned by red LLLT devices? And I thought your Ph.D. was in Microvascular Physiology, not Biophysics. --but I don't know your department or its curriculum, that may be a technicality. Microvascular Physiology is just what it says on your book. This progression of ideas--everything is fine with red light, you are encourgaging me for 6 months--and then a sudden “awareness” about the negative effects of red LLLT--just 2 days after I posted an exultory anecdotal experience--strains your credibility to the extreme. I have severe doubts about the veracity of your claims. Especially as you have repeatedly refused to provide any concrete facts or data or studies to support your recent statements. Those are the facts--your facts, your statements. So, yes, people can make up their minds for themselves. Regards, David _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|||||||||||||
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: | |||
Peter, Your lack of attempt to discuss or debate any point on this subject with civility ...... and your private attacks on many people with language that is worse than a street bully, especially on females, are the main reasons nothing constructive has come from this thread. Just two sides cut down the middle. The email from the producer means nothing to me as his first sentence sets the tone for the entire post and is truly unprofessional. And the second sentence is untrue. I tell you that dozens of rosacea sufferers have returned machines to Dermalux (and other companies too). "I dont recall" lets him get out of any strong statement. I state that "There have been MANY rosacea sufferers that have returned their machines to them within the 30 day guarantee due to facial redness, burning, blurred vision and inflammation. That is a statement and a quote. Please tell him to just look up a half dozen Australian purchases and over a dozen UK purchases in the last 12 months. There is no ambiquity there. I state that as fact and not as "something I cant recall, but then may recollect later". If this needs to go farther, we shall set up some type of system so that these people can state their facts without absolute fear of your language and attacks. Peter, you could have handled this a thousand times better and I would have replied in kind. This has potential down the road, but in no way can any non-heated discussion take place. David, yes. I have a Doctorate in Medical Physiology. I have a Post-Doctorate in Neurovascular Physiology with emphasis on Microvascular Physiology and Bio-physics. Peter, if you ever want to come to the table and discuss things in a couple months in a civilized fashion I will make my best attempts to do likewise. _________________ Geoffrey ------------------------------------------------ Dr. Geoffrey Nase Ph.D. Neuro-Vascular Physiologist Rosacea Specialist and Consultant http://www.drnase.com ------------------------------------------------ |
|||
| |
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: | |
| OK fellow Rosaceans
I know we can all go back and read the entire thread (other than the posts that have been deleted) but I thought it may be helpful if the most pertinent points in this debate were summarised, so that we can focus on the questions at hand: Geoffrey initiates thread to warn all Rosaceans about the dangers of LLT and LED use on Type I Rosacea, states that Type I Rosacea has an element of inflammation and that increased blood flow helps to reduce inflammation, yet LLLT should not be used on a Rosacean skin. Geoffrey states that “some get commissions for each unit sold. They submit a name or the person buying it is asked to mention their name. That is what is behind many (but not all) of these "sellers" attacks”. Geoffrey also claims: · Having 110 –125 reports of blister skin, 1st degree burns and increased flushing · 3 Laser Physicians who have treated over 12 burn cases · A Dermatologist who has treated 3 cases · 7 Australians have returned their machines to Dermalux · 60 reports from Rosaceans “trying it” with 4 Laser Physicians treating these people for negative side effects from use of LLT or LED Geoffrey states that he “knows more about both of these systems than almost everyone else” Dr Crouch talks about 2 patients that came to see him in the same week with burns from a “home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays.The LEDs were purchased from separare mail order electrical wholesalers”. David points out that “light” and “LED light” are different and that LED light is non-thermal (do not produce heat). David asks Geoffrey and Dr Crouch to a) “quote the energy outputs of the of the units that harmed these patients, and b) what the light source is. Geoffrey states that 1. “Every single LED and LLT will cause dramatic increases in blood flow. Every one, every wavelength, and every self made system.” and that 2. “non thermal does not relate to blow flow increases.” David disagrees with Geoffrey on point 1 above and again requests the energy level used by these patients. Dr Crouch states that he has “absolutely no idea what the energy output of these (improvised) devices is” and states that he has “no problem with properly constructed/ tested / calibrated devices with FDA approval” Geoffrey again mentions “an increase in blood flow” with these processes David explains how he built his LED unit and that he “would very much like to find out what sort of device the people that were harmed were using so we could find some sort of benchmark or "limit" for red light therapy.” Dr Crouch reiterates that “anything that increases blood flow seems to be counterintuitive with rosacea” David objects to Geoffrey’s use of the words “ "all", "always", "any", "never", etc... that one should regard said statements with extreme skepticism.” and that he is “only here to express qualified statements regarding my anecdotal experiences with LLLT.” Redhotoz asks Dr Crouch if he reported the said cases to the appropriate authorities and asks Geoffrey for confirmation about the inflammatory/anti-inflammatory benefit from using these therapies. Bradley requests before/after pictures from David. Dr Crouch reiterates that he “would not recommend red light therapy for rosacea”, explains that he was unable to report the said cases to the authorities because they were home made units, not commercially bought units and that he is a GP as well as laser specialist, so the said cases were referred to him for laser treatment. Geoffrey states that his first post stated only “facts, numbers and warnings. Absolutely no vindictiveness.”, “that these machines are not for rosacea right now.” and that he has no agenda. Prryjones requests before/after pictures, asks if any studies have been done and likens LLLT to a case where a “cure” was offered without evidence. Redhotoz advises that Dermalux don’t have the option to offer a name for referral, so how could anyone get commission from the company? David posted before and after pictures and again asks Geoffrey” What devices were used, what wavelength was used, and how much energy was delivered to these patients' skin that were harmed?” Geoffrey explains that “it does NOT matter what device, wavelength or energy level used.” “Every single device that I have seen will increase blood flow to the surface of the facial skin.” “If you are using a low energy system than the point is mute because it does not have a biological action on a cell and thus does not signal a blood flow response.” David asks Geoffrey if he has any data, studies or specifications of the devices used, if we are supposed to simply take his word for it and submits an article on “Light Emitting Diode-Based Therapy”. Marpusbean mentions that the Dermalux site does not mention use of their units on Rosacea. Redhotoz advises Prryjones that there was never a mention of this therapy being a “cure” for Rosacea. RedHotCanuk questions Geoffrey “how do you know he sells this equipment? I don't think thats very fair to write unless you have facts to support it.” Geoffrey replies with “he did indeed tell other rosacea sufferers that he does and there is a huge market for them.” GJ asked “Are we saying that the therapeutic benefits of red light (in other afflictions) are attributable solely to its tendency to increase blood flow?” “Or, has red light properties which are healing per se?” Geoffrey claims “My role in the rosacea community is 99% posting information about promising new treatments, clinical study results…performing clinical studies now, and letting people know about potentially dangerous treatments”, mentions the “DMSO + Fluconazole” case and states that “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” RedHotCanuck again requests facts be provided in regards to someone selling Dermalux units. Geoffrey replies advising that he “cant give out names due to confidentiality under Rosacea Consulting Specialists.” Peter Waters provides a copy of an e-mail from Adrian Warburton – Director Dermalux to Peter, stating that Adrian “cannot recall any unit that has been returned from a Rosacea sufferer either a tubed or LED version. …we have never asked you to promote our products or that you have ever received any payment for same. …We always point out that there has never been a Clinical trial done with regards to Rosacea although, I seem to recall that Tony Chu is about to start a trial with redlight…we have never pushed the DermaLux as a treatment for Rosacea but lots of people suffering from the condition seem to be getting benefit by using all red versions” David again requests specific information about the said cases. So, in summary of the above: Geoffrey adamantly states that LLT and LED light therapy is dangerous for Rosaceans with Type I Rosacea, that he has no agenda with this thread other than to worn Rosaceans of it’s danger. Question: What about it’s use for other sub-types of Rosacea? Geoffrey states that Peter Waters sells Dermalux units and gets paid a commission from the company to do so and that is why he keeps going on about them and that 7 Australians with Rosacea have returned their units to Dermalux. Peter provides a copy of an e-mail from the Director of Dermalux to refute both of these claim. Dr Crouch talks of two patients he saw in the same week who had facial burns from their “home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays”, that he was not able to report these cases to the authorities because they were home made units, not commercially bought units. Several requests are made for the following information to be provided by Geoffrey or Dr Crouch in regards to said patients: 1. What devices were used? 2. What wavelength was used? 3. How much energy was delivered to the patients? Reason for these questions, “so we could find some sort of benchmark or "limit" for red light therapy.” Neither Geoffrey or Dr Crouch were able to answer these questions. Several requests are made for data to be provided by Geoffrey on the following claims made by Geoffrey: 1. 110 –125 reports of blister skin, 1st degree burns and increased flushing 2. 3 Laser Physicians who have treated over 12 burn cases (no mention of how they got burnt) 3. A Dermatologist who has treated 3 cases (no mention of how they got burnt) 4. 60 reports from Rosaceans “trying it” with 4 Laser Physicians treating these people for negative side effects from use of LLT or LED Geoffrey unable to provide any data due to “confidentially” of his patients. Questions I have to Geoffrey: 1. Did you report all of the cases you have mentioned to the proper authorities? If so, which one? 2. If you are not able to provide any data due to “confidentiality” of your patients, are you able to provide more thorough scientific data in regards to the negative effects of LLT and LED on Rosaceans? 3. Have you conducted any studies on LLT and LED that you can share with us to back up your claims? A debate is about discussing facts. The opening post contained a personal accusation, which could only bring an inflamed response. So, let’s get back to facts and see if we can’t have an adult discussion about the pros and cons of LLT and LED. Red |
|
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:15 am Post subject: | |
| Red
Thanks for that because this thread keeps going off the subject. His first post is the one we should refer back to each time because that sets the tone and his accusations. Other material and subjects keep getting thrown in which have nothing to do with his original post. I have provided clear cut evidence from a respected professional person to refute the accusations made against me. I still have to see any evidence from Geoffrey Nase. Unless he does provide evidence to back up all his claims I think he should retract the accusations he has made and withdraw all of his comments as any professional person would do in these circumstances. Regards Peter |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: | |
| What a disappointing response! This thread was supposed to be about LLT and LED. Or was it? | |
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: | |
| Good Morning Geoffrey !
I see once again you are going off track and you are making further allegations against me which have nothing to do with your original post in this thread. It may well suit you to have this thread closed down but that is not my intention because I have a right to defend myself against your accusations. This is what I am doing and I have provided evidence. We are still waiting for yours. Briefly as you can imagine after your original post in this thread over the weekend emotions were running high. As far as I am aware now I am back on good terms with the person concerned. I am sure you have lots of PM's on many people you could release, if that is your aim. I also have many e mails and PM's from you and others which could be interesting if I also made them public. They have nothing to do with this thread and I have no intention of releasing them here, if indeed I have any intention of releasing them anyway. Please get back on track and answer the questions submitted by me and others plus support evidence to back up your accusations against me in your original post on this thread. If you cannot do this, then as I said previously please retract all the claims and accusations made against me and of course Dermalux. I suggest you read your original post again plus recent from posts from Red and David to remind yourself of the questions being raised because it is you who is missing the point. I have to go to work now. Thank you Peter |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: | |||
David Do you have the web address of the site for this article, please? Save me the web search. I have an appointment with my Dermatologist next month and I am just writing a letter to him with ideas for us to discuss. I think it would be prudent to include a web address, so that he can also have a look. My Derm is going to have a great deal of options to consider at our next appointment and I thought he should be pre-warned and have the time to do some research himself. He wasn't too knowledgable at our first appointment, so I thought I would give him a heads up. I have done way too much reading since my last appointment with him! Or is there such a thing as too much reading when it comes to Rosacea? Many thanks Red _________________ Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: | |
| http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/499713_print
Careful--you may get blank looks from your derm, unless they're one of the "cool" ones that is open to suggestions and learning. 
I've come at some derms/laser docs with all sort of information and questions and overall, it's been a mixed bag. 
Good luck, though.  _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: | |||
Thanks David Yes, I expect that if I don't send my Derm a letter with things I propose to discuss, then it will be a waste of my money and his time...well...both of our time really. I would rather that he have a month up his sleeve to check things out and advise. Tell me again why we go to the Derm? We take the info to them, or in my case send it early, so that we can ask for advice on what we have already read about?! Red _________________ Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: | |
That, and we come in with studies that support the use of certain drugs and then we berate them until they write us a script....  _________________ 28 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisture, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|