Last Post on Topic & then Rosacea Sufferers Make up Mind
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: | |
| A friendly and helpful fellow rosacean passed some information on to me and I felt it would help inform others on their understanding and potential use of red light therapy:
I thought I'd google to see if I could find the "Bio-physics site" Geoffrey Nase had quoted from at the start of this thread. The phrase I chose was "Increased phosphorylation in the mitochondria". Across millions of internet pages, google could only find this phrase on two web pages, both relating to the care of horses: http://www.foxdenequine.com/laser.htm http://www.throwingstonesfarm.com/laserlit.htm Both of these businesses use Thor Laser Therapy Units. Apparently, THOR is the preferred supplier to many national sports teams, as well as Manchester United, the Royal Air Force, the British Army and the Royal Navy. Thor have 8 hand-held probes "cleared by the FDA with different combinations of power and wavelength configuration". Some of them are LED units and some are lasers. Geoffrey Nase has now explained, through an intermediary, that "He made a typo and typed in "Laser". He did not mean that. He meant the LLT and LEDs that everyone is talking about and not laser. ... These two systems (and not lasers) have been shown to increase blood flow to cells due to cellular changes, enzymatic changes and metabolic byproducts. At the tissue level these increase the growth of feed vessels, arterioles, capillaries and venules. This happens from the non-thermal LLT and LED. So just a quick and quiet correction - he did not mean lasers." But let us look at the two horse sites that share the quote with which Geoffrey Nase started this thread. They are identical, and they both clearly state that they are talking about LASERS, not LED, and not LLT: ----------------------------- "It has been shown that irradiation with laser light causes: On a Cellular Level Increased phosphorylation in the mitochondria and increased levels of cellular ATP Increased protein synthesis, including increased growth and reproduction Increased activity in the nucleus resulting in increased DNA and RNA synthesis Increased production and activation of cellular enzymes Improved membrane stability and increased activity of the Sodium/Potassium pump On a Tissue Level Increases in collagen production Increased epithelial produciton Angiogenesis, and an increase in capillarisation of tissue Reductions in scar tissue formation and keloid adhesions Reduced pain and inflamation Nerve regeneration Muscle relaxation and reduction in muscle spasms and atonicity Increased immune system response" ----------------------------- _________________ 27 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. No skincare products used, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Getting Gemini laser now. Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Location: Bremerton, Washington
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: | |
| Are we livestock? | |
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: | |
That's the point.  Bad references crossed-over to make a point about barely-related technology use on humans.  _________________ 27 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. No skincare products used, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Getting Gemini laser now. Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: | |
| Hello David
Who ever spotted this has obviously done their homework and it's obviously not a "typo" then because the information has been cut and pasted in from the site. I didn't want to join this thread as it just seemed a repeat of the other one on LED with the various accusations again, but no evidence to back these claims up. However I read the "typo" excuse and was highly suspicious, but it now appears we have the real motive confirmed for everybody to see in black and white. Lets hope we can all move forward now on this Forum with the truth and facts about rosacea and it's treatment. I would also like to thank all those who have written to me with support either via the Forum or in private as it has been very much appreciated. Thanks Peter |
|
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: | |
| I think this is all very intriguing. There should definately be some proper research done in this area. If these systems do have some kind of beneficial effects on rosacea, then we should know about it.
As is, I wont be trying them out. Im not brave enough to put my face into one of those things with out having some kind of idea of what it will do. But I respect the people who did have the 'jacobs' to do so and I am glad they are getting the relief they need. Im also glad that they are sharing this with the group. Maybe if the air were not so tense, then we could have a constructive debate? It would be difficult as though, as there seems to be precious little evidence for support either side. Dr Nase and Crouch are not out of line to stress their opinions in my book. If Dr Crouch has seen patients burned by these machines, then its good that he speaks up and saves others from such a fate. At the end of the day, there needs to be guide lines with any treatment, does there not? I would also be most interested to hear the type of machine and settings that resulted in the burns. Forgetting whether it is beneficial or not for a moment, there must be a SAFE limit (ie that will not physically burn the area), and the people on this board (who might try these out) should be aware of this limit. I have infact used a similar machine on a damaged muscle in my shoulder (on the recommendation of my physio). I used it along with the 'frozen pea' technique to treat the inflammed muscles. It worked a charm, but I cant see how this could benefit rosacea. Is the point of it to bring out inflammation? But at the end of the day, I personally need to see something in black and white before Id be comfortable about using one of these systems. Maybe all the people who have used the machines could report certain details back to the board? This might allow us to note any trends and speculate to why they got a good / bad result? BB |
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Important Correction: LLLT and LED - Not laser | |||
Thanks for the clarification Andy.. At the same time the post implied, as I understood it, that ppl were being treated for burns from the LED/LLLT (non laser) systems. I posted an article which showed the systems were being used to treat burns & other various difficult to heal wounds. There are "heat lamps" & LED's whose thermal properties well exceed the therapeutic range I'm referring to of 660nm-~900nm. In which case if the heat lamps are what he speaks of, then I would agree those are not a good idea. I don't disagree the systems do temporarily increase blood flow, but it is transient & as I explained it's akin to the after effects of a YAG tx where the increased flow/symptoms are a necessary evil to reap the benefit as the healing process takes place. This is different from putting on say a cream containing a vaso-dilator that is nothing but detrimental. Like lasers, LED's stimulate vessel replacement/repair. It just does so by other mechanisms than the lasers. Lasers damage the vessels & surrounding tissues causing the body to perceive injury. Inflammation signals the vessels to be replaced. Angiogenesis is a normal part of this or how else does one get a healthier newer network which is set up 10-14 days post tx.. The idea is to keep the process from being overstimulated to go out of control. I've never had a Yag to date where I haven't had kicked up symptoms for 4 weeks before the switch flips & my flushing goes down a notch. Red light LED/Fluorescent acne lamp photons are attracted to hemoglobin in the same manner as the lasers. Difference being damage is not being caused, it's simply the photon absorption is causing biochemical changes on a cellular level. A cascade effect if you will which is a slower process to show than the lasers, but none the less has benefit imo. It is giving the cells/bvs the message to replace/"fix me". And the anti-inflammatory properties of red light sort of counteract the dilation. Drawing parallel again to how lasers (red in particular) frequently have a calming effect on the nerves & epidermis. |
|||
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: | |||
| This seems to be a fairly even-handed evaluation of LED therapy:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/499713_print Conclusion:
Some evidence exists to support its use for acne, but it really doesn't address the flushing/blushing issue. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: Re: Important Correction: LLLT and LED - Not laser | |||||
Kristen--I've never experienced anything from red LED light treatments that could be viewed as "increasing blood flow". To the contrary, I find I'm quite pale after using my array. I know you've done more research into this than I have--can you explain this point? And as for burns, I think the point being made at the beginning of this thread was that red light therapy was causing 1st degree burns--not used for treating them. Although, red light could be used to heal burns, though I'm guessing it would be at a much higher energy level than that used for rosacea. Don't know on this one, though. David _________________ 27 year-old male Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular 20 + laser treatments. No skincare products used, clarith. 500 XL @ 1/..... Getting Gemini laser now. Using homemade red light LED array. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes. |
|||||
| Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|