Last Post on Topic & then Rosacea Sufferers Make up Mind
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:13 am Post subject: Last Post on Topic & then Rosacea Sufferers Make up Mind | |
| Group,
David and Peter have gone to great lengths to make the LED and LLT systems work for rosacea. Like Dr. Crouch said, you do have to applaud them for all their hard work. But, does it not concern you that rosacea sufferers are being treated for burns, flushing and inflammation with these systems. One doctor posted very clearly on this fact. Does that not worry anyone? Does it not worry anyone that they are literally tearing the system up and making new systems and then forwarding this information to other rosacea sufferers? This is Bio-Physics at the most complicated level. Does it not bother anyone that the Founder or Salesman for Dermalux comes on this board and states no machines have been returned. I can name 30 people right now that have returned this machine to Dermalux recently -- not because it does not work, but because it hurts them. Does it not worry that Peter continually posts about Kristen and Banshee's progresss (by the way Peter, they are the same people) when Kristen is nearly disabled. Does it not worry people that these two machines are not made for rosacea and have no indication for rosacea? They are pushing these machines very hard -- much harder than I have ever seen anything marketed. Does it not concern people that these people have no training or degrees in any area similar to this? I do and I cant even understand what happens when you make one change to the machine. Does it not worry that both of these systems main purpose is to increase the number of blood vessels in the skin (angiogenesis) and significantly increase blood flow by 400% to 600%. Here are the facts from a Bio-physics site on the "benefits" of both these machines: It has been shown that irradiation with laser light causes: 1. On a Cellular Level Increased phosphorylation in the mitochondria and increased levels of cellular ATP (major increases in blood flow) Increased protein synthesis, including increased growth and reproduction (major stimulus for skin blood flow) Increased production and activation of cellular enzymes (the strongest stimuli for blood flow) 2. On a Tissue Level Angiogenesis and increase in capillarization of tissue (terrible for rosacea skin) Increases in collagen production (good for rosacea skin) Four out of five mechanisms of action that are clear contraindications for rosacea use. Now that is really all the energy I have to give to this. Now, as a rosacea sufferer, you can make an informed decision and not a decision made on a sales pitch. _________________ 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: Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: | |
| Dr. Nase--for the record, I have no monetary interest whatsoever in red LLLT systems. I'm all for DIY red light systems.
And I think we covered everything else in the other thread. So that's all I've got to add. 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. |
|
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: | |
| some thinking to be done... | |
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:54 am Post subject: | |
| It is as plain as the red nose on my red face that David and Peter do not make any money from red light machines. To continually accuse either one of them of this is pointless, other an obvious attempt to discredit them.
As with anything to do with Rosacea, what works for one person, may not work for another. By slam dunking the whole idea certainly makes it appear that all of this has nothing to do with red light therapy whatsoever and all about a personal vendetta. This needs to stop. Take it off the Forum and deal with it there. Personal vendettas serve no purpose in this Forum. It’s so tiresome! Red _________________ Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment. |
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: LLLT | |
hello all- 
first post here..I've been a long time lurker and wasn't going to join but felt compelled to after reading this message. Dr. Nase- Firstly I must say I have been truly sorry to hear of your health issues & other problems.  I had not contacted you as I felt somewhat put in the middle being a friend of Peter's...I've chosen not to be active on the rosacea forums to focus on getting well. I do not take sides in the issues & speak only for myself.
I am a little disturbed that it's felt I can be spoken for in my absence though. Especially in misrepresenting my condition & making a generalized conclusion the lamps are the reason for my troubles when they could be a potentially beneficial tx for some. None the less I understand one can only go by what they know at the time. I have been having difficulty but not because of the lamps. Matter of fact I have tested cessation of them several times & it's long periods without them that have, imo, caused digression in my condition among other things. I felt some distinctions & clarifications needed to be made regarding this topic that I have put a great deal of research & personal experimentation into. LLLT done with lasers & at home light devices such as acne lamps/LED are not the same thing. Lasers, regardless if used at low power, are high energy devices, LED & florescent bulbs are low energy...The LED therapy was pioneered by NASA when it was noted astronauts wounds were healing faster in space w/it. And infrared LED is currently being used in the reversal of diabetic neuropathy. I think the problem in the misconception of at home lamps is it's not understood it is normal to flush for a bit after a tx. But like David has stated many times, after awhile it has an almost clonidine like effect calming the skin down. The phenonmenon of post tx flushing is no different than the increased period of symptoms one has after receiving a YAG of which I have had 30 txs experiencing 4 weeks of difficulty before a switch is flipped & my flushing goes down a notch. W//the lamps-increased blood flow is temporary/transient lasting about 4hrs...In one instance the vessels & surrounding tissue/structures are being damaged vs. more subtly signaled to be repaired/replaced. Hence why the lamps take longer to show assistance in healing than the lasers...And I support both therapies. A few things to note about red light's properties in particular; -it's anti-inflammatory -stimulates lympathic drainage assisting w/swelling -has a calming effect on the nerves Here is an article for further reading on the topic: Assitance in Wound healing I have had more problems when I tried to use the blue tubes. So if ppl are trying units, such as Dermalux, w/the blue tubes this may account for frequency of return. Or in perceiving the post tx flushing period as deleterious when it is a necessary evil to reap benefit. Akin to how in arthritis you'd think exercise would be bad but actually helps to slow joint degradation & relieve pain. Of course this is just all in my personal experiences.. I can state my skin has looked & done worse w/o the lamps. With my level of flushing & considering I started out with P&P's, I have a had a relatively low incidence of them since the lamps. And I have made a dent in my condition generally. Apologies for the long post & I hope I didn't offend with my comments. cheers- Kristen |
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Location: USA
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: | |||
Exactly! That's what I have been saying all along. Also, it's getting old when I'm told resurfacing inflames Rosacea. Trust be told, on some it will... some it won't. |
|||
Forum Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Location: Australia
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: | |
| Dr Nase wrote:
27 Jan 2006 “It has been shown that irradiation with laser light causes…” Banshee wrote: 29 Jan 2006 “LLLT done with lasers & at home light devices such as acne lamps/LED are not the same thing. Lasers, regardless if used at low power, are high energy devices, LED & florescent bulbs are low energy” Thank you for your informative post Banshee. Thank you also for pointing out that Dr Nase was referring to low level LASER treatments in his first post of this thread, so of course there would be heat and flushing. Everything I’ve read on the Forum and in Rosacea archives talks only about LLLT as meaning LIGHT in fluorescent or LED treatments, so I was astonished to see that Dr Nase was referring to low level LASER treatments. Again thank you for pointing this out. Now I can go back to reading about the effect of red LLT and LED in relation to Rosacea without the need to consider the effects of laser. It certainly did seem quite confusing and glad it has now been clarified. Red _________________ Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment. |
|
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Location: netherlands
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: | |
| Hi all,
I agree with what many have stated here, regarding mud slinging, personal attacks and character assassinations, but I think the LED thread was the case of someone trying to defend themselves against accusations and being able to provide truth that these accusations were wrong. I actually know Peter very well. For almost a year he has helped me considerably with my battle with rosacea and has proven to be a very good friend. To say he just randomly turns around at powerless women and attacks them seems unbelievable to me. I am sure like others he has had disagreements in the past but he is a man of strong principles and always wants the truth and he usually gets it. I agree with you that everyone, including me, should try to stick to the topic, so I’ll do my best. I know from Peter that red light has helped him considerably with knocking down his rosacea. Not only does his skin look flawless at the moment, Dr. Tony Chu, a well respected dermatologist with a vast knowledge of rosacea, treated him over the years and has seen me recently and he confirmed to me that it was the red light that helped Peter, as well as some others. Not all, and indeed there might be people who did get a reverse effect of it, although I don’t know any of them myself. I wanted to try red light myself but because I react badly to fluorescent lights in shopping centres etc, I decided that LED might be a better option than the infra red. Peter arranged for one to be sent to Holland from Dermalux and they shared the cost between them for which I’m most grateful. So far, this one doesn’t make me flush, but I haven’t used it well and often enough to give a reliable verdict on it myself I believe. There have been no adverse effects so far however and I am happy to continue to use it. Adrian Warburton from Dermalux has been most helpful to me and is very interested in how I get along with this and I have promised to feed back my progress to him. I think it is always good if people get warned for any type of treatment that might be counteractive, but I also think that some treatments can overnight, by maybe even one allegation or bad report, been ditched by the majority of people, whereas it might be a godsend for some. Obviously there could be people who react bad to it, but there most certainly are people who reacted very well to red light and LED. Many have testified this, and I can testify here that a well respected dermatologist did so to me. So just as there are people who react perfect to, for instance, oral antibiotics, or certain topicals where others get very sick from them or much more flushed (myself included). Isn’t that the same? So I’d think: everyone, take both sides of the story into account, don’t just read the positive stories, but neither just the negative warnings and find out for yourself what works and what doesn’t. Trials might be on the way for LED I heard and that would be a great thing, but until then it seems way too early to bin a treatment that has helped certain cases of rosacea I believe. _________________ 26 yr, vascular rosacea, chronical facial flushing,burning and redness for6 years. Used: antibiotics &IPL Now: Remeron, moxonidine, propranolol and diclofenac daily+fish oil. http://nataljaoosterbaan-nl.jouwpagina.nl/ |
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: | |
| Peter do you have any before and after photos by any chance? Thanks | |
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: North Carolina, USA
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:42 am Post subject: | |
| I'm very glad that Peter Waters has had good success with light therapy. After reading his initial post on this particular type of treatment, I contacted Peter and requested more info on this subject. Peter is extremely knowledgeable about light therapy. He never once encouraged me to pursue this form of treatment. He simply stated how this treatment had helped him. I've been corresponding with Peter off and on now for several months. I find Peter to be a very nice and courteous person, always a gentleman. Every rosacea sufferer is unique, what works for me, may not work for another. I'm happy that Peter has found a treatment that works for him.I hope Peter will continue to keep us updated on this particular type of treatment. I look forward to hearing more about Dr. Chu's upcoming study on light therapy. MKR | |
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: | |||
Natalja, Thank you for sharing your experience. I have corresponded with Peter as well to inquire about the red light and he has been very helpful and not pushy at all. I also have a hard time believing he randomly attacks women. In fact, he seems very considerate and thoughtful. Please keep us posted on your results with the lights. |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: | |
Hey Kristen! 
Good to hear you're alive. Thanks for the link.  _________________ 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: 12 Jun 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:26 am Post subject: Important Correction: LLLT and LED - Not laser | |
| I just wanted to post a quick correction that should not result in any debate. Dr. Nase was discussing the actions of LLT and LED on human tissue and cells in clinical studies. 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. Some people think he made a mistake and that cancels out all that he said. I think it is important to emphasize that he was discussing LLT and LED on cellls and tissues. 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. | |
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: | |
| I find all of this so interesting, I think the sooner proper scientific studies occur the better, clearly some people are deriving benefit from the light therapy.
On the other hand dermalux are not able to reccomend the lamps for rosacea, and it seems some people are, possibly, using lamps in a dangerous or cavalier way, or building their own lamps without the knowledge and experiece of Peter and David, and that can lead to problems. Of course I believe Dr Nase and Dr Crouch that there have been problems, but I also believe the people who have some good results using the lamps. We need more information out there. |
|
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Location: Iowa, U.S.
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: Re: Important Correction: LLLT and LED - Not laser | |||
Hi Andy. We actually never got a clear answer from Dr. Nase on this, as he was continually exchanging the terms "light", "LED", "Low-level X", etc. To compound problems, Dr. Nase repeatedly refused to produce any data on the energy output of the devices he claimed caused detrimental effects on rosacea sufferers. There is a massive gap between a red light device used for diabetic ulcer healing that produces light energy at 4 joules/cm2 and a red light device used for rosacea that produces light energy at 4 microjoules/cm2. Just to clear any confusion on this up. Otherwise, people can go read the LLLT threads already here--no need to rehash things in a new thread. Thanks, 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 1, 2 Next |
|