Red Light Clinical Trial at Hammersmith Hospital
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: Philly
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: | |||||
Steroids have strong anti-inflamatory and wound healing properties, benefits also claimed by red light theorists. But, as many know, steroids unfortunately will make rosacea worse. RLT, in my opinion, is a debated topic because both sides make claims that are difficult to support: "red light has burned rosaceans" "show me pictures" - or - "RLT has anti-inflamatory properties that benefits rosaceans" "What is the reason for the anti-inflamatory action in rosaceans" Both reasonable requests have frankly gone unanswered to either side's satisfaction. The issue I have is that the red light theorist, despite really any relevant, statistically substantive proof of red light working for rosaceans, have been dogmatically preaching its benefits on here, despite claims of injury and/or symptom progression by others. Say one comment slanted towards the skeptical, and red light supporters attempt to crush any good intention of bringing another perspective. I find this attitude both deceptive and destructive to the group. I openly remain extremely skeptical of red light therapy, for reason that no pertinent study of statistical significance or organized in a manner of reasonable research displine related to rosacea have been provided to prove otherwise. That said, I will continue to bring an alternative view to this debate and am hard pressed to think of reasons that another viewpoint shouldn't be included in this forum. This should be welcomed by the forum, but instead has provoked a lynching. My intention in my original post was to provide a viewpoint on the validity of the study and was, without sufficient provocation in my opinion, explicitly told that my intentions were "overly negative" and implicitly told that wasn't really acceptable in the opinion of a red light supporter. Well given the lack of data to support red light claims, I think alternative opinions should be allowed and will be provided by at least me. At the end of the day, I do hope that red light proves to be valuable for rosaceans. But, as of today, I see potential dangers in using and/or relying on this form of therapy. Until proven otherwise, I will try to keep a balanced perspective to the dogma that exists on this site today regarding red light. Trey |
|||||
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: | |
| OK here's the thing:
Will the person or persons who got burned to a crisp from their red lamps please come forward and post it to the forum so we can all make an informed decision whether to use them or not. I thank you. Penguin |
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Location: Changing servers
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: | |
Can't happen Penguin, because it doesn't happen.  There is plenty of info on RLT and it is used in many hospital settings already. The problem is it hasn't been taken fully into the mainstream yet. But, like accupuncture, it is starting to get the recognition it deserves.
I have used steroids on my face for 40 years, so I've got some damage  and I'm investing in the biggest unit I can get my mitties on. It's just this side of nuclear -- almost 2,300 lights  I'm going to use it on ALL of me 
SO, if anyone will burn to crisp it would be me. Stay tuned, the unit will be here in 3 weeks and I'll post how it goes. Twinkling Purple _________________ I'm changing servers, links will be active again soon. |
|
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: Philly
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: | |||
Burned to a crisp? Who said that? Discuss burn victims with Dr Peter Crouch and other doctors for more insight on reactions to the face. A better question might be to ask others to provide a posting of statistically significant studies that have been through medical peer review of studies showing demonstrated positive results to [url]rosacea[/url] suffers rather than other medical conditions that require significantly different biological reactions. More importantly, burns may only be one of infinite reactions to RLT. Again, as an example, steroids are used to mitigate inflamation. I would recommend not using them on your face however, but many doctors lacking understanding of rosacea may prescribe them for you. Without understanding the mechanisms of results, RLT users are taking a risk and this should be noted. Trey |
|||
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: | |
| Most of everything on this site has to be taken on trust, as its anecdotal!
Dr Crouch cannot reveal details of his patients, nor does he really know they were telling the absolute truth about what they did. On the other side of the coin, people like Peter and David cannot really prove to you that they have benefited from RLT, on the other hand would they really go on and on about their good experiences if their skin was bad and they had seen absolutely no improvements, I doubt it!!! I think we have to take people at their word, they must have had real improvements. On the other hand I know Dr Crouch to be a fine and honourable physician who will have reported someting he will have seen. Lets wait for the results of the trials. |
|
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: Philly
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: | |||
Echos similar thoughts to a post of mine above. The issue of the arguments around RLT center around trusted sources, reliability, etc. Both sides need to be told and understood for people to at least understand the risks. Unfortunately, however, no matter the philosophy rosaceans follow, to trust the written word of everyone or to be skeptical of everyone, rosaceans fall into the exact same outcome, mixed opinions that lead to no conclusive outcome. But, at least both sides are heard, and each of us rosaceans can choose the path given the personal risks willing to confront. Trey |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject: | |
| As I understand it, some pretty good studies substantiating the efficacy of metrogel and tetracyclines etc etc
Good luck with that! Pretty poor business doing only what those with putative authority dictate. Quite a few folk happy to charge the establishment with myopia and dilatoriness. The very same folk quick to bellow the hollow mantras of 'peer reviewed article' and 'double-blind test' when fecklessness or some dismal cast of mind overwhelms them. Odd. |
|
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: Philly
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: | |||
Really? I would love to see the studies of the long term efficacy of metrogel and tetracyclines at reducing the severity of rosacea (i.e. not just P&P but moving suffers from severe cases to mild cases and maintaining mild rosacea for sustained periods without continued therapy). Please provide me and the groups links to such studies. And while at it, please provide links to the studies that show that metrogel and tetracyclines have statistically made rosacea worse? Trey |
|||
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: | |||
Hello Marpusbean Excellent post but if you read David's story with the before and after pictures then I am not sure what further proof anybody would need. I usually forward interesting red light posts to Tony Chu and his response to David's story was "Very impressive and a good incentive to continue". Well he should know don't you think? Tony's trial is something he has had planned for years now based on my results and those of other patients of his who have tried red light. I have posted this before and will say again do you think he would arrange a trial if he felt any of the patients were in danger? I suppose there will always be the exception to the rule somewhere but then if I took notice of the warning on a box of aspirin it could put me off swallowing one and again if I thought about it too hard I am putting my life at risk every time I drive on the M25! Lets get things in perspective here and not let some scaremongering again put people off trying a treatment which could benefit them and possibly change their life. Lets also remember it is not just myself and David who use RLT but others as well on this Forum and the RS site who have also reported back a degree of success. Nobody is forcing anyone to try it RLT but merely giving them the facts from which to make their own decision. Apologies to those who have seen these links before but worth a read if you haven't. ./topic-2713.html ./topic-2778.html http://www.debunkingnase.org/index.php?title=Banned%2C_Banned%2C_Banned As you say lets see what the trial results bring. Best wishes Peter |
|||
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Location: Philly
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: | |||
Peter, Are you suggesting that medical professionals and research professionals DO NOT fail to prove safety and even efficacy during trials? Your logic seems to suggest any trial/research conducted by a scrupulous professional will not harm patients? If so, is the good doctor NOT going to request medical waivers from his subjects (since no liability really exists)? Do you think that the subjects may be able to request the good doctor to cover any expenses related to damages (since none will exist)? Trey |
|||
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: | |||
Hey TP Thanks for that and hopefully Penguin is now re-assured. You are right like acupuncture and other therapies out there RLT is just another alternative that can be worth a try if you are not having success with your current treatment regime. Like anything there is never a guarantee that it will work but unless you try it you will never know. The only reason why I decided to try a lamp was really in desperation because antibiotics were making me feel ill and at the time other than Clonidine I was fed up taking drugs. I am so glad I tried it and I haven't looked back since. As I have posted before one of the benefits I found was how much my skin tone improved and the "woody" feel of my skin as described by Tony Chu became very soft in comparison and looked good after only a couple of months of daily use. Hopefully the red light will help repair the damage you have but I would take it easy at first and build up your time under the lights until you are happy everything is ok. Discuss with Jen and David but as with any new treatment it's just commonsense similar to carrying out a patch test with a new topical. You intend using it on ALL of you ? With 2,300 lights I would be careful a plane doesn't land in your front garden 
Good luck and look forward to your first report. Peter |
|||
Joined: 12 Jun 2005
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: | |
| Lots of studies over at Pubmed.
They pullulate year after year. Same old same old. Efficacious only in the eyes of a myopic medical establishment that persist in directing their attention towards the dermatological phenomena, the tip of an iceberg. Easy victories. Getting us nowhere. Pat yourself on the back boys! So you are not enthusiatic about RLT because of the want of rigorous, scientific evidence etc etc. Fine. And yet, by asking for statistical evidence of antibiotics causing harm - evidence that you well know does not exist - you are seeking to undermine the credibility of RLT yet further by means of invidious comparison, since there seems to be evidence of RLT doing harm. But that evidence is purely anecdotal. Your sophistry undoes you. Testimonies, reports, stories either constitute sufficient evidence or they do not. On a broader note, for the Love of God, can you not see that the best things come from pushing boundaries, subverting the rules? |
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Location: Changing servers
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: | |
| Hi Peter,
One of the other reasons why I am so keen on this is that it does build up the dermis again (probably not stating that correctly, but you know what I mean). With the prolonged steroid use I have crepe paper skin that is rough, dry and thin thin thin. When I first read about the RLT hydrating and collegen building aspects I was pretty excited. I haven't felt hope for this since Elidel and Protopic and that proved to be a fiasco for my Rosacea. RLT speaks to my skin's condition perfectly. I have read a few reports that the red light has been beneficial for Atopic Dermatitis. I don't have the links but I found this all through hours of dedicated googling. The improved skin tone alone is worth the price of the unit. The possibility of being able to go out in daylight again is another. I am the vampire gardener!!
I have read Jen's and David's and your posts carefully... I'm living in the archives lately. Our plan of attack will be 10 minutes 'per part' once a week for 4 weeks, then twice a week for 2 weeks and then 3 times a week for 2 weeks. So within two and a half months I should have a good idea if I will have undesired effects. I have ordered lots of Natragel supplies to assist in the transition for the Rosacea areas (Face, neck and upper chest). My hubby bought me a massage table for my 39th so we are setting that up along with a tall utlity table on casters for the unit itself. Santa's coming early to our house
Twickle Purple _________________ I'm changing servers, links will be active again soon. |
|
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Location: Changing servers
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject: | |||
It's all good. I just like that part the best. _________________ I'm changing servers, links will be active again soon. |
|||
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Location: UK
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:39 am Post subject: | |||
Hello GJ Good post and some valid points well made. Well the anecdotal evidence of people being harmed by RLT only really came from one source and suspiciously appeared like a figment of their imagination to most of us. Enough said I think. In terms of trying out new treatments well as the saying goes "Nothing ventured - nothing gained". Regards Peter |
|||
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|