Healing with single frequency light

[Twickle Purple]

I am interested in Red Light therapy for Rosacea and found this worth reading. Hopefully someone else will to.

HEALING WITH SINGLE FREQUENCY LIGHT
by: Olszewski, David, E.E., I.E.

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20000102232338

EARLY EXPERIMENTS

In 1965, the Russians and Czechs were trying to standardize colour therapy, which is the use of colours to treat the body. When they used a single colour on a number of people, they got different reactions because colour affects emotions and produces different effects. The Russians wanted to have a standard treatment, so they theorized that if they isolated one frequency of blue, or red, they could duplicate colour therapy on a regulated basis. They started separating different frequencies with lasers, and they discovered a lot more than they expected to find. They discovered that a single frequency light in a laser can stimulate DNA in damaged cell tissue. They used a low power laser under 50-milliwatts because higher lasers can cut tissue.

PULSED VS.CONTINUOUS LASER

They discovered that if they used a pulsed laser light, the tissue healed rapidly. On the other hand, if they gave a continuous beam, it sedated the cell and killed the pain. When a single frequency pulsed light hit the cell, it actually stimulated the cell to start producing more protein than it normally does, and as a result, the cell would heal. Even when they took the light away, the cell continued its healing. The continuous beam had a reverse effect. It actually caused the cell membrane to relax; it killed pain, reduced inflammation and made muscle tissue relax.

INCREASED HEALING IN THE 660 nm WAVELENGTH

It didn't matter what the frequency was. It could be infrared, red, blue, or green, as long as it was single although, as you move toward the red end of the spectrum, the rate of cellular regeneration increased. For instance, a single frequency in the green range might affect the kidney 40 times better than a normal base-line study, whereas a red would be about 4,000 times faster. So over the years they migrated to infrared, red and eventually the 660 nanometer wavelength because it was the fastest way to regenerate tissue. So if you have an injury you would normally recover from in ten days, you can actually recover that tissue in two days by treating it with light.

WAVELENGTH OF CELL TISSUE

About ten years later at the University of Chicago, researchers discovered that the average wavelength of cell tissue in the human body ranged between 600 nanometers and 720 nm; 660 is the mid-point. So in essence, the reason a 660 nm works better than any other single frequency is because it is closer to the resonant frequency of cell tissue. The other reason is that 660 nm absorbs better in hemoglobin.

LASER LIGHT VS LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LED)

When this therapy reached the U.S. and Canada, both lasers and light-emitting diodes at 660 nanometers were being used. The LED diffuses; the single frequency laser does not. With this diffusion, the cell can actually be in control of the treatment and shut off the molecules when it was done. But with the laser, the cells are no longer in control; the doctor or the practitioner applying the laser is in control. If he does it too long or with too much strength, you would not only heal the tissue, but you would start a deterioration again. So basically, the use of light-emitting diodes eliminated the draw back of lasers, and light could be applied into such sensitive areas as the eyes and around the face. LEDs allowed this whole area to blossom into a much larger usage by average people in their homes. Tiina Karu, Ph.D. of the Laser Technology Center in Russia, and affiliated with the University of California at Berkely, probably the top researcher in the world on the use of lasers and light emitting diodes published a study in Health and Physics Digest called "Photobiological Effects of Lasers" which discusses photobiological stimulation without laser light. The article explains that you can do laser treatment without using laser light, by using light emitting diodes which are much safer. Since the cells are basically in control of the process, there is no way to overuse light.

THE MERIDIAN SYSTEM

Acupuncturists discovered that single frequency light could activate acupressure points. Pulse light could stimulate it; continuous light could sedate the acupuncture points. But they also discovered that light applied to a meridian end-point can actually be traced flowing through the meridian to the organ acupuncture points. The meridian system is a useful pathway for getting light deeper into the body, so if you are treating things like asthma in the lungs, there is an alternate method of getting light into the lungs.

DEPTH OF LIGHT PENETRATION

As we developed more types of lights with different geometrical shapes, we were able to actually get light deeper into the body without going through the meridians. Initially, single frequency light penetrated approximately an inch and a half, but today, larger units can penetrate up to eight inches. It will go through the skull. We use it on strokes, concussions and internal problems in the brain. Excellent studies have been done using light for pain relief, degenerative osteoarthritis, carpal tunnel tendonitis, skin ailments, acne, psoriasis, healing of the sinus cells, throat and ear problems, whiplash and lower back problems.

PENETRATING THROUGH THE BLOOD STREAM

You can even get light into the blood stream. One of the best ways is through your belly button, because the aorta artery is behind the belly button. So if you insert the light there for 20 minutes, every drop of blood in the body will pass in front of the light, increasing the activity of your white cells, red cells, B-cells and T-cells, so you can boost your whole immune system.

ACUTE VS CHRONIC CONDITIONS

If you use lasers or light-emitting diodes, it will actually speed up healing by a factor of five. If you have chronic conditions like osteoarthritis or whiplash from 15 years ago, conditions that are not responding or are deteriorating, the use of laser and LED light has actually stimulated regeneration. I believe light is going to play the biggest part in chronic conditions for people who have already explored a lot of other modalities and have found no solution.

BRAIN WAVE STUDIES

We were studying the diagnosis of illnesses like leukemia, etc through brainwave patterns. We were surprised to find that when we treat the person with light, or with heat, that when the body starts healing, it shifts into what is called a healing profile where beta waves disappear, and alpha, theta and delta appear like you wouldn't even find in a yogi.

THERMAL THERAPY FOR IMMUNITY

A rectal heat probe allows the temperature to rise to between 98º and 113º in the rectum. It corrects prostate troubles and shrinks the prostate. It eliminates hemorrhoids. The most important use for rectal therapy is that it makes your body think you have a fever, even though the heat is only in the rectum. So the body will fight the fever by generating new white cells in the bone marrow. In this way, you can increase your white cell count overnight in lowered immune systems. Many thermal units are being used to boost the immune systems of people with serious illnesses such as cancer, AIDS and lowered immunity. We use heat to generate new white cells in depleted immune systems, and we use light on the blood stream to regenerate red cells, white cells, B and T-cells. So the combination of light and heat has been very effective with critical conditions.

For more information please contact David Olszewski at Light Energy Co., Seattle, Washington at 1-800-LIGHTCO (1-800-544-4826).

[todmiller]

I became saddened and discouraged after reading this article. I started laughing my ass off after reading about the so-called "rectal heat probe", and I realized I simply do not have what it takes to ever become a doctor.

=)

[Twickle Purple]

I almost added a :shock: there, but didn't want to change the article.

[redhotoz]

Thanks for the link TP. Very interesting reading.

Jen

[Tricia]

Hi Todd Miller,

Are you saddened and discouraged because your aversion to rectum topics prevents you from being a doctor :o , or because of what's stated in the article about light therapy.

I actually found it encouraging because of possible promising treatments of light therapy in the future for us. It sounds like a combination of both LED and diode would be of help, no?

By the way, I could never be a doctor either, I'd probably pass out the first time anything gross came my way or laugh my ass off (no pun intended) if any funny body parts were involved.

Tricia

[Twickle Purple]

I also found a site that sells nasal 'prongs' for use with chronic rhinitis. If my RLT works for me I'm going to invest in one of those too. I've had a stuffed nose my whole life and take too many things just to breathe! I won't be posting any photos of that though... :shock:

[redhotoz]

Ah TP! We were hoping you would buy a rectal heat probe and post photos! :lol: Just being light hearted!

I'm off to bed. Having Foxtel installed tomorrow so I may well spend less time on-line...finally! LOL

Jen

[Twickle Purple]

Where's that spanking smiley when you need him! :lol:

Sweet dreams Jen. Aliens and probes and all that :D

[fut]

Are there any handheld red light devices that are more practical that we can purchase to try this out?

[Twickle Purple]

Hi fut,

I found a lot of the hand held varieties on the Internet. You just have to wade through all the site for the professional units.

Here's a link to the Acnelamp site:

http://www.acnelamp.com/

The handheld models they show are around $150 US.

Good luck!
Twickle Purple

[fut]

Thanks Twickle.

Is the blue light bad for Rosacea because I have acne problems as well...

[Twickle Purple]

Hi fut,

In my googles I've come across units that incorporate both blue and red lights. There is such a handheld unit shown at the link I gave you. I have read a lot of positive reports (on the 'net) about blue light and acne. It's the red light for rosacea that is not well researched/documented.

When I spoke with Thierry at Dima-Tech (the makers of AcneLamp) this morning he said they don't know anything about Rosacea at all. But, in a discussion with another customer in the professional field (I didn't ask which) she was a proponent of using Infrared in conjuction with the red for Rosacea. This is when he offered that as a option for me. I'm pretty excited about it but it takes longer to get to me so he said stick with the red only unit as it will come in sooner and if I want then later, once the heads for the infrared+red are available, I can swap for no charge!

Twickle Purple

[GJ]

I got a cheap and cheerful 84x660nm hand-held array from here:

http://www.elixa.com/light/arrays.htm

Frankly, it is a nuisance holding it up to the face but there you go.

For an additional $10 they provide a 240v effort.

[Peter]

I got a cheap and cheerful 84x660nm hand-held array from here:

http://www.elixa.com/light/arrays.htm

Frankly, it is a nuisance holding it up to the face but there you go.

For an additional $10 they provide a 240v effort.

Hello GJ

Let us know how you get on with this unit please.

I found sitting in front of my lamp daily for 15 minutes a real pain but if you see results then it makes it all worthwhile. Eventually I made myself a small table, cut a hole in the top, rested the lamp over the hole and lay underneath it. Worked brilliantly, I could relax or sleep and the time went very quick. Ok this probably wouldn't work for your unit but I am sure you could rig something else up to make it easier to use.

Good luck

Peter

[fut]

I still wonder if blue light can be tolerated by Rosacea skin. Is it compeltely harmless? Any ideas?

[fut]

I still wonder if blue light can be tolerated by Rosacea skin. Is it compeltely harmless? Any ideas?

[IowaDavid]

Blue light is UV. That's why we wear sunscreen when we're outside. Blue light isn't helpful unless you have true acne. It disrupts the life cycle of the bacteria that exacerbate acne--that's it.

[fut]

Yes, I have "true acne." I am gonna purchase the blue light as well and let you guys know if it shows any harm torwards my Rosacea.

[Steve95301]

Blue light is UV. That's why we wear sunscreen when we're outside. Blue light isn't helpful unless you have true acne. It disrupts the life cycle of the bacteria that exacerbate acne--that's it.

Is blue light UV? I thought ultraviolet was, by definition, light with higher frequency than violet.

[IowaDavid]

Blue light is UV. That's why we wear sunscreen when we're outside. Blue light isn't helpful unless you have true acne. It disrupts the life cycle of the bacteria that exacerbate acne--that's it.

Is blue light UV? I thought ultraviolet was, by definition, light with higher frequency than violet.

You've got me, I'm afraid. :D

Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than soft X-rays. It can be subdivided into near UV (380–200 nm wavelength), far or vacuum UV (200–10 nm; abbrev. FUV or VUV), and extreme UV (1–31 nm; abbrev. EUV or XUV).

When considering the effect of UV radiation on human health and the environment, the range of UV wavelengths is often subdivided into UVA (380–315 nm), also called Long Wave or "blacklight"; UVB (315–280 nm), also called Medium Wave; and UVC (< 280 nm), also called Short Wave or "germicidal". See 1 E-7 m for a list of objects of comparable sizes.

In photolithography, in laser technology, etc., the term deep ultraviolet or DUV refers to wavelengths below 300nm.

The name means "beyond violet" (from Latin ultra, "beyond"), violet being the color of the shortest wavelengths of visible light. Some of the UV wavelengths are colloquially called black light, as it is invisible to the human eye. Some animals, including birds, reptiles, and insects such as bees, can see into the near ultraviolet. Many fruits, flowers, and seeds stand out more strongly from the background in ultraviolet wavelengths as compared to human color vision. Scorpions glow or take on a yellow to green color under UV illumination. Many birds have patterns in their plumage that are invisible at usual wavelengths but observable in ultraviolet, and the urine of some animals is much easier to spot with ultraviolet.

The Sun emits ultraviolet radiation in the UVA, UVB, and UVC bands, but because of absorption in the atmosphere's ozone layer, 99% of the ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is UVA. (Some of the UVC light is responsible for the generation of the ozone.)

Ordinary glass is partially transparent to UVA but is opaque to shorter wavelengths while Silica or quartz glass, depending on quality, can be transparent even to vacuum UV wavelengths.

The onset of vacuum UV, 200 nm, is defined by the fact that ordinary air is opaque below this wavelength. This opacity is due to the strong absorption of light of these wavelengths by oxygen in the air. Pure nitrogen (less than about 10 ppm oxygen) is transparent to wavelengths in the range of about 150–200 nm. This has wide practical significance now that semiconductor manufacturing processes are using wavelengths shorter than 200 nm. By working in oxygen-free gas, the equipment does not have to be built to withstand the pressure differences required to work in a vacuum. Some other scientific instruments, such as circular dichroism spectrometers, are also commonly nitrogen purged and operate in this spectral region.

Extreme UV is characterized by a transition in the physics of interaction with matter: wavelengths longer than about 30 nm interact mainly with the chemical valence electrons of matter, while wavelengths shorter than that interact mainly with inner shell electrons and nuclei. The long end of the EUV/XUV spectrum is set by a prominent He+ spectral line at 30.4nm. XUV is strongly absorbed by most known materials, but it is possible to synthesize multilayer optics that reflect up to about 50% of XUV radiation at normal incidence. This technology has been used to make telescopes for solar imaging (pioneered by the NIXT and MSSTA sounding rockets in the 1990s; current examples are SOHO/EIT and TRACE) and microphotolithography (printing of traces and devices on microchips).

[Peter]

I still wonder if blue light can be tolerated by Rosacea skin. Is it compeltely harmless? Any ideas?

Hi Fut

I think you will find David has just answered a similar question you raised on the thread below.

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?p=26180&highlight=#26180

The first lamp I used was a blue / red acne lamp and it worked for me with no problems at all. After several months I converted it to all red unit and this is the type of lamp I continue to use with my maximum improvement level maintained.

As we know everybody can sometimes react differently to all rosacea treatments and therefore the only way of knowing for sure is to try something yourself. A friend of mine with rosacea was using an all red unit with reasonable results but when they experimented with red / blue to see if it helped their slight acne problem it didn't agree with them, so they swapped back again. Certainly there is a small amount of UV omitted from the blue light so possibly that could be a problem for some with rosacea and that's why all red is a better choice. In your position with rosacea I would try all red first and when you feel comfortable that there is an improvement then see if adding blue in helps your acne. If it doesn't then you can always revert to all red again. Your choice.

Regards

Peter

[GJ]

Eventually I made myself a small table, cut a hole in the top, rested the lamp over the hole and lay underneath it.


Hey Peter, I posted about my experience on page 3 of the Hammersmith thread.

Your idea would work very well with my array. Thanks.
When I pick up again it will save a lot of bother.

[Peter]

Eventually I made myself a small table, cut a hole in the top, rested the lamp over the hole and lay underneath it.


Hey Peter, I posted about my experience on page 3 of the Hammersmith thread.

Your idea would work very well with my array. Thanks.
When I pick up again it will save a lot of bother.

Hello GJ

Glad my suggestion might be of use. I have done my daily sessions this way for probably 6 years now and it is so much more easier and relaxing. In fact more often than not I fall asleep and the next thing I know is a click indicating the 15 minutes is up and the lights switch off.

Sorry yes I saw your post before and was thinking about a reply and then got sidetracked by you know who.

It seems a shame that you decided to stop after noticing a skin improvement but it sounds like the "plumpness" problem was the main issue rather than some flushing. Difficult to comment because these are not two things I had a problem with when using my lamp. The fluorescent tube lamp I use does generate a small amount of heat but not enough to cause me any problems but I thought the LED's lamps didn't. I don't really know much about the one you use other than the link you provided but it might be worth checking with David and Jen on this.

The only advice I can give is when you start again is to build up slowly to 15 minutes each day and try keeping at least 8" away from the array or whatever feels comfortable. The other thing is that I do not wash my skin before using the lamp as I found in the early days when my skin was bad that it felt dry after washing and then using the lamp. I changed to just wiping my face clear of any obvious oil etc and then started my session.

Anyway if you decide to try again, good luck and keep us posted.

Cheers

Peter

[IowaDavid]

Eventually I made myself a small table, cut a hole in the top, rested the lamp over the hole and lay underneath it.


Hey Peter, I posted about my experience on page 3 of the Hammersmith thread.

Your idea would work very well with my array. Thanks.
When I pick up again it will save a lot of bother.

Hello GJ

Glad my suggestion might be of use. I have done my daily sessions this way for probably 6 years now and it is so much more easier and relaxing. In fact more often than not I fall asleep and the next thing I know is a click indicating the 15 minutes is up and the lights switch off.

Sorry yes I saw your post before and was thinking about a reply and then got sidetracked by you know who.

It seems a shame that you decided to stop after noticing a skin improvement but it sounds like the "plumpness" problem was the main issue rather than some flushing. Difficult to comment because these are not two things I had a problem with when using my lamp. The fluorescent tube lamp I use does generate a small amount of heat but not enough to cause me any problems but I thought the LED's lamps didn't. I don't really know much about the one you use other than the link you provided but it might be worth checking with David and Jen on this.

The only advice I can give is when you start again is to build up slowly to 15 minutes each day and try keeping at least 8" away from the array or whatever feels comfortable. The other thing is that I do not wash my skin before using the lamp as I found in the early days when my skin was bad that it felt dry after washing and then using the lamp. I changed to just wiping my face clear of any obvious oil etc and then started my session.

Anyway if you decide to try again, good luck and keep us posted.

Cheers

Peter

GJ--I really have a hard time seeing how red light could be harmful. The only thing I could think of would be how close you're holding your handheld unit to your face and getting associated heat. The other thing might be "stress" while using it, or anxiety, etc.

[GJ]

It was almost certainly the build-up of heat from the array that caused problems, not the light per se. Stressful indeed holding the bloody thing up and watching the minutes sloooowly tick by!

Next time up, a better approach. A variation on Peter's great table idea, a little more distance perhaps, and a second unit to cover both cheeks at the same time.

I might get the little 880nm array next. A little split-face experiment might be in order.

[clsykes00]

GJ--I really have a hard time seeing how red light could be harmful. The only thing I could think of would be how close you're holding your handheld unit to your face and getting associated heat. The other thing might be "stress" while using it, or anxiety, etc.

It is very difficult to know the ramifications of red light when no one here understands the mechanisms for its supposed anti-inflamatory properties. The benefits demonstrated in articles posted are related to other medical issues, which likely respond to treatments much different than rosacea would (i.e. rosacea, being a different ailment requires different therapies). All of the cost/benefits stated within this site are pure conjecture, and no one can really answer your questions with any assurances GJ. So long as you know this and the risks associated with it, you can make a good decisions whether the risk is worth taking yourself. Needed to be said when you know who only paints the rosy side of things.

[Peter]

It was almost certainly the build-up of heat from the array that caused problems, not the light per se. Stressful indeed holding the bloody thing up and watching the minutes sloooowly tick by!

Next time up, a better approach. A variation on Peter's great table idea, a little more distance perhaps, and a second unit to cover both cheeks at the same time.

I might get the little 880nm array next. A little split-face experiment might be in order.

Hello GJ and David

GJ if you try again later in the year then as I have suggested have the lamp as far away as you feel it will be effective. With the one I use the maximum range is supposedly 10" and the minimum 6" but I used to keep it 7 - 8". Of course it depends where you measure from i.e. from the tip of your nose or your cheeks. With the table it is much easer to keep the distance fixed and as I did you can lay blocks on top so you can vary the distance plus or minus until you feel comfortable.

David - you know more about LED than me so can you check out GJ's lamp on the link he provided.

http://www.elixa.com/light/arrays.htm

Would he be better off building one himself like yours?

Heather - if you are reading this can you provide the link for your lamp again which was so effective for you, so as to give GJ another option to investigate?

Thanks and good luck.

Peter

[fut]

First of all, thanks to David, Peter, and GJ for helping me out with this. I purchased the arrays listed at Elixa. Here is my initial report:

The arrays aren't nearly as bulky as they seem in the pictures. Take note of the measurements given. It is actually very light.

I purchased the blue and red arrays and it seemed the blue eminated more heat. My first trial was right after taking a shower and washing my face with a non-drying cleanser. I'm sure the shower benefited in not making me flush because I did not flush at all (rarely do these days due to IPL).

My immediate reaction was that my face was slightly more pale right after the treatment of 15 minutes each on both sides of the face. I have returned to my general redness minutes after, however.

The biggest hassle is holding the things up to your face and making sure you get all parts of the face. If I get good results with these handhelds I am sure to build my own for home or from acnelamp.com if my pocket allows it. The handhelds were necessary as I am traveling soon so I thought i'd start with these anyways. I'll keep you guys updated.

[IowaDavid]

It was almost certainly the build-up of heat from the array that caused problems, not the light per se. Stressful indeed holding the bloody thing up and watching the minutes sloooowly tick by!

Next time up, a better approach. A variation on Peter's great table idea, a little more distance perhaps, and a second unit to cover both cheeks at the same time.

I might get the little 880nm array next. A little split-face experiment might be in order.

Keep us posted. :D

[GJ]

Will do, David.

Would he be better off building one himself like yours?

Heather - if you are reading this can you provide the link for your lamp again which was so effective for you, so as to give GJ another option to investigate?



I can answer the first question.
No. :D (I'm reckoning it involves breakables and requires patience.)

I searched pretty extensively for appropriate products, Peter. I think I know the one Heather has. A tidy piece of kit. But having bought one from Elixa, I'm rather set on getting a second (to pursue the infra. v. red light experiment). Thanks.

Good luck, Fut. As you say, far less bulky than the photos suggest.

Thanks Trey. Having had a surgeon take a knife to my innards I do regard this as pretty small beer. Let us be frank here, we can't be entirely certain about the long term consequences of many medications, treatments etc etc.

[clsykes00]

Let us be frank here, we can't be entirely certain about the long term consequences of many medications, treatments etc etc.

Yes, but those passing FDA approval at least have large numbers that understand the mechanisms that create benefits at least, a much larger step than RLT.

[Twickle Purple]

Trey, the Omnilux does has FDA clearance. Their RLT unit (Omnilux revive) is not specific to Rosacea treatment but the FDA clearance does show that the technology is safe.

[clsykes00]

Trey, the Omnilux does has FDA clearance. Their RLT unit (Omnilux revive) is not specific to Rosacea treatment but the FDA clearance does show that the technology is safe.

FDA clearance is applied to the application in conjunction with the device or therapy, not just the device or therapy itself. As an example, accutane is approved for use to treat acne, not rosacea. To hit the example further home, if a rosacean uses accutane at the approved levels to treat acne, then rosaceans would actually cause more problems to their skin. So as a parrellel, the Omnilux unit is approved by the FDA, but not for treatment of rosacea. As with anything, therapies are not black box cure alls and should be treated as such. Just because its been approved for one thing does not mean us rosaceans should jump on it and use it for rosacea. Again, the mechanisms of RLT's supposed anti-inflamatory effects are not known. The FDA fortunately for our safety does not look at just the outcome in non-statistically based empirical evidence of a few dogmatic people.

[Twickle Purple]

Well, I'll let you know how I make out. I've ordered a unit with almost 2,300 lights. :D

I've been down the road of "everything we know for sure," it's a slippery road because what we know changes all the time. I opted out of the provincial medical queue's in Edmonton and went with an MD who had no hospital priviledges because he didn't subscribe to conventional practices. He was the first pro-active Dr. I've ever met. A lot of what he taught me when I first saw him has now been accepted into the mainstream. I'm comfortable with risks. I take one every time I go outside. I take one with every pill I swallow. My physical challenges require me to take risks. I will do and try anything that I reasonably feel will help me. I'm smart enough to weigh the pros and cons and recognize any inherent dangers. For me, RLT is hope.

[Peter]

Hello TP

Good on you :D As you say, even getting out of bed in the morning is a potential risk!

I have used a form of RLT for 8 years now and it helped put my rosacea into near remission together with giving me excellent skin. Despite what we keep on hearing from one jaundiced source I am not aware of any risks associated with this form of treatment and here I am still live and kicking. I may drop down dead tomorrow but one thing is for sure it will not be because of RLT.

Good luck and keep us updated.

Peter

[Peter]

First of all, thanks to David, Peter, and GJ for helping me out with this. I purchased the arrays listed at Elixa. Here is my initial report:

The arrays aren't nearly as bulky as they seem in the pictures. Take note of the measurements given. It is actually very light.

I purchased the blue and red arrays and it seemed the blue eminated more heat. My first trial was right after taking a shower and washing my face with a non-drying cleanser. I'm sure the shower benefited in not making me flush because I did not flush at all (rarely do these days due to IPL).

My immediate reaction was that my face was slightly more pale right after the treatment of 15 minutes each on both sides of the face. I have returned to my general redness minutes after, however.

The biggest hassle is holding the things up to your face and making sure you get all parts of the face. If I get good results with these handhelds I am sure to build my own for home or from acnelamp.com if my pocket allows it. The handhelds were necessary as I am traveling soon so I thought i'd start with these anyways. I'll keep you guys updated.

Hello Fut

No worries and glad I was of help together with the others. Sounds like you have only just started using the lamp? Well as with doing a patch test with a new topical slowly build up to the maximum of 15 minutes daily and start off with the lamp a couple of inches more away from your face than the manufacturers advise. You can slowly move nearer as you increase the time and are happy with your progress. Change to all red if you don't think blue is helping.

Keep us updated please.

Thanks

Peter

[Tioh2001]

>>Heather - if you are reading this can you provide the link for your lamp again which was so effective for you, so as to give GJ another option to investigate? >>

This is the link to the light I use:

http://www.lighttherapyproducts.com/LEDtechnology.html

It's called the DPL Therapy Light and has red and infrared LED lights.

I've been using it for 9 months now. I'm still maintaining the major reduction in flushing I got at the 3.5 month mark....but I have not seen any more improvement since. But I am still very happy with the improvement it has given me. I rarely flush now beyond mild, except for my worst trigger - heat . I still flush horribly when I get over heated (and we hare having a heat wave right now!).

Heather

[GJ]

Thanks, Heather.

Do you wear goggles at all?

Some advise goggle use for infrared levels.

[redhotoz]

FDA clearance is applied to the application in conjunction with the device or therapy, not just the device or therapy itself. As an example, accutane is approved for use to treat acne, not rosacea. To hit the example further home, if a rosacean uses accutane at the approved levels to treat acne, then rosaceans would actually cause more problems to their skin. So as a parrellel, the Omnilux unit is approved by the FDA, but not for treatment of rosacea. As with anything, therapies are not black box cure alls and should be treated as such. Just because its been approved for one thing does not mean us rosaceans should jump on it and use it for rosacea. Again, the mechanisms of RLT's supposed anti-inflamatory effects are not known. The FDA fortunately for our safety does not look at just the outcome in non-statistically based empirical evidence of a few dogmatic people.
You take Accutane, don't you Trey? As you have stated, it has FDA approval for the treatment of Acne but NOT Rosacea, yes? Do you take the same dose of Accutane as a person who suffers from Acne takes? I hope for your sake you don't!

Well, the sames applies for light treatments. Blue light or a blue/red combo is recommended for use by Acne sufferers but red light is the suggested source for Rosaceans. You want proof, studies, data (other than anecdotal)...you want to know why red lights have an anti-inflammatory effect on the skin. If you are truly that interested, then how about spending some time researching it. I don't belive that you are interested in this treatment modality at all but you choose to post negative comments when it comes up. Sounds awfully familiar, just like someone else who used to post here a while back.

To be honest, I would be far more concerned about taking a drug like Accutane than sitting under red LEDs! I've done my homework and quite frankly, I don't really care if you like the idea or not, as I don't believe you have spent as much time as I have reading about the benefits.

Anyway, we are all *supposed* to be adults here and if you are not interested in this treatment modality, then I suggest that you cease to be so...well...let me use one of your words..."dogmatic" in downing the idea. Perhaps you should just stick to plugging Dr Nase's book in so many of your posts!

[clsykes00]

Well, the sames applies for light treatments. Blue light or a blue/red combo is recommended for use by Acne sufferers but red light is the suggested source for Rosaceans. You want proof, studies, data (other than anecdotal)...you want to know why red lights have an anti-inflammatory effect on the skin. If you are truly that interested, then how about spending some time researching it.

I have researched it and have asked an important point blank question that is always left unanswered. I will ask again, what is the mechanism for the anti-inflamatory effect of RLT on ROSACEA? I don't receive answers because no one knows. The answer is not found in any literture reviewed by me or presented to me. Most of the literature about RLT focuses on vastly different conditions from rosacea. The benefits to other conditions does not translate well to rosacea. For instance, steroids are used for anti-inflammatory action. Would you want to use steroids on rosacea skin?

However, unlike RLT, accutane and its benefits (and risks) for rosacea have been studied far more extensively and its mechanisms for the actions advertised are well known. A prospective user can understand both sides of the argument and the actions and mechanisms invovled in its use, as well as review documented material regarding studies and theories of its actions specifically against rosacea. From this, that prospective user can make an INFORMED decisions. RLT really falls incredible short on all these fronts, making it more difficult for users to make INFORMED decisions.

Your analogy really does not serve your argument well.

I am no longer a user of accutane, but clearly you have researched several of my posts to dig up history.


I don't belive that you are interested in this treatment modality at all but you choose to post negative comments when it comes up. Sounds awfully familiar, just like someone else who used to post here a while back.

I am interested in following RLT, but also think that people should understand both sides of the story before jumping in. Are you against others knowing both sides? What a terrible injustice if your answer is yes.

I find your fight, along with Peter and Iowa's, to prevent any negative comments towards RLT both enlighting and disturbing. Other treatment modalities have had both positive and negative comments posted about them, but by far, other treamtents have had far less traffic among posters insisting that "negative comments are not desired." This is very odd and makes me wonder about the motivations behind these actions.

No link between Dr Nase and me exists. Why didn't you ask if a link between Dr Crouch and me exists? He opposed the use of RLT as well.

To be honest, I would be far more concerned about taking a drug like Accutane than sitting under red LEDs! I've done my homework and quite frankly, I don't really care if you like the idea or not, as I don't believe you have spent as much time as I have reading about the benefits.

People have differences of opinion. Not everyone has to agree with you or me for that matter. Your insistence that you must be right and that you are the only one in this conversation "having done their homework" is suprising and absurd. Again, are you opposed to people understanding both sides of RLT?

And you do care what I think, else you wouldn't be posting directly to me on the subject. And if you have read so much more, then please be the first person to correctly answer the easy question (at least for most proven treatment modalities), "what is the mechanism for RLT's anti-inflammatory action?"


Anyway, we are all *supposed* to be adults here and if you are not interested in this treatment modality, then I suggest that you cease to be so...well...let me use one of your words..."dogmatic" in downing the idea. Perhaps you should just stick to plugging Dr Nase's book in so many of your posts!

Yes we are supposed to be adults. And, hopefully we are also not fascist either. That is why you shouldn't fear an opposing view. Or are you trying to force a group of people to adhere to your beliefs about RLT?

Do you have a problem with Dr Nase's book or Dr Nase himself? Are there things in his book you find incorrect? I do find it a great source for those new to Rosacea. Are there better books in your opinion that cover causes and variety treatment modalities?


Lastly, I am frankly surprised by your email. People have been asking about RLT and even jumping on board with the potential of RLT by buying devices. I have not once tried to interfere with there actions or the path of their choice. I have only made comments where I saw a baised view of RLT in an effort to given both sides of the RLT story. But, you post the above, with a bunch of "!!!", from no where and speak at the same time about being adults. How is one not supposed to take that personally?

I frankly do not wish to get into any more personal discussions, but I would also expect you as an adult to respect another point view.

Trey

[Steve95301]

I found yesterday, in an insurace company of all places, a pamphlet for low-level laser therapy (admittedly, not the same as light from diodes) which actually explained (using medical terms, but little detail) how an anti-inflammatory effect is achieved.

I was going to pick it up and scan it and post it here, but then I doubted that it provided any new info. I can swing back by and pick it up, if anyone's interested.

[redhotoz]

Hey Steve

Did you end up buying that Douglas Johnson book "Phototherapy Level I: An Introduction to Light as a Therapeutic Modality"? Would love to know what was in it, if you did.

For sure, if you have time, pick up the pamphlet and see what it says. After all...knowledge = power, huh! :D

I'm sure if we had some sort of human biology training, we would be able to explain how the body works in detail, alas we don't. So the more info we can gather together, the more informed we will be.

Jen

[Twickle Purple]

Good god I'll screw this up, but I'll try anyway. This comes from almost everything I've read so I really should be able to do this better, but here goes (it's the gabapentin, I swear! :D) : The 660nm red light is about the same frequency something or other that our cells operate at and that applying this frequency externally gets things all excited and amplifies the 'healing' and 'regenerative' cycle. So, for instance, a wound that would take normally 10 days to heal would be healed in 2, and that sort of thing. I've also read the Low Level Laser Therapy is another name for Light, or Photo, Therapy and the "Laser" aspect in the title is a bit of a misnomer. It's also called Photobiomodulation. or Photobiostimulation.

Anyway, there really is tons to be found on this via google. And, with the exception of Dr. Nase/Dr. Crouch's posts here on the forum there is not one single instance of a negative outcome or side effect to this technology. Not one -- anywhere. In fact that is the one thing I've read alot -- that there just are no harmful side effects to this.

Trey, do some research. It seems like you're asking folks in the forum to do the work for you. If you're really interested in the technology, see what you can find and then bring your arguments forward, from what you've learned. Playing devils advocate just for the sake of debate can become exhausting. There's alot to it, and yet the premise is so simple. To argue the practical applications of the technology and the bio-physical ramifications and/or benefits is more than my poor brain can handle. I just know that from everything I've read, and I've read alot, I feel pretty darn optimistic about this.

Twickle Purple.

[Steve95301]

Hey Steve

Did you end up buying that Douglas Johnson book "Phototherapy Level I: An Introduction to Light as a Therapeutic Modality"? Would love to know what was in it, if you did.

For sure, if you have time, pick up the pamphlet and see what it says. After all...knowledge = power, huh! Very Happy

I'm sure if we had some sort of human biology training, we would be able to explain how the body works in detail, alas we don't. So the more info we can gather together, the more informed we will be.
No, I don't think I'll be able to get the book for a while, unless anyone wants to chip in and buy it with me (we can get a pdf file and all have a copy).

In two years I'll have a biochemistry degree, so maybe in the near future I'll be able to talk intelligently about some of these issues.

After that I'll be working on a pharmacy degree, so everything I say will be worthless because I'll be a shill for the big drug companies :wink:

[clsykes00]

Good god I'll screw this up, but I'll try anyway. This comes from almost everything I've read so I really should be able to do this better, but here goes (it's the gabapentin, I swear! :D) : The 660nm red light is about the same frequency something or other that our cells operate at and that applying this frequency externally gets things all excited and amplifies the 'healing' and 'regenerative' cycle. So, for instance, a wound that would take normally 10 days to heal would be healed in 2, and that sort of thing. I've also read the Low Level Laser Therapy is another name for Light, or Photo, Therapy and the "Laser" aspect in the title is a bit of a misnomer. It's also called Photobiomodulation. or Photobiostimulation.

Anyway, there really is tons to be found on this via google. And, with the exception of Dr. Nase/Dr. Crouch's posts here on the forum there is not one single instance of a negative outcome or side effect to this technology. Not one -- anywhere. In fact that is the one thing I've read alot -- that there just are no harmful side effects to this.

Trey, do some research. It seems like you're asking folks in the forum to do the work for you. If you're really interested in the technology, see what you can find and then bring your arguments forward, from what you've learned. Playing devils advocate just for the sake of debate can become exhausting. There's alot to it, and yet the premise is so simple. To argue the practical applications of the technology and the bio-physical ramifications and/or benefits is more than my poor brain can handle. I just know that from everything I've read, and I've read alot, I feel pretty darn optimistic about this.

Twickle Purple.

Again, you are not saying anything about the reactions within the skin that cause the anti-inflamatory action. If I knew the answer to this question, or any research would have answered this question that I have read, then I would not be asking.

You should know of all people what the anti-inflamatory actions of steroids does to rosacea skin right?

Looking for evidence of harm while treating other condition does not make it safe for rosaceans.

I would trust two doctors over a bunch people that have done reading on the Internet about RLT on conditions unrelated to rosacea.

Now, I will ask again but in a different way to clear up any confusion, what are the mechanisms or actions within the skin that cause the anti-inflamatory action. With out this answer, RLT long term ramifaction are unknown to me. Can be bad like steroids or can be good like IPL. Who knows. But I still do not have an answer to the question. The insistence that I have not done research is absurd. I, and seemingly no one else, can find the answer to this question so far. In fact, I have taken some of the research to medical professionalS that people on this forum have provided me who also believe that this question has not been answered adequately to understand the ramifications to rosacea skin.

Lastly, I will not respond as you have with emotion (e.g. "good god") and criticism. That gets really tiring and is ultimately unproductive. I thought we were adults here.

[Twickle Purple]

Hey, my "Good god" was to myself because I wasn't going to explain something very well. It was not directed at you. Lighten up.

Here's a page which has a whole bunch of legitimate referenced articles. I'm going to wade through the slog and find something that specifically says how the inflammatory process is halted with the RLT.

Oops, almost forgot that link:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/104454701753342758

From NASA (http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show2_5_8a.php?id=01-028&gl=58)

""LED reacts with cytochromes in the body," says Dr. Whelan. "Cytochromes are the parts of cells that respond to light and color. When cytochromes are activated, their energy levels go up and that stimulates tissue growth and regeneration. The potential to regenerate tissue, muscle, brain, and bone opens the door to helping people with diseases that previously had no hope of treatment.""

..."Here on Earth, Dr. Whelan says that LED therapy can easily affect our entire population. "Not everyone may need to use LED treatments for themselves, but just about everyone has known someone with cancer or a severe injury," he says. "Knowing that there is hope for diseases that used to have no treatment is good news for everyone."

I'm still looking for more...

[clsykes00]

Hey, my "Good god" was to myself because I wasn't going to explain something very well. It was not directed at you. Lighten up.

Here's a page which has a whole bunch of legitimate referenced articles. I'm going to wade through the slog and find something that specifically says how the inflammatory process is halted with the RLT.

Oops, almost forgot that link:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/104454701753342758

TP,
After constantly being criticized (for being a patient advocate), I am just used to being on my guard. I am sorry for mistakenly putting you in that bunch.

I will review in the next couple of days. Thanks for the link.

Trey

[fut]

I'd just like to say i've been using the blue and red led arrays for only a few days now but I already see big potential for this treatment.

[clsykes00]

Hey, my "Good god" was to myself because I wasn't going to explain something very well. It was not directed at you. Lighten up.

Here's a page which has a whole bunch of legitimate referenced articles. I'm going to wade through the slog and find something that specifically says how the inflammatory process is halted with the RLT.

Oops, almost forgot that link:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/104454701753342758

From NASA (http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show2_5_8a.php?id=01-028&gl=58)

""LED reacts with cytochromes in the body," says Dr. Whelan. "Cytochromes are the parts of cells that respond to light and color. When cytochromes are activated, their energy levels go up and that stimulates tissue growth and regeneration. The potential to regenerate tissue, muscle, brain, and bone opens the door to helping people with diseases that previously had no hope of treatment.""

..."Here on Earth, Dr. Whelan says that LED therapy can easily affect our entire population. "Not everyone may need to use LED treatments for themselves, but just about everyone has known someone with cancer or a severe injury," he says. "Knowing that there is hope for diseases that used to have no treatment is good news for everyone."

I'm still looking for more...

PS: Those quotes do not explain the anti-inflammatory mechanisms unfortantely. Actually, for some rosaceans, cell/skin growth may be very harmful (e.g. rhinophyma and generally those suffering from fibrotic issues, which are not uncommon to rosaceans). The hypothesis by a few here have been that the benefits of RLT is due to its anti-inflammatory effects. So, I just want (as I would hope many would want) to know the actions within the skin that cause the anti-inflammatory properties.

[Twickle Purple]

It is really beyond my ability for full comprehension. I just know that what I have read makes me believe the therapy will help me.

More from the NASA site (they are the 'inventors' of the RLT technology)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2003/03-199.html

Biologists have found that cells exposed to near-infrared light — that is, energy just outside the visible range — from LEDs grow 150 to 200 percent faster than those cells not stimulated by such light. The light arrays increase energy inside cells that speed up the healing process

From the Omnilux site (the only unit with FDA & Health Canada clearance presently):

Wound Healing

... Light therapy for use in skin healing processes has its foundation in the work of researchers such as Tiina Karu. Trials have clearly displayed that 633 nm light enhances not only DNA synthesis, but also augments cellular tissue regeneration pathways including collagen deposition.

[Twickle Purple]

I'd just like to say i've been using the blue and red led arrays for only a few days now but I already see big potential for this treatment.

fut, I'm glad to 'hear' that! Let us know how you go, please.

Twickle Purple.

[Twickle Purple]

With respect to "rhinophyma and generally those suffering from fibrotic issues", I found the information below which I think speaks to that. I have had a shape change to the bulb of my nose, thickening of the skin on my chin and upper cheeks. With the cheeks being most noticable because of the large pores. So this was very interesting to read. I'll let you know if I notice any changes to those areas.

Any typos are theirs (for a change :)).

From http://www.lighttherapyproducts.com/LEDFAQ.html

Collagen is a protein and as a protein collagen is synthesized (or formed) continuously in your body unless you have certain collagen deficiencies (scurvy or the lack of vitamin C is known to inhibit the production of collagen properly and the skin become fragile, wounds do not heal, skin discolors, among other results). Collagen chains are synthesized as longer precursors called “procollagens” and then transported or secreted into the extra cellular space after it is processed and assembled and these collagen molecules then polymerize to from Type I collagen.

There are 12-27 different collagen types (scientists disagree on the division). Type I collagen is the most abundant in the human body; it is present in scar tissue and is the end product when tissue heals itself by repair. This is the type of collage that our LED lights eventually forms. Type III collagen is the collagen of granulation tissue and is produced quickly by young fibroblasts before the tougher type of I collagen is synthesized. Our LEDs stimulate these fibroblasts which produce Type III collagen which eventually forms Type I collagen.

[hozer2k]

I have been looking in RLT, just to see what is all about and may give it a shot down the road. I have to say I appreciate clsykes00 opinion as it appears well thought, level headed, and cautious. I dont remember him saying anything that is necessarily non truthful either. So really, I am a little surprised to see even moderators getting upset about his comments. Frankly, the concerns are legit. This is not to say they are going to happen, noone is saying that, its just that we dont have enough to say they wont. Actually, that breaks down to logic as I remember it in school.

P.S. Trust me though, I am rooting for more positive results on RLT. I want to try it myself :)

[redhotoz]

I have researched it and have asked an important point blank question that is always left unanswered. I will ask again, what is the mechanism for the anti-inflamatory effect of RLT on ROSACEA? I don't receive answers because no one knows. The answer is not found in any literture reviewed by me or presented to me. Most of the literature about RLT focuses on vastly different conditions from rosacea. The benefits to other conditions does not translate well to rosacea. For instance, steroids are used for anti-inflammatory action. Would you want to use steroids on rosacea skin?
You are right Trey and this is what has been said all along. The exact mechanism of action, which promotes the anti-inflammatory effect of red light therapy, is unknown. This is why the Hammersmith trial is important for Rosaceans and hopefully the outcomes will answer the questions we want answered, specifically relating to Rosacea. No, I would not use steroids on Rosacea skin.
However, unlike RLT, accutane and its benefits (and risks) for rosacea have been studied far more extensively and its mechanisms for the actions advertised are well known. A prospective user can understand both sides of the argument and the actions and mechanisms invovled in its use, as well as review documented material regarding studies and theories of its actions specifically against rosacea. From this, that prospective user can make an INFORMED decisions. RLT really falls incredible short on all these fronts, making it more difficult for users to make INFORMED decisions.

Your analogy really does not serve your argument well.

I am no longer a user of accutane, but clearly you have researched several of my posts to dig up history.
Sure, everyone should make informed decisions on what they decide to try for the control of their own Rosacea symptoms. The reading I have done has lead me to believe it is worth trying. If you or others want to wait for the outcome of the trial, then that's fine. I'm happy with the decision I've made to give it a go.
I am interested in following RLT, but also think that people should understand both sides of the story before jumping in. Are you against others knowing both sides? What a terrible injustice if your answer is yes.
Of course I am not opposed to folks wanting to know more, for or against. I would encourage people to do their own reading and make up their own minds, based on the information available, not just what is posted in this Forum.
I find your fight, along with Peter and Iowa's, to prevent any negative comments towards RLT both enlighting and disturbing. Other treatment modalities have had both positive and negative comments posted about them, but by far, other treamtents have had far less traffic among posters insisting that "negative comments are not desired." This is very odd and makes me wonder about the motivations behind these actions.
It has never been my intention to fight about this Trey. My motivation is sharing what I am doing for the control of my own Rosacea symptoms and providing feedback on how it is going.
No link between Dr Nase and me exists. Why didn't you ask if a link between Dr Crouch and me exists? He opposed the use of RLT as well.
I did not say that you had a link to Dr Nase and did not mention Dr Crouch at all.
People have differences of opinion. Not everyone has to agree with you or me for that matter. Your insistence that you must be right and that you are the only one in this conversation "having done their homework" is suprising and absurd. Again, are you opposed to people understanding both sides of RLT?
Sure, people will always have differences of opinion, that's human nature. I believe that what I have read on the topic makes the use of red light therapy for Rosacea a treatment modality worth considering. Of course I am not opposed to people wanting to learn more about red light therapy, I encourage it. You may recall that I have quoted from web sites that are both positive and cautious. So, I don't understand how that could be considered one sided.
And you do care what I think, else you wouldn't be posting directly to me on the subject. And if you have read so much more, then please be the first person to correctly answer the easy question (at least for most proven treatment modalities), "what is the mechanism for RLT's anti-inflammatory action?"
What I care most about is helping people and offering support here. I post information on things I have read about or tried myself, things that I believe will be helpful, offering suggestions and options. I don't know how the anti-inflammatory action works but what I do know is that it is helping me.
Yes we are supposed to be adults. And, hopefully we are also not fascist either. That is why you shouldn't fear an opposing view. Or are you trying to force a group of people to adhere to your beliefs about RLT?
I don't fear an opposing view on red light therapy, I welcome a genuine enquiring mind. I am not forcing anyone to do anything!
Do you have a problem with Dr Nase's book or Dr Nase himself? Are there things in his book you find incorrect? I do find it a great source for those new to Rosacea. Are there better books in your opinion that cover causes and variety treatment modalities?
No, I don't have a problem with Dr Nase's book, it has some very useful information in it. I have several books on Rosacea here but Dr Nase's book does cover a great deal of ground on Rosacea. I subscribed for the Quarterly Updates too but haven't received one yet.
Lastly, I am frankly surprised by your email. People have been asking about RLT and even jumping on board with the potential of RLT by buying devices. I have not once tried to interfere with there actions or the path of their choice. I have only made comments where I saw a baised view of RLT in an effort to given both sides of the RLT story. But, you post the above, with a bunch of "!!!", from no where and speak at the same time about being adults. How is one not supposed to take that personally?
A bunch of exclamation marks? 3 in total, which were used to highlight a point. This is grammatically correct. Anyway, I like using exclamation marks!!! :lol:
I frankly do not wish to get into any more personal discussions, but I would also expect you as an adult to respect another point view.
I respect all points of view Trey. Please do feel free to post links to web sites that discuss the negative implications of red light therapy. I would be interested to read them.

Jenny

[orangehorizon]

I doubt that RLT can have any negative effect at the low intensities of the devices sold. On the other hand just because something helps with wounds or whatever DOES NOT mean it will heal ance or rosacea. Those are not wounds remember :)

I wanna see the fact RLT 'stimulates collagen production' proven in clinical studies. Keep in mind that even ingredients like vit C proven in clinical studies to stimulate collagen, in reality have effect that borders to nothing - talking from experience here.

The 'collagen production' of RLT is the same old story of the cosmetics industry. Find a new technology or ingredient that helps with wounds or cancer, baloon it as the ultimate wrinkle cure and let the people buy the ultra overpriced products. When people realize its ineffective make a new a baloon and continue this way to keep them interested and most importantly buying ....

The story of RLT reminds me of the Ultra Sound Facial devices. The usual baloon story - ultrasound alleviates pain, helps faster healing blah blah and then the usual 'stimulates collagen production'. I had a person on another board that was selling one of those machines - supposedly it helped with wrinkles, enlarged pores, acne and everything else imaginable. When I saw her before and after pics, I saw no diffference in terms of wrinkles or pores. Then I went to ebay, bought an ultrasound massager and found it had exactly ZERO effect on my enlarged pores.

[Steve95301]

From what I remember reading, the one consistent result of phototherapy was customer satisfaction. Whether it increases collagen or not, people seem to think it does... smoothing wrinkles is one of its main uses.

[Twickle Purple]

The exact mechanism of action, which promotes the anti-inflammatory effect of red light therapy, is unknown.


This bothered me all night because I knew there was a counter to this argument but it wasn't coming to me. :idea: When I started using Elidel and Protopic I read everything that was available to me.

From http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/dru753.html

The mechanism of action Elidel (pimecrolimus) exhibits in the treatment of atopic dermatitis is unknown.

And from
www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/AC/05/briefing/2005-4089b2_01_02_DPDD%20Consult.pdf
Protopic and Elidel are calcineurin inhibitors and immunosuppressants. Although their exact mechanism of action is not known, ...

So, I feel that it's okay if I don't know why RLT works, or really the exact how of it's affect on inflammation. It seems to be okay for the FDA and super-smart scientists to not know exactly the why of things while focussing on the benefits. And, in the case of the RLT, there are no negative side effects. It's light, it won't burn and it either works or it doesn't. The originator of the discovery is NASA and they are continuing their research into this method of healing and its potential applications.

[Steve95301]

And, in the case of the RLT, there are no negative side effects. It's light, it won't burn and it either works or it doesn't.

IMO, "negative" is relative to the condition being treated. For wound healing, you want more ATP and cellular activity. For rosacea, maybe not so much, if there's angiogenesis involved.

I'm too lazy to look up Dr. Nase's few posts on the subject, but I seem to remember him saying increased bloodflow and ATP might not be good for rosaceans.

In fact, that's the main reason I'm not trying it (and I love trying things)... everything I read on the subject mentions increased cellular activity. I spent a pretty penny zapping the blood vessels out of my face, I don't want to do anything that might make them grow back.

(Though as I mentioned to Dr. Bitter at my first IPL tx, there's something elegant about healing with light... It's cosmic, man, far out... starving hysterical naked... or something.)

[Twickle Purple]

What you're saying makes sense Steve. There has to be a lot more to it though because we've got folks here on the forum and out there in cyber land that use it on Rosacea and no one has posted an experience with aggravated symptoms (that I've come across anyway). On the contrary, from what I've read, repeated use of the red light causes the face to become pale and calm with use. So there must be more to it then what we know right now.

[Tioh2001]

Steve,

Flushing is by far my worst rosacea symptom. I have always been too afraid to try IPL for fear this treatment would make my flushing worse. IPL is just to strong and too great an insult for some rosacea skin.

I had read the negative things said about low level red light and the possibility of making flushing worse - but this was just too illogical to believe!

Low level light works on the same premise as intense pulsed light (IPL)...it's just a far more gentle action (although in theory, if used long term, the results should be equal or better than IPL). So if IPL works and doesn't increase your flushing....it's impossible for low level light to increase your flushing!

I kind of find this funny.....you were brave enough to have IPL, but afraid to use low level light!

I've been using a red/infrared light for almost 9 months. It has definitely not made my flushing worse...it has reduced my flushing (under most circumstances) to a great degree.

I highly recommend low level light!

Heather

[Steve95301]

Steve,

Flushing is by far my worst rosacea symptom. I have always been too afraid to try IPL for fear this treatment would make my flushing worse. IPL is just to strong and too great an insult for some rosacea skin.

I had read the negative things said about low level red light and the possibility of making flushing worse - but this was just too illogical to believe!

Low level light works on the same premise as intense pulsed light (IPL)...it's just a far more gentle action (although in theory, if used long term, the results should be equal or better than IPL). So if IPL works and doesn't increase your flushing....it's impossible for low level light to increase your flushing!

I kind of find this funny.....you were brave enough to have IPL, but afraid to use low level light!

I've been using a red/infrared light for almost 9 months. It has definitely not made my flushing worse...it has reduced my flushing (under most circumstances) to a great degree.

I highly recommend low level light!

Heather

Heather, that's great news that LLT is working for you. Like I said, I'm very intrigued by light therapy of any kind. It's been recently discovered that DNA molecules actually emit light... in fact the whole body radiates photons, especially the fingertips, at invisible levels. (Would we even know the human soul if we found it?)

However, I don't believe that LLT works on the same premise as IPL. The mechanism of IPL is very well understood (its inventor was kind enough to explain it to me). IPL heats blood vessels to the point that they clot, shrivel, and are removed. New vessels grow back, but there are less of them and they are not hyperreactive. This is possible without burning the surface skin because the light frequency is only absorbed by the red-colored vessels underneath.

I don't believe LLT heats (much less, removes) blood vessels; in fact it's more commonly claimed that the light is non-thermal. And the theory behind its (at this stage, anecdotal) effectiveness for rosacea is less than clear.

Personally, I am currently developing a new, bleeding-edge treatment modality: High-Level Dark Therapy (HLDT). At intense (but not pulsed) levels of darkness, facial redness is virtually unnoticeable.

[Twickle Purple]

Personally, I am currently developing a new, bleeding-edge treatment modality: High-Level Dark Therapy (HLDT). At intense (but not pulsed) levels of darkness, facial redness is virtually unnoticeable. :lol:

[Quench]

At intense (but not pulsed) levels of darkness, facial redness is virtually unnoticeable.

Please let us know when you have packaged it up and can sell it to us at a greatly inflated price. :lol:

[Steve95301]

At intense (but not pulsed) levels of darkness, facial redness is virtually unnoticeable.

Please let us know when you have packaged it up and can sell it to us at a greatly inflated price. :lol:

But of course :wink:

(patent pending)

[fut]

I have researched it and have asked an important point blank question that is always left unanswered. I will ask again, what is the mechanism for the anti-inflamatory effect of RLT on ROSACEA? I don't receive answers because no one knows. The answer is not found in any literture reviewed by me or presented to me. Most of the literature about RLT focuses on vastly different conditions from rosacea. The benefits to other conditions does not translate well to rosacea. For instance, steroids are used for anti-inflammatory action. Would you want to use steroids on rosacea skin?
You are right Trey and this is what has been said all along. The exact mechanism of action, which promotes the anti-inflammatory effect of red light therapy, is unknown. This is why the Hammersmith trial is important for Rosaceans and hopefully the outcomes will answer the questions we want answered, specifically relating to Rosacea. No, I would not use steroids on Rosacea skin.
However, unlike RLT, accutane and its benefits (and risks) for rosacea have been studied far more extensively and its mechanisms for the actions advertised are well known. A prospective user can understand both sides of the argument and the actions and mechanisms invovled in its use, as well as review documented material regarding studies and theories of its actions specifically against rosacea. From this, that prospective user can make an INFORMED decisions. RLT really falls incredible short on all these fronts, making it more difficult for users to make INFORMED decisions.

Your analogy really does not serve your argument well.

I am no longer a user of accutane, but clearly you have researched several of my posts to dig up history.
Sure, everyone should make informed decisions on what they decide to try for the control of their own Rosacea symptoms. The reading I have done has lead me to believe it is worth trying. If you or others want to wait for the outcome of the trial, then that's fine. I'm happy with the decision I've made to give it a go.
I am interested in following RLT, but also think that people should understand both sides of the story before jumping in. Are you against others knowing both sides? What a terrible injustice if your answer is yes.
Of course I am not opposed to folks wanting to know more, for or against. I would encourage people to do their own reading and make up their own minds, based on the information available, not just what is posted in this Forum.
I find your fight, along with Peter and Iowa's, to prevent any negative comments towards RLT both enlighting and disturbing. Other treatment modalities have had both positive and negative comments posted about them, but by far, other treamtents have had far less traffic among posters insisting that "negative comments are not desired." This is very odd and makes me wonder about the motivations behind these actions.
It has never been my intention to fight about this Trey. My motivation is sharing what I am doing for the control of my own Rosacea symptoms and providing feedback on how it is going.
No link between Dr Nase and me exists. Why didn't you ask if a link between Dr Crouch and me exists? He opposed the use of RLT as well.
I did not say that you had a link to Dr Nase and did not mention Dr Crouch at all.
People have differences of opinion. Not everyone has to agree with you or me for that matter. Your insistence that you must be right and that you are the only one in this conversation "having done their homework" is suprising and absurd. Again, are you opposed to people understanding both sides of RLT?
Sure, people will always have differences of opinion, that's human nature. I believe that what I have read on the topic makes the use of red light therapy for Rosacea a treatment modality worth considering. Of course I am not opposed to people wanting to learn more about red light therapy, I encourage it. You may recall that I have quoted from web sites that are both positive and cautious. So, I don't understand how that could be considered one sided.
And you do care what I think, else you wouldn't be posting directly to me on the subject. And if you have read so much more, then please be the first person to correctly answer the easy question (at least for most proven treatment modalities), "what is the mechanism for RLT's anti-inflammatory action?"
What I care most about is helping people and offering support here. I post information on things I have read about or tried myself, things that I believe will be helpful, offering suggestions and options. I don't know how the anti-inflammatory action works but what I do know is that it is helping me.
Yes we are supposed to be adults. And, hopefully we are also not fascist either. That is why you shouldn't fear an opposing view. Or are you trying to force a group of people to adhere to your beliefs about RLT?
I don't fear an opposing view on red light therapy, I welcome a genuine enquiring mind. I am not forcing anyone to do anything!
Do you have a problem with Dr Nase's book or Dr Nase himself? Are there things in his book you find incorrect? I do find it a great source for those new to Rosacea. Are there better books in your opinion that cover causes and variety treatment modalities?
No, I don't have a problem with Dr Nase's book, it has some very useful information in it. I have several books on Rosacea here but Dr Nase's book does cover a great deal of ground on Rosacea. I subscribed for the Quarterly Updates too but haven't received one yet.
Lastly, I am frankly surprised by your email. People have been asking about RLT and even jumping on board with the potential of RLT by buying devices. I have not once tried to interfere with there actions or the path of their choice. I have only made comments where I saw a baised view of RLT in an effort to given both sides of the RLT story. But, you post the above, with a bunch of "!!!", from no where and speak at the same time about being adults. How is one not supposed to take that personally?
A bunch of exclamation marks? 3 in total, which were used to highlight a point. This is grammatically correct. Anyway, I like using exclamation marks!!! :lol:
I frankly do not wish to get into any more personal discussions, but I would also expect you as an adult to respect another point view.
I respect all points of view Trey. Please do feel free to post links to web sites that discuss the negative implications of red light therapy. I would be interested to read them.

Jenny

Very level headed post, Jen.

[Peter]

Steve,

Flushing is by far my worst rosacea symptom. I have always been too afraid to try IPL for fear this treatment would make my flushing worse. IPL is just to strong and too great an insult for some rosacea skin.

I had read the negative things said about low level red light and the possibility of making flushing worse - but this was just too illogical to believe!

Low level light works on the same premise as intense pulsed light (IPL)...it's just a far more gentle action (although in theory, if used long term, the results should be equal or better than IPL). So if IPL works and doesn't increase your flushing....it's impossible for low level light to increase your flushing!

I kind of find this funny.....you were brave enough to have IPL, but afraid to use low level light!

I've been using a red/infrared light for almost 9 months. It has definitely not made my flushing worse...it has reduced my flushing (under most circumstances) to a great degree.

I highly recommend low level light!

Heather

Hello Heather

Thanks for this post and also providing the link again to your lamp yesterday.

Like you I am amazed by the amount of negative stuff that keeps coming up about RLT. Finding out exactly why it works has never been a problem to me because I am just pleased that it helped me. You are just one of several people over the years who have tried it with no side effects and reported back definite benefits which you want to share with and help others. Unfortunately there are some (usually from one camp) who see this as an injustice and repeatedly without evidence decide to warn people that this treatment is dangerous. In my book that is selfish and just scaremongering. The best post I saw was from duarfasiesan in January this year where and I quote "I think you have to be a complete idiot to get a 1st degree burn from LEDs. Its like getting a paper cut from a balloon."

Can you imagine the uproar if I continually posted on here the dangers of taking low dose Accutane? Well there is a school of thought that it can cause rosacea. Then what if I gave out endless warnings that IPL / Laser treatments can cause burning in some patients? Well again some people have had there skin ruined by laser treatments even when performed by highly respected laser specialists.

Of course I wouldn't do this because for some both treatments have changed their lives and it's up to the individual to make their own decisions based on the available evidence out there. Well RLT is the same but the evidence available suggests that it is safe without any side effects. I should know because I have used it for 8 years.

Best wishes

Peter

[clsykes00]

Like you I am amazed by the amount of negative stuff that keeps coming up about RLT.

If you call providing "buyer beware of the lack of science and studies around RLT negative, then so be it. I am amazed that you are threatened by it.


Finding out exactly why it works has never been a problem to me because I am just pleased that it helped me.

Maybe you do not care about the mechanisms behind RLT's actions, but others on here maybe concerned. Don't fear the fact that others need to see the whole picture around RLT, rather than blindly trusting optimistic posts about it. That has been the whole point all along. As a user for 8 years and close to the proposed study, I think all of us would appreciate your understanding of the mechanisms behind RLT's anti-inflamatory action.


Unfortunately there are some (usually from one camp) who see this as an injustice and repeatedly without evidence decide to warn people that this treatment is dangerous. In my book that is selfish and just scaremongering.

By lumping Dr Nase, Dr Crouch, me and others in one camp is one of many examples of either you being painfully naive. In my book, that is just plain disingenuous.

Can you imagine the uproar if I continually posted on here the dangers of taking low dose Accutane? Well there is a school of thought that it can cause rosacea. Then what if I gave out endless warnings that IPL / Laser treatments can cause burning in some patients? Well again some people have had there skin ruined by laser treatments even when performed by highly respected laser specialists.

Fortunately for accutane and IPL, much more data and studies exists regarding their use, efficacy and risks as each relate to ROSACEA. Both have risks, some of which are disputed, but all have been documented very well as it relates to ROSACEA. So, if you wish to regurgitate those studies, please do. Some on this site may benefit. And, really, I can't imagine any excuse by a member of this board to chatise someone for posting something like that.

Well RLT is the same but the evidence available suggests that it is safe without any side effects.

This is a perfect example of the extremely slanted statements that bother me. The evidence is not the same as it is for accutane or IPL. With both of these modalities, the mechanisms for there actions are well known and documented, thousands of people have used the modalities, which are administered by trained professionals, and studies have been written by well regarded Phds and doctors about each regarding specifically ROSACEA, not some other malady


All that said, I do not want to get into yet another sparring match with you Peter. I want to believe you are only interested in helping rosaceans. And, contrary to what you may think, I would love for RLT to be beneficial to rosaceans. But, without the above, I feel its imperitive for those considering to at least know what they are getting into rather than blindly listening to your one sided posts and reading about RLT on other conditions that have no relationship to ROSACEA.

Trey

[Twickle Purple]

Trey,

Your comfortable use of medical jargon, e.g., efficacy and modality, the questions you ask, and your knowledge of IPL and accutane studies has me wondering, are you part of the medical profession? You've made note yourself that you act as a patient advocate. Just wondering, really. It does appear that you protest a bit much against the RLT. I don't see the same vigor exercised on threads where users are sharing what works for them and promoting it to others. Peter has 8 years experience with the RLT, I think he can credibly voice an opinion with some weight. And, it does appear that you do want to antagonize Peter, your 'All that said, I do not want to get into yet another sparring match with you Peter.' does not ring sincere. You pronounce that he is threatened by something and make statements like "maybe you do not care" you call him "painfully naive" and so on.

This is an important thread, I started it because I really want opinions, and a place for everyone to share their experience, or some article they've found on it. You've made your, valid, point that we should all be informed. Beyond that, it's badgering.

Twickle Purple.

[redhotoz]

The exact mechanism of action, which promotes the anti-inflammatory effect of red light therapy, is unknown.


This bothered me all night because I knew there was a counter to this argument but it wasn't coming to me. :idea: When I started using Elidel and Protopic I read everything that was available to me.

From http://www.centerwatch.com/patient/drugs/dru753.html

The mechanism of action Elidel (pimecrolimus) exhibits in the treatment of atopic dermatitis is unknown.

And from
www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/AC/05/briefing/2005-4089b2_01_02_DPDD%20Consult.pdf
Protopic and Elidel are calcineurin inhibitors and immunosuppressants. Although their exact mechanism of action is not known, ...

So, I feel that it's okay if I don't know why RLT works, or really the exact how of it's affect on inflammation. It seems to be okay for the FDA and super-smart scientists to not know exactly the why of things while focussing on the benefits. And, in the case of the RLT, there are no negative side effects. It's light, it won't burn and it either works or it doesn't. The originator of the discovery is NASA and they are continuing their research into this method of healing and its potential applications.
Hi TP

I remember when I asked my GP and my Derm why antibiotics were prescribed for Rosacea. As in, what do they do. The response from both was "the mechanism of action is unknown". I've researched many medications on medical web sites and see the same thing stated.

What I wanted to do was work backwards to finding the cause of Rosacea. That is, if we can learn what antibiotics do to clear the Rosacean face, then we might be able to find a link to other medications and a possible cause. Unfortunately, I got nowhere with that approach!

So, we plug along and do what we feel is right for us. For me it's natural healing and red light therapy and I'm happy with those choices.

Jen

[clsykes00]

Trey,

Your comfortable use of medical jargon, e.g., efficacy and modality, the questions you ask, and your knowledge of IPL and accutane studies has me wondering, are you part of the medical profession? You've made note yourself that you act as a patient advocate. Just wondering, really. It does appear that you protest a bit much against the RLT. I don't see the same vigor exercised on threads where users are sharing what works for them and promoting it to others. Peter has 8 years experience with the RLT, I think he can credibly voice an opinion with some weight. And, it does appear that you do want to antagonize Peter, your 'All that said, I do not want to get into yet another sparring match with you Peter.' does not ring sincere. You pronounce that he is threatened by something and make statements like "maybe you do not care" you call him "painfully naive" and so on.

This is an important thread, I started it because I really want opinions, and a place for everyone to share their experience, or some article they've found on it. You've made your, valid, point that we should all be informed. Beyond that, it's badgering.

Twickle Purple.

TP,
Well two things: (1) there is alot of history there and (2) we can agree to disagree. And, I am absolutely sincere about not wanting to spar. I have no incentive or desire. But I do find it interesting that Peter's comments such as:

"Unfortunately there are some (usually from one camp) who see this as an injustice and repeatedly without evidence decide to warn people that this treatment is dangerous. In my book that is selfish and just scaremongering."

are not alarming to you and you end up pointing the finger towards me.

What I do ask for about RLT however for rosaceans like me to make good decisions are analyses like this (about accutane, which contrary to an earlier post, has much more information than RLT (understanding that this may not be important to you but there are alot of rosaceans that require knowledge before adopting therapies):

Accutane's effect on the five subtypes of rosacea all are accomplished by different actions of accutane -- which of course makes it confusing to everyone.

1. With rhinophyma, a huge part of accutane's actions are shrinking sebaceous glands, removing long standing fluid via lymph system, downregulating fibroblasts which trigger skin thickening, etc.

2. With Papulo-Pustular type, much of accutane's actions are related to

a. A generalized anti-inflammatory action on inflammed dermal skin and inflammed blood vessels.

b. More specifically, it helps normalize and release cell adhesion molecules from the inside of blood vessels. These are inflammatory flags that send out a signal to recruit neutrophils, the cell adhesion molecules then open up the blood vessel like a gate and let the neutrophils migrate up to the epidermis to cause papules. So, you remove CAM and you remove the gates -- the neutrophils dont go through.

c. There is a massive build up of neutrophils outside the blood vessels at most stages of rosacea (remember that article calling rosacea a neutrophillic dermatose?), well, accutane tells the neutrophils to pull up camp and move along.

In essence, rosacea sets up a perfect pro-inflammatory environment that makes it hard to break the cycle after years of this inflammation. Accutane, in essence, knocks down this inflammatory environment to pre-rosacea levels (in general) and gives many a fresh start. You still have the genetic predisposition, but you have undone the years of damage and now can control things much better. With 10 mgs, there is very little to no effect on the dermis thickness and very little effect on the epidermis. It may make some more sensitive, but as we all know everybody is unique.

It also has different mechanisms of action on neuropathic rosacea that relate to sensory neurons and cytokines and ocular rosacea which relate to meibomian glands and cytokine/interleukins.


Now, if you don't care about this quality of information from your therapies, well that is your choice. I can also post about the dangers of accutane, which are well documented and am not afraid to do so. Im not motivated one way or the other regarding accutane. But, I do have problems with very biased posts by those that can't even tell us what the mechanisms of the anti-inflamatory actions are with RLT.

You should know that there are doctors, despite what Peter says, that have claimed that RLT has hurt patients.

Trey

[Twickle Purple]

Trey, is every post to this thread going to be countered with the same message from you?

We get it. This is a new (ish) idea for treatment.

Everything I've read on the 'net is pretty darn exciting. Everything I've heard 'first' hand here on this forum is pretty darn promising. I will state categorically that I find Dr. Nase post to be so completely opposite to what he had voiced previously on the exact subject that I dismiss him out of hand. The two incidences with home-made units, within the very same week, which Dr. Crouch posted about are not relevant in that they were home made and we have no idea what they were. They could have been anything, we do not know, so as he did not elaborate, his post has no merit in this discussion of RLT. I found the timing of those two postings to be suspect considering the overall atmosphere within the forum surrounding Dr. Nase' behaviour at the time. Folks who post here post what they use, and in detail so there is no relationship to the scenario. I have not come across anything other than those two postings mentioned above. Anywhere.


I just don't see you protesting this strenously when other treatment options are discussed.

Twickle Purple

[IowaDavid]

You should know that there are doctors, despite what Peter says, that have claimed that RLT has hurt patients.

Trey

Show us the "claims" then. Give us the anecdotal reports. Claims are just that--claims. Can you back up your position with actual patient testimony? I'm not talking clinical trials--I'm talking personal, anecdotal testimony of patients getting "burned" from red light.

I mean, we can only learn by sharing knowledge. Why not share these reports? Or do you have an ulterior motive to obfuscate the issue?

[Twickle Purple]

Hi TP

I remember when I asked my GP and my Derm why antibiotics were prescribed for Rosacea. As in, what do they do. The response from both was "the mechanism of action is unknown". I've researched many medications on medical web sites and see the same thing stated.

What I wanted to do was work backwards to finding the cause of Rosacea. That is, if we can learn what antibiotics do to clear the Rosacean face, then we might be able to find a link to other medications and a possible cause. Unfortunately, I got nowhere with that approach!

So, we plug along and do what we feel is right for us. For me it's natural healing and red light therapy and I'm happy with those choices.

Jen

Hi Jen,

I completely missed your post in the brouhaha that makes my head hurt!

You bring up a brilliant point: the how and the why antibiotics work for rosacea is not understood. Thankfully that hasn't stopped us from being able to access this as a treatment option.

I do agree that a natural approach is a great way to go. I am beginning to see an end to my flare and hope to be done with the antibiotics soon. I have purchased Rosacea Diet: A Simple Method to Control Rosacea and will be going through the archives reading up on what has worked for you and others. A candida-fighting diet has brought benefits to me and my husband in the past. A case in point, which is totally off topic here but it's late and I'm tired so I wander: He was put on antibiotics for two weeks for a minor hand wound. He bled internally for weeks and to this day cannot drink alcohol and will bleed if he even eats something cooked with it. Within the year he had developed annulare granuloma on his ankle and foot and I thought there was relationship. All the literature on this condition is useless, there is no real treatment "it stays until it goes" maybe 10 to 20 years, and it spreads maybe a bit or maybe a lot and you can get steroid shots to help relieve it which may be useful. No real cause is known. I had him cured within 3 months with a no-cheating candida busting diet. Natural healing works. I am hoping the combination of diet, stress-free living and RLT will take me off all drugs.

Twickle Purple

[redhotoz]

I had him cured within 3 months with a no-cheating candida busting diet. Natural healing works. I am hoping the combination of diet, stress-free living and RLT will take me off all drugs.
That's so encouraging to hear TP! I read many similar stories on the Yahoo Candida Support Group and that keeps me going on the diet. I too am hoping that diet, stress-free living and red light therapy will keep me away from medications and one day Rosacea (and Candida) free. Not that I am saying all mediations are bad or anything, there is a place for them. I just choose not to take any.

Best of luck with Brady's diet. He also hosts the Yahoo Diet Users Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-diet-users-support-group/ which can be helpful when you want to ask specific questions or not sure about something. I'm a member but haven't posted there, just read.

Oh, just aside. My boyfriend has very little hair - well most of it is in his moustache and LONG beard - he looks like a bikey (used to be one and still has 'connections')! His 'look' alone is scary and made for a great debt collector when I needed one! LOL Yes, ok, now you can picture Jen on the back of his roaring Harley! Anyway, I digress! He watched a show on tv the other week that documented light therapy. I didn't see it but he said part of it was about hair regrowth and now he is completely convinced to sit under my lamp! He's not always in town, so that could be difficult to do but he seemed quite excited about the tv programme. Wish I saw it!

Jen

[redhotoz]

Very level headed post, Jen.
Thanks Fut. I do try but not always successfully. Just makes me human, huh! :)

Jen

[MARPUSBEAN]

I have been following the the discussions on RLT without comment as I do not want to keep repeating comments I have made before.
However I guess that I will.
I have posted elsewhere about how Eredicane has almost eliminated my flushing, but probably 60% of people who have tried it abandoned it after no improvements, I also mentioned how moderate sun with protection improves my skin, for some people this would be almost suicidal.
I cannot really sustantiate why these 2 factors have improved my rosacea, nevertheless they have.
I would postulate that RLT falls into the same category, perhaps the positive effects of RLT outweigh the negative for SOME people.
Today there is no science to fully support this theory.
As I have said before I am 100% sure that Peter and David and others hve benefited from RLT.
I am equally sure that some people have misused equipment and could have damaged their skin, this must be so, look how many IPL and Laser clinics have misused equipment and damaged peoples skin, but look how many people have benefited from good IPL and laser!
I myself have decided, for the moment, not to try RLT, not because I am very worried about it, but because I would like to see the results of the work being done at Hammersmith, if this is positive it could lead to the manufacturer recomending the equipment for Rosacea, and I have a personal preference for using equipment for treatment which is fully supported by the manufacturer, but this is only a personel preference, if respected Forum members have good results with RLT then I believe them.

[clsykes00]

Show us the "claims" then. Give us the anecdotal reports. Claims are just that--claims. Can you back up your position with actual patient testimony? I'm not talking clinical trials--I'm talking personal, anecdotal testimony of patients getting "burned" from red light.

I mean, we can only learn by sharing knowledge. Why not share these reports? Or do you have an ulterior motive to obfuscate the issue?

Have time for only one post before running to catch a plane to get to a board meeting.

Ask the DOCTORS for the evidence. They have first hand accounts of it. They do have medical backgrounds. Do you? Unfortunately HIPPA and other forms in other countries make it difficult to reveal evidence as well as you know ID.

But as a promotor of RLT, I will ask you for clinical evidence regarding RLT on ROSACEA and the mechanism for its actions.

As for TP's questions about me being a doctor. I am not a doctor (but see the question as narrow). If the question is, do you have a medical background where your job depends on it, where you have fudiciary responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines, the answer to that question is YES. However, given your trust in Peter, IowaDavid, and others, I would ask them about their medical backgrounds.

Peter, can we also get a short write up of the summary, hypothesis, operation, etc. of the Hammer trials. Surprising to me that if we are to find out the mechanisms around the anti-inflamatory actions through this trial that a hypothesis around this has not been developed. This would be normal and customary for anyone subscribing to the scientific method of research. Maybe Dr. Chu can personally provide his thoughts on this.

[Peter]

Trey, is every post to this thread going to be countered with the same message from you?

We get it. This is a new (ish) idea for treatment.

Everything I've read on the 'net is pretty darn exciting. Everything I've heard 'first' hand here on this forum is pretty darn promising. I will state categorically that I find Dr. Nase post to be so completely opposite to what he had voiced previously on the exact subject that I dismiss him out of hand. The two incidences with home-made units, within the very same week, which Dr. Crouch posted about are not relevant in that they were home made and we have no idea what they were. They could have been anything, we do not know, so as he did not elaborate, his post has no merit in this discussion of RLT. I found the timing of those two postings to be suspect considering the overall atmosphere within the forum surrounding Dr. Nase' behaviour at the time. Folks who post here post what they use, and in detail so there is no relationship to the scenario. I have not come across anything other than those two postings mentioned above. Anywhere.


I just don't see you protesting this strenously when other treatment options are discussed.

Twickle Purple

Hello TP

Great post yet again.

Well you don’t have to be a genius to work out what happened in the past and what Trey is trying to instigate again but of course hiding behind the wording of questions centred around “I am really interested in RLT but ……………”

The word again for this is scaremongering. I have given up replying to him now because all that happens is that the thread just goes round and round in ever decreasing circles. Pointless, time wasting, tiresome, selfish.

My advice to others is simple with RLT. If you are really want to try it and can afford the initial outlay then give it a go. The only risk is to your pocket if you do not respond. If you do not want to try it then don’t but please leave others to make up their own minds on whether or not it will help them.

I have just heard that Nase’s web site now contains a new entry on RLT. I can’t be bothered to look but apparently nothing on it yet but I suppose it’s an advance warning of yet more accusations to come. I expect I will be added to the long list of rogues already up on there. Is there anybody out there who isn’t on it yet?

Best wishes

Peter

[redhotoz]

I have been following the the discussions on RLT without comment as I do not want to keep repeating comments I have made before.
However I guess that I will.
I have posted elsewhere about how Eredicane has almost eliminated my flushing, but probably 60% of people who have tried it abandoned it after no improvements, I also mentioned how moderate sun with protection improves my skin, for some people this would be almost suicidal.
I cannot really sustantiate why these 2 factors have improved my rosacea, nevertheless they have.
I would postulate that RLT falls into the same category, perhaps the positive effects of RLT outweigh the negative for SOME people.
Today there is no science to fully support this theory.
As I have said before I am 100% sure that Peter and David and others hve benefited from RLT.
I am equally sure that some people have misused equipment and could have damaged their skin, this must be so, look how many IPL and Laser clinics have misused equipment and damaged peoples skin, but look how many people have benefited from good IPL and laser!
I myself have decided, for the moment, not to try RLT, not because I am very worried about it, but because I would like to see the results of the work being done at Hammersmith, if this is positive it could lead to the manufacturer recomending the equipment for Rosacea, and I have a personal preference for using equipment for treatment which is fully supported by the manufacturer, but this is only a personel preference, if respected Forum members have good results with RLT then I believe them.
Hi Marpusbean

I truly do like your level headed approach. I am so happy for you that Eredicane is working to control your Rosacea beast. I don't know much about it myself since I am on the natural path but still happy that it's working for you. Fantastic!

From what I have read, I can find no negative effects of low level red light therapy. This is why I decided to try it. The only negatives are that we simply don't know enough about it, which is pretty much the same as other medications or creams. That is, with a great majority of things that we try, we are the guinea pigs. We don't know why, if it will work for us individually or whether it will have a long term controlling effect on Rosacea. It's completely frustrating!

That's why I am comfortable sitting where I am right now, on the natural path. Hopefully one day the true cause will be discovered and a cure to follow.

Big sigh!!! Oh for a cure!!!

Jen

[redhotoz]

Ask the DOCTORS for the evidence. They have first hand accounts of it.
The questions were asked Trey but no answers were forthcoming.
If the question is, do you have a medical background where your job depends on it, where you have fudiciary responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines, the answer to that question is YES.
Wow Trey! So, this would be the reason why you want the scientific data. To prove or moreso to disprove the theory for the sake of the shareholders and investors et al? How interesting.

[Twickle Purple]

He watched a show on tv the other week that documented light therapy. I didn't see it but he said part of it was about hair regrowth and now he is completely convinced to sit under my lamp! He's not always in town, so that could be difficult to do but he seemed quite excited about the tv programme. Wish I saw it!
Jen

Hi Jen,

I've read a lot of articles with hair growth, stimulation mentioned. Good luck to him! Biker's have a bad rep :D I love to ride. I ran out of gas once on an overpass, when I was a newbie, I know better now! And NO ONE would stop to help me. Have you seen what I look like, I am so NOT scary looking :lol: The bike scared 'em off. Now where I live it is di rigeur for anyone over 45 to ride. Makes for some pretty entertaining sights.

I've got to drop a note into the manufacturer regarding my lamp shipment. Just to make sure it's on schedule. I'm counting off the days!!

Twickle Purple

[Twickle Purple]

Ask the DOCTORS for the evidence.

Wow, absolutely, positively and incredibly unbelievable. You have slammed everyone that posts positively on RLT and with emphasis that you know of many doctors who have reported the negative aspect of this treatment. You are able to quote chapter and verse on everything else and yet whan asked to finally pony up to the table with this so called negative evidence you play coy. Wow. You sly little insinuator!

I have no doubt now that you have an agenda. I will also say that I am quite convinced that you speak with a shared voice of a former poster to this site.

:roll:

Twickle Purple

[GJ]

When you search about for RLT stuff one thing strikes: its anti-inflammatory actions are seemingy accepted as a given by doctors and researchers:

'CONCLUSION: LED photomodulation reverses signs of photoaging using a new nonthermal mechanism. The anti-inflammatory component of LED in combination with the cell regulatory component helps improve the outcome of other thermal-based rejuvenation treatments.
PMID: 16176771 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]'


We are looking for mechanisms of action anyhoo. No one trick pony this! Some of the following may be helpful. ( The piece on psoriasis included to aid comprehension of Th-2. Not all LED stuff, yet all applicable I fancy. Solid stuff on collagen, if you like that sort of thing).

Enjoy!


· Takezaki S,
· Omi T,
· Sato S,
· Kawana S.
Department of Dermatology, Nippon Medical School, Sendagi, Tokyo, Japan.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Red light phototherapy with laser sources has been used successfully for a number of indications. A new generation of quasimonochromatic 630 +/- 3 nm light-emitting diode (LED) systems has recently been yielding good results for the same indications, but no study has examined changes in visible red light irradiated skin at an immunological level. This study was thus designed to examine changes in skin-homing T-cell levels induced in normal human skin by visible red LED energy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Six adult male volunteers (35 approximately 48 years old) who satisfied all study criteria had the skin over the lateral aspect of the leg irradiated once per week for 8 weeks with a visible red (630 +/- 3 nm) LED-based system, with irradiance of 105 m/cm2, 15 minutes/session, and a radiant flux of 94 J/cm2. Skin biopsies were performed after the eighth treatment session, and cultures were prepared to assay the type and quantity of skin-homing T-cells using qualitative and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques. Ultrastructural changes were also assessed with transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Transmission electron microscopy revealed mild fibroplastic changes in fibroblasts, with no acute inflammatory changes throughout the treatment session. Qualitative PCR showed the presence of both Th-1 and Th-2 T-cells, and quantitative PCR showed an increase in the numbers of both types of skin-homing T-cells, much more so for Th-2 than for Th-1. CONCLUSIONS: Visible red LED irradiation appears to activate the skin-homing immune system.
PMID: 16641531 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


· Ghoreschi K,
· Mrowietz U,
· Rocken M.
Department of Dermatology, University of Tubingen, Liebermeisterstrasse 25, 72076 Tubingen, Germany.
Psoriasis is an autoimmune disease affecting 2-4% of the Caucasian population. Inflammatory processes induce the migration of interferon (IFN) gamma producing Th1 lymphocytes into the skin. These play a key role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. These Th1 lymphocytes are responsible for the pathological reactions in psoriatic skin leading to keratinocyte hyperproliferation, small vessel proliferation and neutrophilic infiltration. Antigen-presenting cells activate dermal CD4+ T lymphocytes, and various signals can support the polarization of Th1 responses. The main signal for Th1 development is interleukin (IL) 12. After binding to their receptors both IL-12 and IFN-gamma promote intracellular IFN-gamma production by activating signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) 4 or 1. STAT1 activation by IFN-gamma is followed by T-bet activation, a master transcription factor for Th1 lymphocytes. In experimental models of Th1-mediated autoimmune diseases immune deviation of polarized autoreactive Th1 into anti-inflammatory Th2 responses generally improves the disease. Therefore new therapeutic approaches based on immunomodulating molecules have been developed for psoriasis, a prototypical Th1-mediated autoimmune disorder. Recently IL-4, the most effective Th2-inducing cytokine, has been shown to be safe and efficient for treating psoriasis. Improvement was associated with the induction of a Th2 phenotype of skin infiltrating lymphocytes. This review summarizes the IL-4 inducing potential of various conventional and newer systemic therapies for psoriasis. Many of these were thought to be primarily immunosuppressive. A review of the literature reveals that most of them can induce IL-4 and Th2, and that Th2 induction may be an underestimated mode of action in the therapy of Th1-mediated autoimmune disease. Further studies are needed to determine the central role of IL-4 in the control of Th1-induced autoimmune disease, namely psoriasis.
PMID: 12879154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


· Weiss RA,
· McDaniel DH,
· Geronemus RG,
· Weiss MA.
Maryland Laser Skin & Vein Institute, Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030, USA. rweiss@mdlaserskinvein.com
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Photomodulation has been described as a process which modifies cell activity using light sources without thermal effect. The objective of this study was to investigate the use of a non-thermal low dose light emitting diode (LED) array for improving the appearance of photoaged subjects. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study investigated a random cohort of patients (N = 90) with a wide range of photoaged skin treated by LED photomodulation using a full panel 590 nm non-thermal full face LED array delivering 0.1 J/cm(2) with a specific sequence of pulsing. Subjects were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, 18 weeks and 6 and 12 months after a series of 8 treatments delivered over 4 weeks. Data collected included stereotactic digital imaging, computerized optical digital profilometry, and peri-ocular biopsy histologic evaluations for standard stains and well as collagen synthetic and degradative pathway immunofluorescent staining. RESULTS: Digital imaging data showed a reduction of signs of photoaging in 90% of subjects with smoother texture, reduction of peri-orbital rhytids, and reduction of erythema and pigmentation. Optical profilometry showed a 10% improvement by surface topographical measurements. Histologic data showed markedly increased collagen in the papillary dermis of 100% of post-treatment specimens (N = 10). Staining with anti-collagen I antibodies demonstrated a 28% (range: 10%-70%) average increase in density while staining with anti-matrixmetalloproteinase (MMP)-1 showed an average reduction of 4% (range: 2%-40%). No side effects or pain were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Photomodulation to reverse photoaging is possible with a specific array of LEDs with a specific fluence using a precise pulsing or "code" sequence. Skin textural improvement by digital imaging and surface profilometry is accompanied by increased collagen I deposition with reduced MMP-1 (collagenase) activity in the papillary dermis. This technique is a safe and effective non-painful non-ablative modality for improvement of photoaging. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PMID: 15654716 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

· Zhevago NA,
· Samoilova KA.
Photobiology Unit, Institute of Cytology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was to investigate changes in the content of 10 cytokines in the human peripheral blood after transcutaneous and in vitro irradiation with polychromatic visible and infrared (IR) polarized light at therapeutic dose. BACKGROUND DATA: The role of cytokines in development of anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and wound-healing effects of visible and IR light remains poorly studied. METHODS: The sacral area of volunteers was exposed (480-3400 nm, 95% polarization, 12 J/cm(2)); in parallel, the blood samples of the same subjects were irradiated in vitro (2.4 J/cm(2)). Determination of cytokine content was performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: A dramatic decrease in the level of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-alpha, IL-6, and IFN-gamma was revealed: at 0.5 h after exposure of volunteers (with the initial parameters exceeding the norm), the cytokine contents fell, on average, 34, 12, and 1.5 times. The reduced concentrations of TNF-alpha and IL-6 were preserved after four daily exposures, whereas levels of IFN-gamma and IL-12 decreased five and 15 times. At 0.5 h and at later times, the amount of anti-inflammatory cytokines was found to rise: that of IL-10 rose 2.7-3.5 times (in subjects with normal initial parameters) and of TGF-beta1 1.4-1.5 times (in the cases of its decreased level). A peculiarity of the light effect was a fast rise of IFN-gamma at 3.3-4.0 times in subjects with normal initial values. The content of IL-1beta, IL-2, IFN-alpha, and IL-4 did not change. Similar regularities of the light effects were recorded after in vitro irradiation of blood, as well as on mixing the irradiated and non-irradiated autologous blood at a volume ratio 1:10 (i.e., at modeling the events in a vascular bed of the exposed person when a small amount of the transcutaneously photomodified blood contacts its main circulating volume). CONCLUSION: Exposure of a small area of the human body to light leads to a fast decrease in the elevated pro-inflammatory cytokine plasma content and to an increase in the the anti-inflammatory factor concentration, which may be an important mechanism of the anti-inflammatory effect of phototherapy. These changes result from transcutaneous photomodification of a small volume of blood and a fast transfer of the light-induced changes to the entire pool of circulating blood.
PMID: 16706691 [PubMed - in process]

· Kandolf-Sekulovic L,
· Kataranovski M,
· Pavlovic MD.
Department of Dermatology and Institute for Medical Research, Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Contact hypersensitivity (CHS) reaction is a useful model for studying the skin immune system and inflammatory reactions in the skin. In this study, an experimental model of CHS reaction was employed to assess immunomodulatory effects of near-infrared (near-IR) low-intensity laser (LIL) irradiation, which is used as adjuvant therapy in dermatology, physical medicine, rheumatology, etc., because of its declared anti-inflammatory, biostimulative and analgesic effects. METHODS: The effects of near-IR LIL irradiation (lambda=904 nm, irradiance 60 mW/cm2, fluence 3.6 J/cm2) on CHS reaction to 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB) in Albino Oxford rats were examined by irradiating experimental groups of animals before the induction phase of CHS reaction, while nonirradiated animals and animals that received vehicle instead of hapten served as controls. Ear-swelling assay, histopathological examination of H&E preparations of ear skin, computer-assisted image analysis of dermal infiltrate, ear skin organ culture with the determination of cutaneous production of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (by ELISA assay) and nitric oxide (by Griess' assay) were used for measuring the effects of LIL in the elicitation phase of CHS reaction. Cellularity, dendritic cell content, flow cytometry and proliferation assays (spontaneous and in the presence of IL-2 and concanavalin A) of the draining lymph node cells (DLNC) were performed for the assessment of LIL irradiation effects in the induction phase. RESULTS: In the irradiated group of animals, ear swelling was significantly diminished compared to control animals (101+/-11.5% vs. 58+/-11.6%, P<0.01). This was accompanied by a highly significant decrease in the density of dermal infiltrate (22+/-0.81 vs. 14.2+/-1.75 cells per unit area, P<0.01) and a significant decrease in nitrite levels in the medium conditioned by organ-cultured ear skin (17.63+/-1.91 vs. 3.16+/-1.69 microM NaNO2; P<0.01), while TNF-alpha concentration was not changed. Cellularity and dendritic cell content in DLNC population, as well as the expression of TCR-alpha, CD4, CD8 and CD25, were not changed between irradiated and nonirradiated animals. Proliferation rates of DLNC cultured for 72 h were significantly lower in irradiated animals (17.3+/-4.1 vs. 13.9+/-0.9 x 103 c.p.m.; P<0.01). In cultures of DLNC with added rIL-2 or 0.5 microg/ml of concanavalin A, proliferation rates were also significantly decreased in irradiated animals (34.7+/-3.5 vs. 31.2+/-2. c.p.m. in IL-2-supplemented culture, P<0.01; 70.9+/-6.4 vs. 58.3+/-9.1 x 103 c.p.m. in concanavalin A-supplemented culture, P<0.01). However, this effect was overcome in the presence of the higher concentration of concanavalin A (2.5 microg/ml) (nonirradiated 38.7+/-3.1, irradiated 123.1+/-7.3 x 103 c.p.m., P<0.01). CONCLUSION: LIL irradiation showed a systemic immunomodulatory effect on CHS reaction to DNCB in rats. Decreased ear swelling observed in the elicitation phase was associated with diminished proliferative responses of the DLNC in the induction phase of CHS reaction. Further experimental work is needed to examine the possible mechanisms of these effects.
PMID: 12925192 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Twickle Purple]

Thanks so much GJ.

The technical stuff made my eyes go crossed in a few parts :lol: but I am left hugely reassured that this is a safe and very beneficial course of action for my rosacea skin.

It speaks to the anti-inflammatory component, and the reduction of erythema and pigmentation. Which are all benefits that folks who have used the lamps have posted about.

Twickle Purple

[GJ]

Thankyou, TP.

You might be further heartened to hear that your super-deluxe monster array was the very equipment used in a number of recent trials.

What a stamp of approval!

[Twickle Purple]

Now, I'm really going to be impatient to get that darn thing! :D

[Steve95301]

GJ, thank you for the info.

My nitpick: Hyperlinks to each study and bold-facing text that you find especially relevant would make it easier to process the information.

[GJ]

Thanks for the feedback, Steve.

Firstly, as a layman, I take peculiar pleasure in presenting these jargon ridden efforts in their full unabridged glory.

Secondly, rosaceans, if they are interested in these things, would do well to become acquainted with the methodologies, the complexities and the alien terminology.

Thirdly, I'm not sure making things easier is the correct approach. Ruinous to society and culture. Produces lazy and unthinking individuals. We suffer and we learn.

Fourthly, Pubmed links are very long. They tend to break. I do not know how to overcome this. :oops:

[Felix2]

"Wow, absolutely, positively and incredibly unbelievable. You have slammed everyone that posts positively on RLT and with emphasis that you know of many doctors who have reported the negative aspect of this treatment. You are able to quote chapter and verse on everything else and yet whan asked to finally pony up to the table with this so called negative evidence you play coy. Wow. You sly little insinuator!

I have no doubt now that you have an agenda. I will also say that I am quite convinced that you speak with a shared voice of a former poster to this site. " - twickle purple 2006 TM.

LOL, still stirring.

Ericsykes00 is not Geoffrey Nase.

[Twickle Purple]

*sigh* I was quite stirred Felix. Unbelievable really that this person has been trying to pull one on us all. I had honestly thought he was genuine and on the up and up for a while there.

Well, he revealed himself even further when he finally shared what his motives really were about:

...responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines

I am still quite shocked, not only does he consistently insinuate damage where there are no reports of this, and he will not support his claims -- something he demands that we do :roll: then he finally admits a responsibility to his investors to protect their interests!

It all makes sense now why he has been so strenuously vocal on this subject only.

[Steve95301]

Fourthly, Pubmed links are very long. They tend to break. I do not know how to overcome this. :oops:

Instead of leaving a naked link, I tend to hyperlink relevant text (usually, the title). For example, this sentence:

"Another good way to shorten links is by using TinyURL (http://tinyurl.com/)."

[redhotoz]

Hey I was wondering about the link thing. I have noticed that if you type in...

Titile of the Article it should work. I put spaces in that so you could see it clearly. I'll try it next time I am quoting a web site.

Does that look about right Steve?

Jen

[Steve95301]

Hey I was wondering about the link thing. I have noticed that if you type in...

Titile of the Article it should work. I put spaces in that so you could see it clearly. I'll try it next time I am quoting a web site.

Does that look about right Steve?

Jen

Yep, that's how it's done... (I should've explained how to do it)... The control panel doesn't give instructions, but then again it's free software.

[redhotoz]

*sigh* I was quite stirred Felix. Unbelievable really that this person has been trying to pull one on us all. I had honestly thought he was genuine and on the up and up for a while there.

Well, he revealed himself even further when he finally shared what his motives really were about:

...responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines

I am still quite shocked, not only does he consistently insinuate damage where there are no reports of this, and he will not support his claims -- something he demands that we do :roll: then he finally admits a responsibility to his investors to protect their interests!

It all makes sense now why he has been so strenuously vocal on this subject only.
Well I'm glad someone else picked up on that TP! I didn't make a big hoo hah about it but WOW! I'm gobsmacked! Jen is speechless...there has to be a first for everything! :lol:

[Felix2]

someone else

without humour we would be lost.

[Peter]

Have time for only one post before running to catch a plane to get to a board meeting.

Ask the DOCTORS for the evidence. They have first hand accounts of it. They do have medical backgrounds. Do you? Unfortunately HIPPA and other forms in other countries make it difficult to reveal evidence as well as you know ID.

But as a promotor of RLT, I will ask you for clinical evidence regarding RLT on ROSACEA and the mechanism for its actions.

As for TP's questions about me being a doctor. I am not a doctor (but see the question as narrow). If the question is, do you have a medical background where your job depends on it, where you have fudiciary responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines, the answer to that question is YES. However, given your trust in Peter, IowaDavid, and others, I would ask them about their medical backgrounds.

Peter, can we also get a short write up of the summary, hypothesis, operation, etc. of the Hammer trials. Surprising to me that if we are to find out the mechanisms around the anti-inflamatory actions through this trial that a hypothesis around this has not been developed. This would be normal and customary for anyone subscribing to the scientific method of research. Maybe Dr. Chu can personally provide his thoughts on this.

Hello Trey

I Know the feeling as I only have time for one post before the pub shuts. Tough at the top isn't it?

I did say that I had given up replying to you because all that happens is that the thread just goes round and round in ever decreasing circles. However, I do believe it is necessary for me to reply in this instance as it now appears the real reason for your appearance on RLT threads has emerged.

As Jen posted previously we asked the so called experts back in January but they couldn't back up their claims.
Oh I forgot - HIPPA - of course how silly of me. HIPPA and confidentiality clauses the saviour of some professionals when in a tight spot. The get out clause they all fall back on. We saw that used in January also when we started to apply pressure for some evidence to be shown.

Of course we don't have any clinical evidence! Don't you think if we had this we would have displayed it by now. Why do you think a clinical trial is going to be held at Hammersmith Hospital! Just for the fun of it? Anyway we have been down this path already and you have the answer. Your use of words ".... as a promoter of RLT" makes me wonder if you are barking up the tree of commission being paid again? The only evidence we do have that anyone has ever been paid to promote treatment modalities is the irrefutable proof that Nase was paid by at least one laser doctor to promote his services.

No you are not a Doctor obviously but we can now see what your background is and why you have the Nase connection. No wonder you want to know so much about RLT and continually try and bring it down as a viable treatment option. No wonder you defend Nase to the hilt on every post you are involved in. Surely if we discovered through an official clinical trial, that all rosacea sufferers would benefit from using RLT at home then you could be without a job or at minimum it would certainly eat into your Rosacea market share. Could it be that our little red light machines, which can be used in the comfort of ones home could threaten the multi-million dollar industry manufacturing laser and IPL machines, and the doctors who are making fortunes from performing laser and IPL treatments at so many hundred dollars a time, and anyone who gets paid to promote them - well, these are only people with a financial incentive here.

Shame, Trey! It's a pity you didn't come clean about this a long time ago. So obvious now when you reflect back on everything you have written. Do you remember that David asked if "you have an ulterior motive to obfuscate the issue?" From your reply I deduce that basically your answer is "YES"

Of course we don't have medical backgrounds and what difference does that make on a support group like this? From my experience on the Forum in the past, particularly with one individual, not having a medical background makes us far more reliable and trustworthy.

Trey ever heard of the word PLEASE? Well the place is Hammersmith and the answer to the question is NO. When the trial results come through I will try and obtain the formal study papers and post them up. Either way I will report back with the conclusions of the study for all the people who are "GENUINELY" interested in this treatment to read.

Thanks for finally revealing the truth about your motives.

Peter

[clsykes00]

If the question is, do you have a medical background where your job depends on it, where you have fudiciary responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines, the answer to that question is YES.
Wow Trey! So, this would be the reason why you want the scientific data. To prove or moreso to disprove the theory for the sake of the shareholders and investors et al? How interesting.[/quote]

I have no financial reason for my comments regarding RLT. I did not invest in the laser diode company (pulled out of buyout at the last minute for reasons unrelated to the markets). Thought you might come back with that, but that reasoning is a deadend (i.e. wrong).

Trey

[clsykes00]

I have no doubt now that you have an agenda. I will also say that I am quite convinced that you speak with a shared voice of a former poster to this site.

:roll:

Twickle Purple

If you have no doubt I have an agenda, then what on earth would it be? Just an absurd accusation.

What about Peter, who has connections to the management team of an RLT device manufacturer and Dr Chu, the one conducting the study on RLT?

This is proof to me that each of you badgering me about my supposed motivations take information to massive extremes thinking that you have supposed proof of the nature of someone's post. NOW, I know exactly how Dr Nase, Dr Crouch and others must have felt. Well, I do not own any medical device company or pharma company anywhere near related to rosacea or can benefit from rosacea. If each of you look at my history of posts, you can read my market analysis of rosacea and understand that it is a horrible market to invest in. I own medical device companies that either supply components or make embedded medical devices (e.g. CRM devices, nuerostimulation devices, renal devices, etc.). So your lynching may stop. This has just served as great proof of all of your abilities to lynch and take what you think are facts to "bash" someone.

I will not reply to anymore of these irrational comments.

[Twickle Purple]

Trying to blow up a smoke screen won’t work.

Intelligent people post here and you’ve become obvious.

Please let’s also include the first paragraph of my quoted post:

I wrote: "Wow, absolutely, positively and incredibly unbelievable. You have slammed everyone that posts positively on RLT and with emphasis that you know of many doctors who have reported the negative aspect of this treatment. You are able to quote chapter and verse on everything else and yet whan asked to finally pony up to the table with this so called negative evidence you play coy. Wow. You sly little insinuator!"

And from a post that I wrote shortly after:

"*sigh* I was quite stirred Felix. Unbelievable really that this person has been trying to pull one on us all. I had honestly thought he was genuine and on the up and up for a while there.

Well, he revealed himself even further when he finally shared what his motives really were about:

clsykes00 wrote:
...responsibility for the medical products you provide, the shareholders that invest, the investors in your medical companies, the employees and medical/technical staff and have intimate knowledge of laser diode companies that supply medical device companies making IPL and VBeam machines"


I am still quite shocked, not only does he consistently insinuate damage where there are no reports of this, and he will not support his claims -- something he demands that we do Rolling Eyes then he finally admits a responsibility to his investors to protect their interests!

It all makes sense now why he has been so strenuously vocal on this subject only

[clsykes00]

I will not comment about the absurd accusations. Just review my posts on the interest in companies in investing in rosacea and review how inconsistent your accusations are. JUST EXTREMELY POOR LOGIC BY ALL OF YOU.

As Jen posted previously we asked the so called experts back in January but they couldn't back up their claims.
Oh I forgot - HIPPA - of course how silly of me. HIPPA and confidentiality clauses the saviour of some professionals when in a tight spot. The get out clause they all fall back on. We saw that used in January also when we started to apply pressure for some evidence to be shown.

Do you think HIPPA is just a recommendation that Doctors should consider following? HIPPA is very real in the U.S. and comes with serious penalties for not adhering to the rules.


Of course we don't have any clinical evidence! Don't you think if we had this we would have displayed it by now. Why do you think a clinical trial is going to be held at Hammersmith Hospital! Just for the fun of it? Anyway we have been down this path already and you have the answer. Your use of words ".... as a promoter of RLT" makes me wonder if you are barking up the tree of commission being paid again? The only evidence we do have that anyone has ever been paid to promote treatment modalities is the irrefutable proof that Nase was paid by at least one laser doctor to promote his services.

Before trials are performed, hypotheses are developed. Where are they? What are the hypotheses of the mechanisms of the anti-inflamatory action?

Also, the Hammersmith board of oversees had to have been provided a feasibility report / presentation before approving capital allocations and physicians and assuming potential liabilities. What are the hypotheses for for the mechanisms of anti-inflamatory action in that. Peter, you are tight with Dr Chu. Give us a peak.



No you are not a Doctor obviously but we can now see what your background is and why you have the Nase connection. No wonder you want to know so much about RLT and continually try and bring it down as a viable treatment option. No wonder you defend Nase to the hilt on every post you are involved in. Surely if we discovered through an official clinical trial, that all rosacea sufferers would benefit from using RLT at home then you could be without a job or at minimum it would certainly eat into your Rosacea market share. Could it be that our little red light machines, which can be used in the comfort of ones home could threaten the multi-million dollar industry manufacturing laser and IPL machines, and the doctors who are making fortunes from performing laser and IPL treatments at so many hundred dollars a time, and anyone who gets paid to promote them - well, these are only people with a financial incentive here.

Shame, Trey! It's a pity you didn't come clean about this a long time ago. So obvious now when you reflect back on everything you have written. Do you remember that David asked if "you have an ulterior motive to obfuscate the issue?" From your reply I deduce that basically your answer is "YES"

Of course we don't have medical backgrounds and what difference does that make on a support group like this? From my experience on the Forum in the past, particularly with one individual, not having a medical background makes us far more reliable and trustworthy.

Trey ever heard of the word PLEASE? Well the place is Hammersmith and the answer to the question is NO. When the trial results come through I will try and obtain the formal study papers and post them up. Either way I will report back with the conclusions of the study for all the people who are "GENUINELY" interested in this treatment to read.

Thanks for finally revealing the truth about your motives.

Peter

Good comedy Peter. But you are way off base in so many ways.

Please elaborate however on why you are so close to the Dermlux (sp) and management there and so happen to be going to see Dr Chu at Hammersmith, the place where trials on RLT are being conducted (and to get allocations for such a study (and its not just because you "have shown improvement from RLT").

Take logic lessons and better luck next time with your attempt to discredit my intentions.

[Twickle Purple]

Trey you think you're very clever, much more so than the rest of us.
That's fine. What ever.

There is nothing to be so threatened by. We are members of a support forum. We are allowed to share our experiences and learn about potential therapies.

RLT is very exciting and is something that I think holds a lot of promise as a healing tool.

Logic is fine, arrogance isn't. By and large, I see that we're all of us good sorts here, and different opinions are good. You've been too strenuous, too full of accusation for it not to become clear and know you have put the focus on yourself. Stop spinning. If you've got something that says this stuff is potential harmful share it, Stop making insinuations. And stop bashing Peter, that's too desperate. If he is a part of the study, or has instigated it, then I say "THANK YOU PETER!!!" with as much enthusiasm as I can possible display through a keyboard.

I'll repeat it to wrpa this up: Trey, stop spinning. If you've have documentation that says this treatment is harmful then share it, Stop making insinuations.

Our logic is fine, our brains are working fine too.

Twickle Purple

[clsykes00]

Trey you think you're very clever, much more so than the rest of us.
That's fine. What ever.

There is nothing to be so threatened by. We are members of a support forum. We are allowed to share our experiences and learn about potential therapies.

RLT is very exciting and is something that I think holds a lot of promise as a healing tool.

Logic is fine, arrogance isn't. By and large, I see that we're all of us good sorts here, and different opinions are good. You've been too strenuous, too full of accusation for it not to become clear and know you have put the focus on yourself. Stop spinning. If you've got something that says this stuff is potential harmful share it, Stop making insinuations. And stop bashing Peter, that's too desperate. If he is a part of the study, or has instigated it, then I say "THANK YOU PETER!!!" with as much enthusiasm as I can possible display through a keyboard.

I'll repeat it to wrpa this up: Trey, stop spinning. If you've have documentation that says this treatment is harmful then share it, Stop making insinuations.

Our logic is fine, our brains are working fine too.

Twickle Purple

TP,
You were the accuser! So don't flip this.

I am not spinning.

Im waiting for RLT evidence.

Trey

[Twickle Purple]

You posted that you have proof against RLT. You've been asked to show it, and know you carry on about everything and everyone else to change the subject. Highschool tactics.

With open eyes,
Twickle Purple

[clsykes00]

You posted that you have proof against RLT. You've been asked to show it, and know you carry on about everything and everyone else to change the subject. Highschool tactics.

With open eyes,
Twickle Purple

Learn to read. I said that two DOCTORS had such evidence. Not me. Do you even know what HIPPA is?

Now get evidence of RLT and its mechanisms on anti-inflamatory actions, (a standard so basic to normal trials before trials on conducted on humans).

Trey

[Twickle Purple]

I can read quite well thanks. I have read alot here on this forum and lot on this thread is particularly illuminating. You are very convenient in pulling out HIPPA. In fact, I find it's all become quite funny actually. It has occured to me that you act rather self importantly in all of this and yet offer nothing to the process at all. I realize that you insinuate yourself into the spot light on every RLT thread. You give no support to your claims, you ignore all of the positive posts and, most importantly, you waste a lot of energy.

I used to wonder why it's just RLT you were so obsessive about, and not the other 101 treatment potentials, now I know.

I really can read fine thanks. And, Trey, so can everyone else.

Twickle Purple

[Twickle Purple]

I apologize to all the folks here who have been reading this dialogue. I promise to put my focus back on the subject of Light Therapy.

All this back and forth arguing can make it difficult to see the relevant data and information and personal experiences shared here. I regret that.

It's important that we share and it's important that we have a safe environment to do it. I hope this thread does not die like all the others wanting to cover this exciting and hopeful subject.

Sincerely,
Twickle Purple.

[Quench]

Well I'm convinced now. I'm going to try RLT.

[Twickle Purple]

I hope it works for you Quench! :D

Please let us know which unit you chose and how you make out.
My unit is comfirmed for delivery end of next week so we can be a couple of just over 40, but still happening, ladies lounging under our 'lamps' at the same time :lol:

Wishing you great success!
Twickle Purple

[clsykes00]

Summary of Dispute in my opinion:

Cautious about RLT: 3 people with medical knowledge, including 2 doctors

RLT Supporters: 0 people with medical knowledge, including 2 doctors

Surprising to me that people consider following recommendations by the unknowing.

[clsykes00]

I can read quite well thanks. I have read alot here on this forum and lot on this thread is particularly illuminating. You are very convenient in pulling out HIPPA. In fact, I find it's all become quite funny actually. It has occured to me that you act rather self importantly in all of this and yet offer nothing to the process at all. I realize that you insinuate yourself into the spot light on every RLT thread. You give no support to your claims, you ignore all of the positive posts and, most importantly, you waste a lot of energy.

I used to wonder why it's just RLT you were so obsessive about, and not the other 101 treatment potentials, now I know.

I really can read fine thanks. And, Trey, so can everyone else.

Twickle Purple

HIPPA is not something of convenience.

You can get picture proof from the medical professionals just as easy as I can. As you say, do some work yourself.

Do you really think doctors are thinking, "well let me get a patient to sign a waiver to release patient data to a group of renagades with no financial compensation in it for me the doctor. Meanwhile, this effort takes time from me the doctor treating patients who will give me money for such efforts." Think about it.

[clsykes00]

All,
I am officially leaving this forum to the joy of the RLT group. I do not feel like being an advocate for anyone associated with the "craziness" of this forum and the RLT group anymore. The control, misrepresentations and cut throat, dogmatic behavior has driven a number of people far smarter about rosacea than the RLT group, who has no medical professionals associated with it.

Count yet another person with medical experience lost from this forum driven out by the RLT folks. I think if you look at the history of my posts, each of you will find that I have tried consistently to help others, whether about IPL, accutane, successful non-profit rosacea organizations, etc.

This forum has become a signficant headache with no benefits.

Good luck to those that truly seek the right answers with medical support.

Peter, IowaDavid, Red, and TP, I hope you will soon find true medical support for your agenda.

Trey

[Twickle Purple]

You can get picture proof from the medical professionals just as easy as I can. As you say, do some work yourself.


We have. We've posted, we've shared. My agenda is open and clear, my history is all here. I've shown my face, my hopes and my fears. My agenda is health, and I like that I get to feel less alone with my experiences.

I'm a 42 (ish) woman with a good head on her shoulders and an open mind. I have no idea why you've been so threatened by this. You're making dire references in your posts. Scroll back and see the work others have done to find information to support their claims. You've done nothing but try to instill fear about something. And you've been very specific to only do it on this subject.

You are not a part of the medical community! And, RRDi has many many medical professionals associated with it. Through the generous energy of members of THIS forum.

They have my continued admiration, and my committed support.

Twickle Purple

[Penguin]

Trey,

I might understand why you're so worked up about RLT if you were the one who'd actually been burned by it...or even if any RLT "victim" had posted their experience to the forum or any forum about being burned or any other negative effects. But nobody has ever said this has happened to them! Ever! There are plenty of laser horror stories on the forums along side laser success stories, so people can at least make a choice knowing that something could go very wrong. I'm guessing the worse thing that might happen with RLT is somebody might see no change, oh well...on to the next thing that may work for some and not for others like just about every treatment for rosacea!

Regards,
Penguin

[IowaDavid]

All,

Peter, IowaDavid, Red, and TP, I hope you will soon find true medical support for your agenda.

Trey

It's not an "agenda". Free sharing of information is not an agenda. Who are you, Stalin? You're the one with the agenda. Face it. You're being simple.

[Quench]

I hope it works for you Quench! :D

Please let us know which unit you chose and how you make out.


I've just gone for the cheap and cheerful Elixa unit. My condition is mild at the moment and doesn't warrant a huge expenditure yet. If I see any improvement, I'll fork out for a more permanent unit. Or perhaps I'll persuade my beloved to build me one - he's a trained electronics engineer so it shouldn't be too great a problem!

[natalja]

First I like to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong in my opinion in raising awareness of possible disadvantages or risks from any treatment device for rosacea. But in the end rosacea is a difficult condition to treat and when something has definitely helped some, then it’s up to everyone themselves if they give it a fair chance or not. It has been pointed out many times already on this forum, but almost all treatments have their specific risks and side-effects. Unfortunately it seems all too easy on the internet nowadays to create a whole frenzy about something, without proper evidence. Everybody has to be careful in screening the given information: I for instance clung to all the positive IPL stories, but had a very bad experience myself and my rosacea worsened severely. I should have perhaps taken the negative stories that WERE out there more into account. Wishful thinking I suppose. The same story with all other treatment modalities. But to state here that red light has harmed many people, without anyone actually coming forward and CONFIRM this (someone who experienced this themselves I mean), is tricky as well. It might be true, but there are unfortunately many hidden agenda’s, especially where money can be made.


This brings me to your accusations that Peter might be in any way have business connections with Dermalux (a red light company) and/ or Hammersmith hospital.
Trey wrote:

“What about Peter, who has connections to the management team of an RLT device manufacturer and Dr Chu, the one conducting the study on RLT?”

And

“Please elaborate however on why you are so close to the Dermlux (sp) and management there and so happen to be going to see Dr Chu at Hammersmith, the place where trials on RLT are being conducted (and to get allocations for such a study (and its not just because you "have shown improvement from RLT").”

Considering the facts that have come out in the past about business ties between certain doctors and companies, I can see why you consider this an option. However, I know Peter quite well and feel the strong need to write something about this.
Peter has become a good friend of mine over the last year and has given a lot of support in my battle against rosacea. Peter is a patient of Tony Chu and red light has been one of his treatments, for years now, together with clonidine at the times. After I saw virtually every dermatologist that knew ANYTHING about rosacea in Holland, without any improvement or succes, Peter arranged an emergency appointment with Tony Chu in London. Tony put me on some new medication, which helped considerably. We also discussed RLT. Tony confirmed his results with it actually in my presence and said that if I wanted to give it a try, it wouldn’t do me any harm and had helped many of his patients considerably with their inflammation. He confirmed to us both that he was trying to arrange the trial at Hammersmith to start in the Autumn although there had been paperwork issues causing delay.

I can say that Peter is nothing but a (former) patient of Tony; his rosacea is firmly under control now. (Unfortunateky mine isn’t yet). His skin looks totally normal nowadays but he and many others I emailed with over the years on this forum use their red light units daily. I never heard or read about damage of the skin or worsening of the rosacea from any of them.
It's rubbish that Peter has any association with Dermalux other than using their lamp and this was already stated by dermalux with an email Peter posted a while ago. Peter has seen a lot of improvement from these lamps and just wants to advice others who are still struggling and suffering with their rosacea that RLT might be an option for them.

We all know that everybody reacts differently to various treatments but everybody should have the right to make their own decisions based on others results. I have been involved in a debate on anti-depressants and not everybody agreed with my view on the one I have had success with. My stance is that I have the right on here to give my views on something through my experience that worked for me and hopefully it will help another sufferer. Isn't that what David, Peter and Heather have done on RLT? If Trey had genuinely tried RLT and found that it didn't work or worst case scenario damaged his skin then I would have taken his experience into consideration. But for all I know he hasn’t.
All I want to hear now is how others get on with RLT so I can make my own mind up whether it will help me.

Thanks, Natalja.

[Twickle Purple]

Natalja, I welcomed this post more than you can imagine.

I should say that I had asked Peter not to respond to Trey's constant badgering and false accusations. I thought that Peter's integrity had already been proven, time and again, and that to respond would only prolong the "dialogue" (such as it was) with Trey. I think I have done Peter a disservice with that request. He is an honorable sort and has everyright to respond to the disgraceful attempts at besmirching his character by someone who's idea of support was to come out swinging with accusation, incrimination and insinuation.

Peter please accept my thanks for your restraint, I know that you had some specific and relevant rejoinders to Trey's final and, again, misleading post. You respected my desire to put Trey's acrimony behind us but I think that what you have to say is very important and I hope that you will post.

Kindest regards, Twickle Purple

[Peter]

Hello Natalja

Thanks for that and very much appreciated by myself and many others I would think. Some excellent points made especially in your opening paragraph. The only thing I would comment on is that I think it is probably fairer to say that it is more like a minority of his patients who Tony suggests try red light although I wouldn't have the numbers. Certainly I do know he is aware and has seen several other people having similar results to me and that is why he decided the mechanism of RLT warranted further investigation, hence the proposed trial under his supervision at Hammersmith.

Yes you certainly deserve the right like everybody else to hear the truth about RLT and not jaundiced opinions that are a figment of someone else's twisted imagination.

Take care

Peter

[Peter]

Hello TP

It was you who started this thread and I hold you totally responsible :) Only kidding and thanks for your kind words.

Well Trey decided to leave of his own accord in my view and I didn't consider him to be a medical person anyway. Despite what he says I am not aware of any medical person being driven out of this Forum since it started a year ago, so his words "yet another" do not apply in both cases. Nase left here earlier this year but he was banned for continuously breaking the rules and was therefore not driven out.

We still have Peter Crouch on here and I am looking forward to seeing his Q & A session soon.

That's it and I reckon we should all move on now.

Best wishes

Peter

[GJ]

Inspired by your table idea, Peter, I've managed to knock up a little something that enables me to bathe both sides of my face in LED light at the same time. Nice!

Lying down, a little music: 15 mins flies by.

Strangely proud of it.

[Felix2]

RLT seems to good to be true, truly unbelievable results!

[GJ]

We shall see!

If nothing else, a good time for a little relaxation. Accompanied, all the while, by music to slit your wrists to. That is to say, the best sort of music.

[Felix2]

don't be down old chum, i'll cook you a spag bol, we'll wash it down with carling premier and watch MUTV.

[Peter]

Inspired by your table idea, Peter, I've managed to knock up a little something that enables me to bathe both sides of my face in LED light at the same time. Nice!

Lying down, a little music: 15 mins flies by.

Strangely proud of it.

Hello GJ

Well I told you it would be easier and make the time go quickly. Maybe we should patent the idea :) Given what you said in your initial post I would build up to the 15 minutes daily and keep further away from the lamp.

Please keep us posted with your results.

Thanks

Peter

[GJ]

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/GJGJ_2006/DCP01349.jpg

No cats were harmed in the making of this photo.

[Twickle Purple]

:lol: GJ!!!

[Quench]

Does that dog have rosacea? Seb derm?

[Twickle Purple]

Clearly the side effects of RLT are finally being shown! We will all become very hairy, grow tails and start walking on four legs! Hopefully though we have nice families that will take us for walks and feed us regularly. If we behave ourselves we may even get a good tummy rub. :P

[Coyne]

No cats were harmed in the making of this photo.

LOL. Good sense of humour. Are you British?

[Peter]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n93/peterwaters_2006/Catbylamp.jpg

[Twickle Purple]

OMG! Cats AND dogs!

Healing with single frequency lights, should be changed to Heeling with single frequency lights.

Twickle Purrrple.

[GJ]

Does that dog have rosacea? Seb derm?

No. He's in good nick apart from a touch of blindness, which is a very recent thing. I must look into that.

[Felix2]

this is ridiculous!

dogs are colourblind...

[GJ]

You're saying he's colourblind too, on top of the blindness?
Grim stuff, adding insult to injury!

You mean, I guess, all dogs bar guide-dogs for the blind who are able to distinguish the little red man from the little green man...?

I know this: dogs can't see their reflection in mirrors.

Jolly creatures, dogs.

[Twickle Purple]

dogs can't see their reflection in mirrors.


My guy can, he get's all gruff and growly and his fur gets fluffy around his neck. And, he has panus so really is almost completely blind.
What he isn't aware of is his backend. Jumps off the sofa when it makes a noise :lol:

Here's my 15 pounds of spirit:

http://www.kennedylee.com/TP3/MaxBall.jpg

Since Panus is an inflammatory condition we are fashioning a little cot for him to enjoy the RLT as well. :wink:

[Felix2]

You're saying he's colourblind too, on top of the blindness?
Grim stuff, adding insult to injury!

You mean, I guess, all dogs bar guide-dogs for the blind who are able to distinguish the little red man from the little green man...?

I know this: dogs can't see their reflection in mirrors.

Jolly creatures, dogs.

i wouldn't stoop so low as to add insult to injury, all too common in these parts and not very pleasant.

the expression on the face of your dog suggests that he is predisposed to assuming that you are winding him up.

the dog does not believe that it is red light, he assumes it is green but he is not sure.

[GJ]

[
the expression on the face of your dog suggests that he is predisposed to assuming that you are winding him up.


Very true. But to make up for it I anatagonise him too.

[Felix2]

where, perchance, might i purchase a photo of a mouse having RLT?

i would like my homemade combo to look as though it is fabricated from the finest of woods.

[GJ]

Purchase? No need.

I will provide you one on the morrow: day off work; rain forecast.

Any other requests?

[Felix2]

indeed good sir, please direct me to the technical details required for the construction of said unit. Tis this very day that i have stumbled across the good Max's opinions of luminous flux and candelas and whatnots. i'd be very interested to see how these calculations hold up in the light, boom boom.

[GJ]

Materials:

1 sheet of 9mm ply
1 length of 2" x 1"
Assorted screws

Tools:

Power drill
20mm drill bit
Jigsaw
File if fussy

Voila!

[GJ]

A former and much-missed member has pointed out an error in my above post.

It is 9mm MDF not 9mm ply.

Apologies to those who have, in a whirl of feverish emulation, knocked-up a unit in the few minutes since the previous post.

Alas, you must start again!

We must all start again.

[GJ]

Hi GJ!

As promised:

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l214/GJGJ_2006/redbooks.jpg

A mouse. Propped on such books as I had at hand.

[IowaDavid]

I don't understand why you're chasing windmills.... ;)

[Twickle Purple]

Bit of a slog but some good stuff. Click the article name below to go to the site showing the complete article.

Research - Low Intensity Laser Therapy – Too good to be true or a valid Scientific form of treatment (http://www.meditech-bioflex.com/research/research_a3.html)

Leonard W. Rudnick, D.C., D.A.B.D.A.

A review from clinical experience.

Studies prove photochemical actions and reactions are true, you can’t see it happen. You can’t smell the oxygen being released. And, if you tasted the plants, they are BITTER, not sweet like glucose. No, it’s absolutely too good to be true. EXCEPT that it happens, and our planet and its inhabitants survive solely because of this process.

In addition to photosynthesis, there is PHOTOMORPHOGENESIS (genesis=development, morph=form of an organism, photo=influenced by light). An example in plants is the action of red light (633nm) on an inactive molecule called PHYTOCHROME. Upon absorption of this light, the phytochrome becomes active. This induces a cascade of enzymatic reactions that lead to such responses as seed germination and flowering among others (Karu, 1998). This is analogous to actions that occur within human tissue.

It is arguable that light is one of the most critical sources of energy for our planet. Societies living in areas deprived of sunlight have a significantly higher suicide rate than those where the sun shines almost daily.

[...]

For approximately thirty years, light, in the form of Low Intensity Laser Therapy (LILT) has been used to treat a myriad of conditions. Significant advances with this technology have occurred since the mid-eighties. However, the available information was only sparingly disseminated to the scientific community. Little was known by the clinician (Baxter et al, 1991) until it was utilized, primarily in Europe and Asia, with very little information available in North America.

When being applied properly, LILT has proven to be tremendously effective. Unfortunately, until recently there has been a lack of scientific scrutiny concerning the clinical efficacy of this procedure (Baxter et al, 1997). This does not mean that LILT doesn’t work. Despite the lack of scientific research, clinical results have been outstanding. While patients were getting better, clinicians didn’t know why or understand the reasons for this improvement.

The “why” appears to be important only when a new procedure/philosophy wants to gain acceptance. To prove this point I refer to the American edition of the Physicians Desk Reference (any year will do). Please note the statements under ACTIONS for each of the following; ELAVIL (amitriptyline), Naprosyn (naproxen) and Robaxisal (methocarbamal and asperin). In the first it states, “…the mechanism of action in man is not known”. In the second, it says, “…the mode of action is not known”. The third states”…the method of action in man is unknown”. Nevertheless, all three are commonly prescribed medications.

This paradox is easily explained: treating the symptoms is an accepted practice throughout the industrialized world. LILT, however, deals with HEALING on the cellular level, which secondarily (and quickly) relieves the symptoms. This is such a radically different philosophy that greater scrutiny and proof will be required before it will be generally accepted by mainstream medicine.

How long will this process take? Consider that Einstein, in 1917, published a paper which outlined the key principles for the stimulated emission of photons. This was based upon an earlier concept by Planck concerning quantal energies. It has only taken about 85 years to get this far.

In the past few years however, more and more pieces have been found to exist in the completion of the “why puzzle”. Dr. Kendrick C. Smith observed that the activation of an enzyme or the induction of the synthesis of an enzyme are excellent candidates for the biological basis for LILT, because only a few photons are needed for these processes to begin. Once an enzyme is activated, it can catalyze thousands of chemical reactions. There is a large amplification factor involved. A few photons can produce a huge biological effect.

In LILT, Red (633nm) and infrared (830nm) have different effects on molecules. Red (visible) light can produce chemical changes while infrared radiation can only produce physical changes in molecules. In spite of this, both result in clinical improvement.

Visible light enhances cell proliferation through photochemical changes in the mitochondria, which then set in motion a chain of biological events that ultimately, affect cellular membranes. This, in turn, has an effect on messenger RNA synthesis, which ultimately leads to the observed enhancement of cell proliferation.

Pores in membranes open and close to let ions, such as calcium, in and out of cells as a consequence of physical changes in the membrane pore molecules. Calcium ions act as intracellular messengers in many signal-transducing pathways. The cellular calcium ion concentration can be abruptly raised for signaling purposes by transiently opening calcium channels in the plasma or intracellular membranes.

The catalytic activities of many enzymes are regulated by the calcium concentration. Since infrared radiation affects the physical state of molecules, they can affect the pore molecules directly. Thus, a similar effect on cell proliferation can occur whether the cells were irradiated with visible light at 633nm or infrared at 830nm.

Specific types of molecules absorb specific wavelengths of light, both visible and infrared. Absorbed radiation produces specific biological effects in tissue, depending upon which types of molecules absorb the light (Karu, 1998).

Trelles et al reviewed the use of local irradiation with LILT. They found this approach elicited the following types of effects: biostimulatory, analgesic, antiexudative, antihaemorrhagic, antiinflamatory, antineuralgic, antioedematous, antispasmotic and vasodilatory (among others).

Trelles, et al, (1989) and Muxeneder, (1988) also reviewed the effects of LILT in vertebral pain, headaches and local immune responses. They found the main clinical uses included wound healing, pain control, soft tissue injury, arthropathy and osteopathy and treatment of existing scars. They observed local irradiation stimulated extremely rapid healing, even of extensive indolent superficial wounds. It was considered effective and safe. Scarring was minimal.

According to Mester, et al, (1985) and Muxeneder, (1988), the effects of LILT on wound healing are dramatic. They stated, “many irradiated septic wounds heal as if by first intention”.

Numerous clinical studies, and this author’s experience as team physician for a nationally ranked college hockey program, all indicate that swelling and inflammation in superficial muscles, tendons, ligaments, bursae and sheaths can be alleviated by irradiation of the affected areas. In arthropathy and osteopathy, mid-range lasers can alleviate pain swelling and inflammation of accessible joints, especially if the primary sites are irradiated. Initially, the effect was thought to be anti-inflammatory, but recent work has shown that LILT enhances the inflammatory process and allows the body to reach the healing stage much faster. It is also effective in pain control and resolution of osteitis and periostitis in superficial areas. It was (and still is) preferable to ultrasound in these conditions as the latter can only heat bones, potentially causing damage.

Old scars (surgical or traumatic) can act as trigger points if there are tender areas, keloid formation and adhesions along the scar. Such scars can be associated with chronic, reflex pain, lameness and autonomic effects. LILT of such tissue can produce dramatic clinical improvement in most cases.

The earlier lasers were “powered” by gases such as Helium and Neon (He-Ne). It was not until the 1980s that the semiconductor diode systems became available. The most popular of these for clinical use are the gallium arsenide (GaAs) and the gallium aluminum arsenide (GaAlAs). These superluminous diodes are mounted into a “treatment head” for easy application. The emitted light includes far and near ultra-violet, the visual spectrum and near, mid and far infrared.

In LILT, nothing happens unless the tissue absorbs the photons (bundles of light). In the therapeutic near infrared range absorption takes place in the tissue water (about 70%) and organic molecules (about 30%). For this purpose, absorption may be defined as the conversion of light into some other form of energy. Once absorbed, the photons have different effects on amino acids, nucleic acid bases and other groups called chromophores. The former is the basis for DNA and proteins. The latter involves porphyrins, which are bio-organic molecules (hemoglobin and melanin are examples).

Another factor in the photochemical action of LILT is attenuation, or how much light is lost as it travels through tissue. This depends upon the ratio between absorption and scattering. This ratio varies according to the type of tissue irradiated and the wavelength applied. Where light absorption is low, (600 – 1200 nm), scattering predominates. In human tissue, scattering tends to be in a forward direction.

Considerable cellular research concerning laser irradiation has been done since the 1970s. At that time the focus was primarily on wound healing due to the great clinical success using LILT. For obvious reasons, the studies related to this involved observing the actions of fibroblasts, lymphocytes, monocytes/macrophages as well as epithelial and endothelial cells.

All studies exhibited the positive effects on the healing mechanisms involved with the cells being tested, either by stimulation or inhibition. As a result, one could explain why wounds heal faster with LILT. However, the exact mechanism is still unknown; The effect on the patient and how it affects healing is however, known. What remains unknown is the exact mechanism by which light causes these photochemical reactions.

Of at least equal importance (more so for the practitioner) is the role of LILT in pain relief. This, more than wound healing, results in the, ”too good to be true” attitude within the American medical community. After all, EVERYONE knows the only ways to relieve pain are by medication and surgery. If these don’t work, psychotherapy is the last alternative.

However, since 1986 world-respected researchers have recommended LILT for such use (Seitz & Kleinkort 1986; Zhou Yo Cheng 1988; Woolley-Hart 1988; Kert & Rose, 1989). In addition, clinicians around the world, based upon their professional experiences, confirm the analgesic effect of LILT.

Unfortunately, from a strictly scientific point of view, these reports are hardly conclusive. There has been little or no standardization in the application of LILT. The type of laser used, the wavelength, contact or non-contact mode, length of treatment as well as skin color, age of the patient and body type are all variables that can effect outcomes. As a result, the majority of reports concerning the efficacy of LILT have been considered anecdotal. A great many of those were reported in foreign languages, which often resulted in obscuring information during the translation.

Another major obstacle involves the subjectivity of pain. The very nature of pain is such that there is no truly scientific way to measure it. Also, some people have higher or lower sensitivities. They also react differently to having it (victim vs. survivor). On almost a daily basis, pain sensitivity can vary depending upon physical, chemical and/or emotional factors.

In spite of these limitations, the number of clinicians and patients who report significant analgesia from LILT has grown dramatically. Whether or not we know exactly why, LILT is proving to be a very valuable modality in the treatment of pain. In fact, clinicians using LILT and other forms of electrotherapy consistently report the clear superiority of the former. In a growing number of instances, it is now used as the first treatment of choice for pain. Perhaps even more important is the fact that, to date, there has never been a report of a serious, long-term negative side effect attributable to this procedure.

The list of painful conditions treated with LILT is extremely impressive. In fact, clinically it would be easier to list conditions on which LILT does not work. Even then, failure is not outright. It is more appropriate to say that the percentage of success in some patients, with some conditions, is lower. These conditions include spinal stenosis, where there is direct bony pressure on a nerve(s), reflex sympathetic dystrophy and advanced neuropathy.

After a double blind clinical trial conducted by General Motors Corporation using LILT for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, the company has established laser treatment facilities in all of its manufacturing plants.

While the neurophysiological effects of pain have been studied in both animals and humans, no major recent studies have been completed recently. The latest reviewed was Basford et al, 1990. Overall, the findings were inconsistent and even contradictory with human subjects. However, once again, there was no standardization. It does appear that the use of He-Ne lasers at low doses (less than 1 J/cm squared) would consistently have no appreciable effect on nerve conduction latency.

The Arrant-Schultz Law (Baxter, (1997); Ohshiro & Calderhead, (1988) may explain the inconsistent findings of researchers. It is to photobiological activation what the law of diminishing returns is to economics. Basically, it says there is a threshold amount of energy (laser light) that is required to effect a change in cellular activity. This amount varies with individuals. When the dosage is increased above threshold (relatively little), the degree of cellular biological activity also increases. When the dosage increases further, above a certain level (variable), a plateau effect occurs. There is simply no increase in cellular activity. When the dosage is increased above the plateau level, there is an inhibitory effect upon the cells. Using this model as justification, many experts in the field of LILT contend that it is not possible to “overdose” with laser treatment.

Low Intensity Laser Therapy has been clinically proven to be superior to all other forms of pain therapy. In comparative applications, it has worked better than medication, ultra-sound, electrotherapy, heat, ice, etc. It also does not have some of the severe side effects, as do other forms of treatment.

LILT is not a “magic wand”. It is a medical device which promotes rapid healing and pain relief. This is a PROCESS, not an on/off switch. However, millions of patients have been helped when no other form of treatment has worked.

Laser therapy also dramatically reduces healing time when compared to other traditionally used modalities. Hospitals in Great Britain use LILT in post-surgical recovery rooms. They have found patients have much less pain, take 50% less pain medication, heal in half the time and have significantly less scar tissue. To those of us who have been privileged to use this technology, our patients’ permanent recoveries are not only believable, but also expected.


References

* Basford J R, Daude J R Hallman H O et al 1990 Does low-intensity Helium-Neon laser irradiation alter sensory nerve action potentials or distal latencies? Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 10: 35-39
* Baxter G D, Bell A J, Allen J M et al 1991 Low level laser therapy. Current clinical practice in Northern Ireland. Physiotherapy 77: 171-178
* Baxter G D, Diamantopoulos C, O’Kane S, Shields 1997 Therapeutic Lasers Theory and Practice, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY
* Dyson M, Young S 1986 The effect of laser therapy on wound contraction and cellularity in mice. Lasers in Medical Science 1: 125-130
* Kert J, Rose L 1989 Clinical laser therapy: low level laser therapy. Scandinavian Medical Laser Technology, Copenhagen
* Mester E, Mester A F, Mester A 1985 The biomedical effects of laser application. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine 5: 31-39
* Muxeneder R, 1988 The conservative treatment of chronic skin alterations of the horse via laser acupunture. Praktische Tierarzt Vol 69, Iss 1
* Ohshiro T, Calderhead R G 1988 Low level laser therapy: a practical introduction. Wiley, Chichester
* Seitz L, Kleinkort J A 1986 Low-power laser: its applications in physical therapy. In: Michlovits S L, Wolf S L (ed) Thermal agents in rehabilitation. F A Davis, Philadelphia
* Smith K C Professor Emeritus, Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Founder and First President of the American Society for Photobiology, In: The Science of Low-Power Laser Therapy 1998 Karu T, Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
* Trelles M A, Mayayo E, Miro L et al 1989 The action of Low reactive Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on mast cells: a possible relief mechanism examined. Laser Therapy 1: 27-30
* Wolley-Hart A 1988 A handbook for low-power lasers and their medical application. East Asia, London
* Zhou Yo Cheng 1988 Laser acupuncture anesthesia. In: Ohshiro T, Calderhead R G (ed) Low-level laser therapy: a practical introduction. Wiley, Chichester

[fut]

Interesting read, thanks for that. I wish they went into more detail about infrared and red. They say infrared makes phsycial changes while red makes chemical changes. I'd like to know what these changes are specifically, might make purchasing infrared worth while.

[Twickle Purple]

Mitochondrial Signal Transduction in Accelerated Wound and Retinal Healing by Near-Infrared Light Therapy (hhtp://www3.uwm.edu/chs//pdf/eells_abstract.pdf)

Janis T. Eells, Margaret T.T. Wong-Riley, James VerHoeve, Michele Henry, Ellen V. Buchman, Mary P. Kane, Lisa J. Gould, Rina Das, Marti Jett, Brian D. Hodgson, David Margolis, & Harry T. Whelan

Department of Health Sciences – Clinical Laboratory Sciences Program

Photobiomodulation by light in the red to near infrared range (630-1000 nm) using low energy lasers or light-emitting diode (LED) arrays has been shown to accelerate wound healing, improve recovery from ischemic injury in the heart and attenuate degeneration in the injured optic nerve. Recent evidence indicates that the therapeutic effects of red to near infrared light result, in part, from intracellular signaling mechanisms triggered by the interaction of NIR light with the mitochondrial photoacceptor molecule cytochrome c oxidase. We have demonstrated in primary neuronal cells that NIR-LED photo-irradiation increases the production of cytochrome oxidase in cultured primary neurons and reverses the reduction of cytochrome oxidase activity produced by metabolic inhibitors.

We have also shown that NIR-LED treatment prevents the development of oral mucositis in pediatric bone marrow transplant patients. Photobiomodulation improves wound healing in genetically diabetic mice by upregulating genes important in the promotion of wound healing. More recent studies have provided evidence for the therapeutic benefit of NIR-LED treatment in the survival and functional recovery of the retina and optic nerve in vivo after acute injury by the mitochondrial toxin, formic acid generated in the course of methanol intoxication. Gene discovery studies conducted using microarray technology documented a significant upregulation of gene expression in pathways involved in mitochondrial energy production and antioxidant cellular protection. These findings provide a link between the actions of red to near infrared light on mitochondrial oxidative metabolism in vitro and cell injury in
vivo.

Based on these findings and the strong evidence that mitochondrial
dysfunction is involved in the pathogenesis of numerous diseases processes, we propose that NIR-LED photobiomodulation represents an innovative and noninvasive therapeutic approach for the treatment of tissue injury and disease processes in which mitochondrial dysfunction is postulated to play a role including diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy and Parkinson’s disease.

[Twickle Purple]

Light Therapy (http://www.warplighttherapy.com/WARP10_WhatIsLightTherapy.htm)

Light therapy is often referred to as “phototherapy”. To make things even more confusing, it is also referred to in many white papers and other written materials as “photodynamic therapy”, “photomedicine”, “photobiology”, “photobiomodulation”, and “photobiostimulation”, just to name a few. Phototherapy is defined as “a therapeutic physical modality using photons (light energy) from the visible and infrared spectrum for tissue healing and pain reduction.”1

Photostimulation is the process where a chain of chemical reactions is triggered by exposure to light. After an injury occurs, damaged cells produce a combination of edema, inflammation, pain, and loss of function. Injured cells and tissues emit enzymes that encourage the receipt of photons more readily than healthy cells and tissues. Primary photoacceptors, which are activated by light, are thought to be flavins, cytochromes (pigments in the respiratory chain of cells) and porphyrins 4,5. They are located in mitochondria and can convert light energy to electro-chemical energy.

Before any reactions can occur, the emitted photons, the basic unit of light; a packet or quantum of light energy, must be absorbed by the target tissue (Law of Conservation). The absorption of light and hence its biological effect depend upon the wavelength, power output, the technical design of the apparatus, and the treatment technique used.4,5

One photon can activate one enzyme molecule which in turn can process thousands of substrate molecules.6 This mechanism provides a theoretical framework in which a very small amount of energy can cause very significant biological effects.

LED Therapy is a form of phototherapy which involves the application of low power monochramatic and non-coherent light from light emitting diodes (LEDs) to injuries and lesions to stimulate healing. In the laboratory, Dr. Harry Whelan, professor of pediatric neurology and director of hyperbaric medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, and his team have shown that skin and muscle cells grown in cultures and exposed to the LED infrared light grow 150 to 200 percent faster than ground control cultures not stimulated by the light.

LED technology has provided medicine with a new tool capable of delivering light into tissues of the body, at wavelengths which are bilogically optimal. Phototherapy offers a new treatment option for patients that have previously been limited by other modalities. The overall success of any phototherapy treatment is solely dependent on providing the injured tissue with an energy dosage that is sufficient to produce a stimulatory effect.


(Our Disclaimer: At Warp Light Therapy, our goal is not to confuse or overwhelm you with information and technical/scientific terminology. It's quite the contrary. Our goal is to educate you on the topic of light therapy and the wonderful benefits of using this modality of treatment. Please reference our dictionary of commonly used terms with respect to this topic, and also a link we have provided you to a medical dictionary. Thanks for taking the time to educate yourself on the topic of light therapy and Quantum Device's WARP 10®.)

Light therapy has been shown to:

Increase vascularity (circulation) by increasing the formation of new capillaries, which are additional blood vessels that replace damaged ones. New capillaries speed up the healing process by supplying additional oxygen and nutrients needed for healing.

Stimulate the production of collagen. Collagen is the most common protein found in the body. Collagen is the essential protein used to repair and replace damaged tissue. It is the substance that holds cells together with a high degree of elasticity. Increasing collagen production will decrease scar tissue at the injured site.

Stimulate the release of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is the major carrier of energy to all cells. Increases in ATP allow cells to readily accept nutrients and expel waste products faster by increasing the energy level in the cell. All food turns into ATP before it is utilized by the cells. ATP provides the chemical energy that drives the chemical reaction of the cell.

Increase lymphatic system activity. Edema, which is the swelling or natural splinting process of the body, has two basic components. The first is a liquid part which can be evacuated by the blood system and the second is comprised of the proteins which have to be evacuated by the lymphatic system. Research has shown that the lymph vessel diameter and the flow of the lymph system can be doubled with the use of light therapy. The venous diameter and the arterial diameters can also be increased. This means that both parts of edema (liquid and protein) can be evacuated at a much faster rate to relieve swelling.

Increase RNA and DNA synthesis. This helps damaged cells to be replaced more promptly.

Reduce the excitability of nerve tissue. The photons of light energy enter the body as negative ions. This requires the body to send positive ions, calcium among others, to flow to the area being treated. These ions assist in regulating the nerves, thereby relieving pain.

Stimulate fibroblastic activity which aids in the repair process. Fibroblasts are present in connective tissue and are capable of forming collagen fibers.

Increase phagocytosis, which is the process of scavenging for and ingesting dead or degenerated cells by the phagocyte cells. This is an important part of the infection control process. The healing process depends upon the Destruction of infection and cellular clean up.

Induce a thermal like effect in the tissue. The light raises the temperature of the cells although there is no heat produced from the diodes themselves. {note from TP: this does not equate to flush}

Stimulate tissue granulation and connective tissue projections, which are part of the healing process of wounds, ulcers or inflamed tissue. Stimulate acetylcholine release. Acetylcholine causes cardiac inhibition, vasodilation, gastrointestinal peristalsis and other parasympathetic effects.

Depth of Penetration

Depth of penetration is defined as the depth at which 60% of the light is absorbed by the tissue, while 40% of the light will continue to be absorbed in a manner that is less fully understood. Treating trigger points with light can have a dramatic effect on remote and internal areas of the body through the stimulation of nerves, acupuncture, and trigger points that perform a function not unlike transmission cables. The diverse tissue and cell types in the body all have their own unique light absorption characteristics; that is, they will only absorb light at specific wavelengths and not at others. For example, skin layers, because of their high blood and water content, absorb red light very readily, while calcium and phosphorus absorb light of a different wavelength. Research has shown 670nm wavelength to give beneficial results across the board and penetration of 23 cms.7


Some Resources

Laser (and LED) Therapy Is Phototherapy
Source: Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2005 ©Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., pp 78-80

Laser (and LED [light-emitting diode]) phototherapy will continue to live outside of the mainstream of science and medicine until authors, reviewers, and editors learn the fundamentals of photobiology.
{Click here for a PDF with more on the subject Read more… (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ekendric/PDF/C11.pdf)}


Light is Light
Source: Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2005 ©Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., pp 159-160

Since Endre Mester and his colleagues first documented the therapeutic benefits of monochromatic light, a plethora of terminologies and acronyms have emerged and continue to evolve in describing light and laser therapy.
{Click here for another PDF with more on the subject Read more… (http://www.warplighttherapy.com/PDFs/Light%20is%20Light.pdf)}

[Twickle Purple]

Photomedicine and Laser Surgery
Volume 23, Number 1, 2005
© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Pp. 78–80

Letter to the Editor

Laser (and LED) Therapy Is Phototherapy

To the Editors:

Laser (and LED [light-emitting diode]) phototherapy will
continue to live outside of the mainstream of science and medicine
until authors, reviewers, and editors learn the fundamentals
of photobiology. The purpose of this letter is to explain
some of these fundamentals. The science of photobiology1 is
composed of a number of subspecialties. Bioluminescence deals
with emitted light from organisms, for example, the study of
fireflies. In addition to the basic fields of photochemistry, photophysics,
and spectroscopy, the other fields of photobiology
deal with the absorption of light by plants and animals.

Under photomedicine are the studies of both the detrimental
effects of light (e.g., ultraviolet [UV] radiation causing cancer)
and the beneficial effects of light (e.g., treating jaundice in premature
infants). There is also photoimmunology (UV radiation
affecting the immune system) and photosensitization (e.g., certain
drugs increasing skin sensitivity to solar radiation).

In photosynthesis, the energy of the light absorbed by plants
is converted into chemical energy, which is used to support
growth.

Under environmental photobiology are the studies of photosensitization
and UV radiation effects. These are not just problems
affecting humans; they also affect our environment.

Under photosensory biology are chronobiology (biological
clocks), photomorphogenesis (light signals regulating changes
in structure and form in plants), photomovement (e.g., sunflowers
moving to face the sun), photoreception (perception of
light by receptors other than true eyes), and vision.

Photobiology covers a wide range of topics that are important
to humans and the environment. Specific scientific and/or
medical training is needed to study each of these areas of photobiology,
and they all require expert training in scientific
methodology. However, it is also necessary for anyone working
in these areas to learn the basics of photobiology.

Unfortunately, all too frequently the people in the laser (and
LED) phototherapy field are untrained in the basics of photobiology.
This leads to bad science and bad clinical trials, which
lead to conflicting results concerning a given endpoint, diminishes
the stature of the field, and delays the admission of laser
(and LED) phototherapy into the mainstream of science and
medicine.

THE BASICS OF PHOTOBIOLOGY

Fortunately, there are only a few basic “laws of photobiology,”
but if researchers and clinicians do not know them, their
studies will be worthless and will mislead other people who are
similarly untrained.

The First Law of Photochemistry (and photophysics) states
that light must be absorbed for photochemistry (or photophysics)
to occur. This is a simple concept, but it is the basis for performing
photobiological experiments correctly. Since photobiological
and phototherapeutic effects are initiated by photochemistry (or
photophysics), unless light of a particular wavelength is absorbed
by a system, no photochemistry (or photophysics) will occur, and
no photobiological effects will be observed, no matter how long
one irradiates with that wavelength of light. A number of papers
in the laser (and LED) phototherapy literature would not have
been published if the authors and the reviewers had known the
First Law of Photochemistry.

An absorption spectrum is a plot of the probability that
light of a given wavelength will be absorbed by the system
under investigation. Each chemical compound has a different
absorption spectrum, because of its unique electronic structure.
Each of the wavelengths absorbed by a chemical compound will
be absorbed to different degrees, again because of the unique
structure of the compound. Therefore, an absorption spectrum
of the biological system that one is interested in will immediately
tell the probability that light of a given wavelength will
be absorbed and therefore the possibility of producing a photobiological
effect.

Once a photobiological response is observed, the next step
should be to determine the optimum wavelength and dose of
radiation to produce the effect, that is, an action spectrum. An
action spectrum is a plot of the relative effectiveness of different
wavelengths of light in causing a particular biological
response, and under ideal conditions, it should mimic the absorption
spectrum of the molecule that is absorbing the light,
and whose photochemical alteration causes the biological effect.
Thus, an action spectrum not only identifies the wavelengths
that will have the maximum effect with the least dose
of radiation, but it also helps to identify the target of the radiation.
For example, the action spectrum for killing bacteria mimics
the absorption spectrum of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). This
result is understandable in view of the unique importance of
DNA to a cell.

A requirement for a good paper on photobiology is to specify
everything about the light source (e.g., wavelengths, power,
dose, area of exposure, time). There are published experimental
and clinical studies that were conducted with good scientific
methodology, but they did not describe the light source;
therefore these studies cannot be repeated or extended by another
author. Such a paper is useless.

LASER PHOTOTHERAPY

So many acronyms are used in this field that it is confusing
to readers, for example, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), lowpower
laser irradiation (LPLI), low-power laser therapy (LPLT),
low-energy laser irradiation (LELI). It would be a great boon
to the field if there could be some standardization of nomenclature.
Since lasers just produce light, I would urge the use of the
simple and correct term, phototherapy.

The wavelength of light produced by the laser must be specified,
preferably throughout the text in place of any acronyms.
Also, a laser should be chosen for the wavelength of light that
it produces, not because “The selection of such a laser for
therapeutic use was based on its safety and commercial availability.”

Laser phototherapy uses radiation both in the visible (400–
700 nm, though some authorities list the range of visible light
as 380–780 nm, instead of 400–700 nm, because some people
can see a broader range of wavelengths) and in the near-infrared
(700–1000 nm) regions of the spectrum. When a photon is absorbed
by a molecule, the electrons of that molecule are raised
to a higher energy state. This excited molecule must lose its
extra energy, and it can do this either by re-emitting a photon
of longer wavelength (i.e., lower energy than the absorbed
photon) as fluorescence or phosphorescence, or it can lose energy
by giving off heat, or it can lose energy by undergoing
photochemistry. Photobiological responses are the result of
photochemical and/or photophysical changes produced by the
absorption of nonionizing radiation.

Karu2 has shown that visible and near-infrared radiation is
absorbed in the respiratory chain molecules in the mitochondria
(e.g., cytochrome c oxidase), which results in increased
metabolism, which leads to signal transduction to other parts
of the cell, including cell membranes, and ultimately to the
photoresponse (e.g., stimulation of growth).

For phototherapy, one not only needs to use the proper wavelength
of light, but also the proper dose of radiation. Running
action spectra for some of the more common clinical problems
that use phototherapy would greatly enhance the field. Such
results would ensure that the proper wavelength and dose of radiation
are always used in the future, and it would help to standardize
the profession. Think of the wavelengths of light as a
drug; thus, there is the need to establish which drug is best, and
also the optimum dose and treatment schedule.

Even with the proper wavelength and dose of radiation, phototherapy
will not be effective on every system and/or situation.
The magnitude of the phototherapy effect depends on the
physiological state of the cell at the moment of irradiation. For
example, when irradiating fresh wounds, the effect of the irradiation
can be minimal or nonexistent. This happens when cellular
proliferation is active, and the regeneration of the tissues
is occurring at a more or less normal rate. This may explain
why there is often no phototherapeutic effect observed when irradiating
fresh experimental wounds, while an effect is observed
for “old” wounds.3 Light will only stimulate cell proliferation
if the cells are growing poorly at the time of the irradiation. If a
cell is fully functional, there is nothing for radiation to stimulate,
and no therapeutic benefit will be observed. An analogy
would be that patients will show no beneficial effect of vitamin
therapy if they already receive an adequate supply of vitamins
in their daily diet.

It should be cautioned that an excessive dose of radiation
can be detrimental. Thus, at proper doses of light there can be a
stimulation of growth, but at high doses an excessive amount
of singlet oxygen can be produced, and its chemical action can
be detrimental to cells.3

LASERS ARE NOT MAGICAL

All too often the laser phototherapy literature is written as if
a laser is magical. Lasers can seem magical if their unique
properties of micro-dot focusing, high intensity, possibility of
ultrashort pulses, coherent radiation, and monochromaticity
are all made use of. If the first four properties are not useful in
a particular application, as is the case for laser phototherapy,
then a laser is just an expensive light bulb, whose emitted radiation
follows (except for coherence) all of the same laws of
physics and chemistry that the same wavelength of radiation
from a conventional (non-coherent) light source follows.

One practice that has fostered the misconception that lasers
are magical is the use in publications of such vague terms as
“He-Ne laser exposure” or “argon laser therapy,” without even
specifying the wavelength of light that the authors are using.

Furthermore, there is no significant difference whether the
light used to stimulate growth was generated by a laser or from
non-coherent light of the same wavelength from a filtered incandescent
lamp.3 These results further support the conclusion
that lasers are not magical; it is the light that they produce that
yields the biological effect.

More and more papers are appearing in the therapy literature
using non-coherent light sources such as LEDs. In general,
they are less expensive than lasers, and as discussed above, in
phototherapy it is the wavelength of the light that is important,
not the coherence or lack of same. As with laser studies, all the
characteristics of the light emitted by LEDs must be specified
if a paper is to be useful.

CONCLUSION

Phototherapy—whether using low-intensity radiation in the
visible or near-infrared region from a laser, an LED, or a filtered
incandescent lamp—can be beneficial in a number of clinical situations,
from pain remission to wound healing. Unfortunately, the
absence of this type of phototherapy in the mainstream of medicine
makes it unavailable to patients who could benefit from it.

This type of therapy has not yet been accepted into the mainstream
of science and medicine, because many of the studies
have been conducted without a proper understanding of the
properties and biological effects of light. In addition, many studies
have not been conducted with proper scientific methodology.

In all studies using light, it is absolutely necessary to specify
the wavelengths of light used, the area of irradiation, the dose
of radiation (whether incident or absorbed), and time.

This letter is a plea to phototherapy groups, societies, and
journals, to raise the standards for running and publishing experiments
and clinical trials by learning the basics of photobiology, and thereby accelerating the acceptance of this field into the mainstream of science
and medicine.

REFERENCES
1. For further information about the science of photobiology, check the websites for the American Society for Photobiology and the European Society for Photobiology: www.pol-us.net/ASP_Home/.

Another source is The science of photobiology. K.C. Smith (ed.).
New York: Plenum Press, 1989.

2. Karu, T.I. (2003). Low-power laser therapy, in: Biomedical photonics
handbook. T. VoDinh (ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp.
1–25.
3. Karu, T. (1989). Photobiology of low-power laser effects. Health
Physics 56, 691–704.
—Kendric C. Smith, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Radiation Oncology
(Radiation Biology)
Stanford University School of Medicine
Founder and First President
American Society for Photobiology
927 Mears Ct.
Stanford, CA 94305-1041
www.stanford.edu/˜kendric/
E-mail: kendric@stanford.edu