Peter
15th September 2006, 10:04 PM
Hello
As you know Nase published an update on his site yesterday which is basically a load of garbage - yet again! He has made various false accusations again about myself and others and I will address my side later. However one item he wrote about needs serious looking at now before he changes it after realising he has goofed yet again big time. I know all this can get very boring as we have been through it before but please hear me out. This is what he wrote yesterday but I suggest you take a screen shot from his site as he will backtrack and alter the wording once he reads this post..
"Red light therapy is not approved for use on rosacea sufferers and DOES have the ability to burn skin (as Dr. Crouch found out when he had to treat two red light therapy burn patients who came to me first)."
Notice the "came to me first". This tells us that the two individuals from the UK Swindon area Dr. Crouch reported having seen separately with burns from lamps, contacted Nase first, and then Nase referred them to Crouch. Well, this totally contradicts Crouch's version of events.
If you look at the Crouch part of the key thread below (Taken from http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=2713 ), you'll see Crouch claimed that both patients had phoned his call handling bureau, and Crouch implied that they had probably been referred to him from the local hospital A&E Dept, GP or dermatologist. No mention that Nase had instead referred them. Indeed, Crouch claims that it was entirely coincidental that he happened to have a long post about these two mystery patients ready to press the submit button on just a few minutes after Nase sent off his post. Given their friendship and apparent shared aversion to RLT how could Crouch fail to be fully aware of the fact that these two patients were referred to him by Nase?
Crouch claimed that he saw one patient on Monday and the other on Wednesday ("today" when he posted the message on Saturday). This clearly indicates that the story was probably created days in advance by Nase, and it also shows Nase's bizarre inability to get times and dates straight. Also remember despite numerous requests at the time we were never provided with one scrap of evidence to back up these events and the so called side effects of RLT.
It was highly suspicious at the time and now we know why - Yes yet more lies, I am afraid, designed to put the frighteners on rosacea sufferers trying out a treatment which could help them. Don’t you think this is shameful? Where will it end? Well fairly soon I hope providing others with information on Nase will find the courage to put the truth out about their experiences with this man. Difficult I know sometimes given the lengths he will go to in twisting and contorting the facts to suit himself plus dragging others into his devious little ways. However like any liar they eventually start to slip up and their attempts to cover up their tracks becomes a lost cause hence the example below. Hopefully soon his credibility and reputation will be finished for good and we can get back to the real reason why we are all here.
The thread below is rather long but I have highlighted in bold the relevant parts.
Thanks
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drnase
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: LLT and LED-induced 1st
degree burns and flushing
I spoke to one of our laser gurus in the UK over the phone two days ago and
he brought up the fact that he was treating patients using LED or LLT that
had hurt themselves. Others he is turning away because he does not know what
to do with these cases. This physicians reputation is beyond reproach, but I
do not think he will ever butt his head in here because he does not want to
be involved in any controversy. Two other laser physicians from the UK have
treated over a dozen burn cases and one UK dermatologist who I am in
constant contact with has treated three cases. I know 7 people from
Australia on this board who have returned their machines within 30 days for
full refund due to uncontrolled flushing and 24 hour red faces. I have over
60 reports from US rosacea sufferers trying it and 4 well known laser
physicians who we have all heard from who are treating these patients now
for LED and LLT-induced permanent side effects. I hope that these physicians
will come forward, but with the recent animosity, I doubt they will.
Be warned, most rosacea sufferers will be harmed by this treatment. To make
a home made system and then pass out information on how to make something
never tested on rosacea skin is absolutely irresponsible. In fact, the UK
laser physicians who we all know quoted that he just treated, "a rosacea
sufferer who put together an LED machine from Radio Shack parts". This
person has a first degree burn and the flushing, redness and burning may
never be treated fully.
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:
Geoffrey Nase must have been reading my mind when he posted this as I was
just about to press submit with the following:-
Dear All,
In no way do I want this post to diminish from the personal initiative of
others seeking to find a cost effective treatment for their rosacea however
I have seen two patients this week (one on Monday and another today) who has
seriously risked their skin health (and possibly their vision) by exposing
themselves to home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays. The LEDs
were purchased from separare mail order electrical wholesalers - (one was
Maplin) in the UK. They require little expertise to solder onto printed
circuit boards and wire up to a 12v mains adapter.
One patient had purchased 20 of these 26mm LED Clusters each consisting of
14 LEDs and arranged them in 2 face panels - all quite ingenious really.
They output very bright light in the 570-660nm wavelengths. He had sat in
front of these for 30-60 minutes last Saturday (he cant remember exactly how
long) and then again on Sunday as he had noticed only slight warmth. He came
to see me on Monday with swelling of his eyelids and extreme facial redness.
I think that if anything this will have made his rosacea worse not better
and I had to advise him not to use this home made device again and to get
his eyesight checked - he couldnt keep his eyes open long enough for me to
formally assess his eyesight as his eyelids were too swollen so I asked him
to see an optician a.s.a.p. I heard today that the optician told him that he
hasn't suffered permanent damage (thankfully) but not to do it again.
The other patient that I saw on Wednesday had constructed a similar array
using different LEDs and had tried to use it on four occasions over the past
2 weeks each time for less time but each time had stopped after 20-30
minutes due to "sunburn". I had to advise him not to try this again.
When I think of the regulations, testing, calibration, trials and approvals
that any medical device needs to go through before it can be used safely, I
shudder to think of the damage that could have been caused by these
improvised devices. The technology has now advanced to the point that
Superbright LEDs output in these arrays can represent significant danger
unless properly prescribed and delivered in a controlled and regulated
manner.
Geoffrey - I agree, sometimes, you cant stand by and remain silent in the
face of unwitting, well intentioned but dangerous self exploration.
Please, no one else attempt to construct your own LED array and risk your
health in this unpredictable, unregulated way. Medical Devices should be
properly constructed not thrown together from items never intended to be
used for medical treatments.
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject:
Here we go,
Redhotoz,
I said in my last post that I would not recommend red light therapy for
rosacea ( please read the post carefully). My comments about FDA approval
were meant to be taken in context of medical devices.
Actually, I am acutely aware of my responsibilities to report medical
devices that could cause harm. I looked into whether I could report the LEDs
to the Medical Devices Agency and guess what they said? As these home
constructed devices are not CE marked Medical Devices, (they are one-off
self-constructed energy sources using components not sold for that purpose
as any commercially available system) ~ I therefore can't report them. I
also ased Maplin if they could put something into their catalogue about the
LED arrays and they said they would look into it but as they said, the LEDs
are sold as electrical components, not as medical devices.
As for why I would have 2 patients in a week - (I've met this scepticism
before), I've no idea - perhaps because I seem to be seeing a lot of rosacea
patients who read the acne rosacea boards lately - I hardly ever know the
rosacea community user name of the patients who consult ( usually their
names on here are different for obvious reasons). If I get a request for
advice about a patient damaged by exposure to energy from a treatment, our
call bureau are trained to route the call through to me a.s.a.p. and I will
see them a.s.a.p. or advice them to seek appropriate care locally. I was
mightily relieved when I spoke to them immediately they had called the call
handling bureau that they were not patients I had personally treated. Both
patients said that they had gotten the idea "from the internet".
I trust that others share my views regarding the tone and content of your
post. Is it any wonder that laser physicians dont want to post in this
environment. I'm quite happy to gift my time to post about topics I know
something about. Why is it that these community bulletin boards can't stay
focussed on just working constructively together to further expand treatment
options for those afflicted with rosacea?
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject:
Bradley wrote:
David it would be great if you could post some before/after pics of your
skin to see how the red-light treatment has benefited you.
Dr. Crouch, I'm slightly confused as to why anyone, who has experienced a
facial burn as a result of their own constructed light unit, would visit you
(a laser specialist) to report their problem? Surely they would visit their
own general practitioner and then be referred to a dermatologist or surgeon?
Forgive me if you have previously mentioned you are in fact a GP yourself.
Dear Bradley,
No worries, I am also a General (Family) Practitioner and a Forensic Medical
Examiner. As I consult locally as a laser physician, if people attend our
local A&E Dept or GP out of hours service or see our local dermatologists
with a laser/IPL problem then it is likely that they will be referred to me
for an opinion as a local laser specialist. I receive many referrals a month
from our local dermatologists and GP Dermatology specialists.
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------
As you know Nase published an update on his site yesterday which is basically a load of garbage - yet again! He has made various false accusations again about myself and others and I will address my side later. However one item he wrote about needs serious looking at now before he changes it after realising he has goofed yet again big time. I know all this can get very boring as we have been through it before but please hear me out. This is what he wrote yesterday but I suggest you take a screen shot from his site as he will backtrack and alter the wording once he reads this post..
"Red light therapy is not approved for use on rosacea sufferers and DOES have the ability to burn skin (as Dr. Crouch found out when he had to treat two red light therapy burn patients who came to me first)."
Notice the "came to me first". This tells us that the two individuals from the UK Swindon area Dr. Crouch reported having seen separately with burns from lamps, contacted Nase first, and then Nase referred them to Crouch. Well, this totally contradicts Crouch's version of events.
If you look at the Crouch part of the key thread below (Taken from http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=2713 ), you'll see Crouch claimed that both patients had phoned his call handling bureau, and Crouch implied that they had probably been referred to him from the local hospital A&E Dept, GP or dermatologist. No mention that Nase had instead referred them. Indeed, Crouch claims that it was entirely coincidental that he happened to have a long post about these two mystery patients ready to press the submit button on just a few minutes after Nase sent off his post. Given their friendship and apparent shared aversion to RLT how could Crouch fail to be fully aware of the fact that these two patients were referred to him by Nase?
Crouch claimed that he saw one patient on Monday and the other on Wednesday ("today" when he posted the message on Saturday). This clearly indicates that the story was probably created days in advance by Nase, and it also shows Nase's bizarre inability to get times and dates straight. Also remember despite numerous requests at the time we were never provided with one scrap of evidence to back up these events and the so called side effects of RLT.
It was highly suspicious at the time and now we know why - Yes yet more lies, I am afraid, designed to put the frighteners on rosacea sufferers trying out a treatment which could help them. Don’t you think this is shameful? Where will it end? Well fairly soon I hope providing others with information on Nase will find the courage to put the truth out about their experiences with this man. Difficult I know sometimes given the lengths he will go to in twisting and contorting the facts to suit himself plus dragging others into his devious little ways. However like any liar they eventually start to slip up and their attempts to cover up their tracks becomes a lost cause hence the example below. Hopefully soon his credibility and reputation will be finished for good and we can get back to the real reason why we are all here.
The thread below is rather long but I have highlighted in bold the relevant parts.
Thanks
Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drnase
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject: LLT and LED-induced 1st
degree burns and flushing
I spoke to one of our laser gurus in the UK over the phone two days ago and
he brought up the fact that he was treating patients using LED or LLT that
had hurt themselves. Others he is turning away because he does not know what
to do with these cases. This physicians reputation is beyond reproach, but I
do not think he will ever butt his head in here because he does not want to
be involved in any controversy. Two other laser physicians from the UK have
treated over a dozen burn cases and one UK dermatologist who I am in
constant contact with has treated three cases. I know 7 people from
Australia on this board who have returned their machines within 30 days for
full refund due to uncontrolled flushing and 24 hour red faces. I have over
60 reports from US rosacea sufferers trying it and 4 well known laser
physicians who we have all heard from who are treating these patients now
for LED and LLT-induced permanent side effects. I hope that these physicians
will come forward, but with the recent animosity, I doubt they will.
Be warned, most rosacea sufferers will be harmed by this treatment. To make
a home made system and then pass out information on how to make something
never tested on rosacea skin is absolutely irresponsible. In fact, the UK
laser physicians who we all know quoted that he just treated, "a rosacea
sufferer who put together an LED machine from Radio Shack parts". This
person has a first degree burn and the flushing, redness and burning may
never be treated fully.
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:
Geoffrey Nase must have been reading my mind when he posted this as I was
just about to press submit with the following:-
Dear All,
In no way do I want this post to diminish from the personal initiative of
others seeking to find a cost effective treatment for their rosacea however
I have seen two patients this week (one on Monday and another today) who has
seriously risked their skin health (and possibly their vision) by exposing
themselves to home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays. The LEDs
were purchased from separare mail order electrical wholesalers - (one was
Maplin) in the UK. They require little expertise to solder onto printed
circuit boards and wire up to a 12v mains adapter.
One patient had purchased 20 of these 26mm LED Clusters each consisting of
14 LEDs and arranged them in 2 face panels - all quite ingenious really.
They output very bright light in the 570-660nm wavelengths. He had sat in
front of these for 30-60 minutes last Saturday (he cant remember exactly how
long) and then again on Sunday as he had noticed only slight warmth. He came
to see me on Monday with swelling of his eyelids and extreme facial redness.
I think that if anything this will have made his rosacea worse not better
and I had to advise him not to use this home made device again and to get
his eyesight checked - he couldnt keep his eyes open long enough for me to
formally assess his eyesight as his eyelids were too swollen so I asked him
to see an optician a.s.a.p. I heard today that the optician told him that he
hasn't suffered permanent damage (thankfully) but not to do it again.
The other patient that I saw on Wednesday had constructed a similar array
using different LEDs and had tried to use it on four occasions over the past
2 weeks each time for less time but each time had stopped after 20-30
minutes due to "sunburn". I had to advise him not to try this again.
When I think of the regulations, testing, calibration, trials and approvals
that any medical device needs to go through before it can be used safely, I
shudder to think of the damage that could have been caused by these
improvised devices. The technology has now advanced to the point that
Superbright LEDs output in these arrays can represent significant danger
unless properly prescribed and delivered in a controlled and regulated
manner.
Geoffrey - I agree, sometimes, you cant stand by and remain silent in the
face of unwitting, well intentioned but dangerous self exploration.
Please, no one else attempt to construct your own LED array and risk your
health in this unpredictable, unregulated way. Medical Devices should be
properly constructed not thrown together from items never intended to be
used for medical treatments.
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject:
Here we go,
Redhotoz,
I said in my last post that I would not recommend red light therapy for
rosacea ( please read the post carefully). My comments about FDA approval
were meant to be taken in context of medical devices.
Actually, I am acutely aware of my responsibilities to report medical
devices that could cause harm. I looked into whether I could report the LEDs
to the Medical Devices Agency and guess what they said? As these home
constructed devices are not CE marked Medical Devices, (they are one-off
self-constructed energy sources using components not sold for that purpose
as any commercially available system) ~ I therefore can't report them. I
also ased Maplin if they could put something into their catalogue about the
LED arrays and they said they would look into it but as they said, the LEDs
are sold as electrical components, not as medical devices.
As for why I would have 2 patients in a week - (I've met this scepticism
before), I've no idea - perhaps because I seem to be seeing a lot of rosacea
patients who read the acne rosacea boards lately - I hardly ever know the
rosacea community user name of the patients who consult ( usually their
names on here are different for obvious reasons). If I get a request for
advice about a patient damaged by exposure to energy from a treatment, our
call bureau are trained to route the call through to me a.s.a.p. and I will
see them a.s.a.p. or advice them to seek appropriate care locally. I was
mightily relieved when I spoke to them immediately they had called the call
handling bureau that they were not patients I had personally treated. Both
patients said that they had gotten the idea "from the internet".
I trust that others share my views regarding the tone and content of your
post. Is it any wonder that laser physicians dont want to post in this
environment. I'm quite happy to gift my time to post about topics I know
something about. Why is it that these community bulletin boards can't stay
focussed on just working constructively together to further expand treatment
options for those afflicted with rosacea?
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------
peter.crouch
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject:
Bradley wrote:
David it would be great if you could post some before/after pics of your
skin to see how the red-light treatment has benefited you.
Dr. Crouch, I'm slightly confused as to why anyone, who has experienced a
facial burn as a result of their own constructed light unit, would visit you
(a laser specialist) to report their problem? Surely they would visit their
own general practitioner and then be referred to a dermatologist or surgeon?
Forgive me if you have previously mentioned you are in fact a GP yourself.
Dear Bradley,
No worries, I am also a General (Family) Practitioner and a Forensic Medical
Examiner. As I consult locally as a laser physician, if people attend our
local A&E Dept or GP out of hours service or see our local dermatologists
with a laser/IPL problem then it is likely that they will be referred to me
for an opinion as a local laser specialist. I receive many referrals a month
from our local dermatologists and GP Dermatology specialists.
Kind regards,
Peter
---------------------------------