RLT, nitric oxide, capillary formation, MUST READ

I've been using Red Light Therapy since June of 2006 and I'm very pleased with my results. Overall, my flushing has decreased dramatically and my chronic redness is much less. The tone, pore size, and smoothness of my skin is also very improved.
Now, here is where I'm confused with some research I've come across from a few different sources. A lot of us are familar with the research that suggests Nitric Oxide is higher in patients with Rosacea and is thought to be a great contributing factor to our condition. So, I found that Red Light Therapy improves the metabolism of Nitric Oxide which is obviously good.
However, (and this is where I'm confused) Red Light Therapy also increases the production of new capillaries which are additional blood vessels. Now, how can this be? How have I seen positive results with RLT if my blood vessels are actually increasing?
So here's the problem.....Being an advocate of Red Light Therapy, I'm still afraid that what if the increased blood vessel formation from RLT eventually starts to do more harm than good? The funny thing is...and I don't know if it's just me being neurotic, but my flushing has started to gradually come back. It's still so much better than before I started using RLT, but what is I am very slowly starting to regress? I was so happy with RLT, I really hope any fear I have is not true. If someone has any thoughts on this, I'd be very appreciative.
Below is all the research I found. they're direct quotes. I listed the web sites I got it from. Thanks for reading. -Chris


RLT...."Circulation is increased by increasing the formation of new capillaries, which are additional blood vessels that replace damaged ones." (http://www.comfortchannel.com/prod.itml/icOid/9346)

"Other researchers are investigating whether abnormal amounts of natural body chemicals may be associated with developing rosacea. For example, nitric oxide — a chemical produced mainly in the linings of blood vessels — may be overproduced in rosacea patients." (http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/HC/Horizon/0,4050,890,00.html)

The therapeutic effects of Red light..."Increases blood capillary circulation and vascular activity by promoting improvement in the metabolism of nitric oxide (NO). This facilitates improved regulation of vasodilation and leads to the formation of new capillaries - this in turn provides additional oxygen and nutrients to accelerate natural tissue healing processes and eventually evokes a cascade of beneficial biochemical processes.

[YankeesRtheBest]

The post made here is by Yankeesrthebest. I don't know why it says "guest." That's strange. But just to let everyone know, I've been posting here for a while.

[Steve95301]

Great question... this is the only reason I have not tried RLT... nobody has a satisfactory answer to the angiogenesis question.

What's so annoying is that some well-respected doctors have said RLT is okay, but they don't explain why it won't promote angiogenesis. They just give their conclusions without going into detail.

[ben99]

RLT...."Circulation is increased by increasing the formation of new capillaries, which are additional blood vessels that replace damaged ones." (http://www.comfortchannel.com/prod.itml/icOid/9346)


My understanding was that our blood vessels are damaged.......so if your growing new ones.....to replace the damaged vessels........that is good?

[Steve95301]

Well I don't think you're eliminating the old vessels, you're just adding to them.

With IPL, the vessels are actually replaced because you superheat them and they shrivel up and die.

[fut]

Angiogenesis may not be a bad thing if blood vessels have a suitable enviornment to grow in.

This may be why it takes a long time for RLT to work. As old damaged blood vessels slowly die, new stronger ones come in - whereas IPL you are attempting to kill the damged blood vessels all in one try.

[Steve95301]

As old damaged blood vessels slowly die

Do blood vessels naturally die off over time? I really don't know.

If they did, you'd think that rosacea would just gradually disappear...

[fut]

Do blood vessels naturally die off over time? I really don't know.



Sure they do. About every 120 days.


If they did, you'd think that rosacea would just gradually disappear...


Rosacea is a cycle of bad events. As skin tries to repair itself, there are other things supressing it. Using harsh topicals is an exmaple of something that helps continue the Rosacea cycle.

[Skywolf]

Do blood vessels naturally die off over time? I really don't know.



Sure they do. About every 120 days.


If they did, you'd think that rosacea would just gradually disappear...


Rosacea is a cycle of bad events. As skin tries to repair itself, there are other things supressing it. Using harsh topicals is an exmaple of something that helps continue the Rosacea cycle.

Fut,
Do you have a link to this, I would love to read about it, as I did not know blood vessels die off in a cycle like that. Could that be a reason bad cyctic acne tends to pop up in the same spots all the time? The damaged vessels die off to be replaced by ones that dont work right either? This is very interesting.

Laura

[Peter]

Angiogenesis may not be a bad thing if blood vessels have a suitable enviornment to grow in.

This may be why it takes a long time for RLT to work. As old damaged blood vessels slowly die, new stronger ones come in - whereas IPL you are attempting to kill the damged blood vessels all in one try.

Hello Fut

From my own experience and what I have read of others it seems if it's going to work then most start seeing improvements after a month or so. As I have just written on another thread the effects do appear to be cumulative so it can be a couple of years before you see maximum benefit.

If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ? All I know is it worked for me and was the main reason why I put my condition into apparent remission. Like any other rosacea treatment it will no doubt not suit everybody but certainly worth experimenting with if your gut feeling is that it will help. I know there are a few out there now who are pleased that they had the courage to give it a go.

Are you still improving from using your unit?

Thanks

Peter

[Twickle Purple]

If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

All I know is it worked for me and was the main reason why I put my condition into apparent remission. Like any other rosacea treatment it will no doubt not suit everybody but certainly worth experimenting with if your gut feeling is that it will help. I know there are a few out there now who are pleased that they had the courage to give it a go.


Sorry to break up your post like that Peter. I agree completely and I especially wanted that first part to stand on its own because I believe it's a shame that we've had to waste time fighting the bogey man on this. You are very right, folks had the courage to not believe his scaremongering, to look at the anecdotal evidence and give it a try. The results have been rewarding. Thank you for that.

[Steve95301]

If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

Excuse me, yes it would; and to answer a person's question by implying that they're overly suggestible is seriously offensive. You're questioning the mental capability of the person asking the question instead of addressing the question itself. Nase does not do everyone's thinking for them, as you'd like to believe--it's a legitimate question that hasn't been answered. It's also a real concern, as stated in the original post of this thread.

If you have any insight as to why light therapy would not cause angiogenesis when all the data on the web says it does, please share. Otherwise I see nothing in your post which is remotely relevant to the thread author's (and my own, as I stated in my first post) concerns.

[fut]

From my own experience and what I have read of others it seems if it's going to work then most start seeing improvements after a month or so.

I'd have to say the same for myself, more or less.


As I have just written on another thread the effects do appear to be cumulative so it can be a couple of years before you see maximum benefit.

I have noticed the cumulative effect as well.


If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

Is that a question or a statement?


Are you still improving from using your unit?

I've seen great improvements but I can't say for certain if Iam in fact still improving from it. I've been using RLT for a little less then 6 months.

[IowaDavid]

I've only seen benefits from cumulative exposure. I know everyone's different, but, I have a hard time believing there is an angiogenesis factor to RLT. I mean, I've been walking around in single degree weather for 20-30 minutes each way, going inside, and not getting any of that awful "rebound" effect from the cold to warm.

RLT only calms my skin, but, of course, you're going to have other triggers coming in--RLT is not a panacea. But it's the best thing I've found to help my rosacea.

[GJ]

While such literature as we have appears at odds with the experiences of most users, it remains entirely legitimate to raise concerns about angiogenesis.

Hey, Fut, I join Laura, some say Skywolf (I see wolves are being hunted again in the Midwest), in being keen keen to learn more about this blood vessel cycle. Go on, reveal such stuff as you have!

[fut]

Hey, Fut, I join Laura, some say Skywolf (I see wolves are being hunted again in the Midwest), in being keen keen to learn more about this blood vessel cycle. Go on, reveal such stuff as you have!
Not a problem.

Google Search: Red Blood Cells 120 days (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=red+blood+cells+120+days&btnG=Search)

The first instance of the "rosacea cycle" that I came about was from Dr. Nase. Just a random quote a pulled up from him:


It is becoming increasingly clear that chronic dermal inflammation
> causes thinning of the epidermis which perpetuates the rosacea cycle
> by allowing more topical insults through the barrier. On top of
> this, some people have a naturally thin epidermal lining.

[Peter]

If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

Excuse me, yes it would; and to answer a person's question by implying that they're overly suggestible is seriously offensive. You're questioning the mental capability of the person asking the question instead of addressing the question itself. Nase does not do everyone's thinking for them, as you'd like to believe--it's a legitimate question that hasn't been answered. It's also a real concern, as stated in the original post of this thread.

If you have any insight as to why light therapy would not cause angiogenesis when all the data on the web says it does, please share. Otherwise I see nothing in your post which is remotely relevant to the thread author's (and my own, as I stated in my first post) concerns.

Excuse me as well but I do believe I was replying to Fut and not you. I suggest you try climbing down off your soapbox and go lie in a darken room somewhere and calm down!

[Peter]

Hello Fut



I'd have to say the same for myself, more or less.



Well I knew after a few weeks it was helping because the redness reduced and my skin was noticably softer.



I have noticed the cumulative effect as well.



The cumulative effect is the result of gaining control and some of the changes are very subtle but you suddenly realise how much better your skin looks.





If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

Is that a question or a statement?


It was my opinion.




I've seen great improvements but I can't say for certain if Iam in fact still improving from it. I've been using RLT for a little less then 6 months.

Well 6 months is a reasonable period to decide whether or not it is helping and in your case it seems like you are very satisfied. I asume you have no concerns over RLT and therefore to me it would make sense to carry on for another 6 months and guage if there are further improvements. I first used RLT in 1998 and I still use it just to maintain the benefits I appeared to peak at in 2000

Bye

Peter

[fut]

Well 6 months is a reasonable period to decide whether or not it is helping and in your case it seems like you are very satisfied. I asume you have no concerns over RLT and therefore to me it would make sense to carry on for another 6 months and guage if there are further improvements. I first used RLT in 1998 and I still use it just to maintain the benefits I appeared to peak at in 2000

Bye

Peter

I am defiantely satisfied and am definately going to continue for another 6 months. I'm actually contemplating wether or not to go all out and get an infrared array as well to supplement the red light.

Do you sue near infrared as well? Did you notice any extra improvement if you do?

[Peter]

If it hadn't been for Nase's blatant scaremongering then maybe "Angiogenesis" isn't something some would have concerned themselves with RLT ?

All I know is it worked for me and was the main reason why I put my condition into apparent remission. Like any other rosacea treatment it will no doubt not suit everybody but certainly worth experimenting with if your gut feeling is that it will help. I know there are a few out there now who are pleased that they had the courage to give it a go.


Sorry to break up your post like that Peter. I agree completely and I especially wanted that first part to stand on its own because I believe it's a shame that we've had to waste time fighting the bogey man on this. You are very right, folks had the courage to not believe his scaremongering, to look at the anecdotal evidence and give it a try. The results have been rewarding. Thank you for that.

Hello TP

Many thanks.

Correct me if I am wrong but you, me, David, Kristen and others have always put up the facts based on our own experiences so that others can decide if they want to try RLT. We have used our own time to encourage and help others both on the public Forum and in private. The reason we do this? Because we want others with rosacea to have the same success that we have had. Yes like you I find it very rewarding when someone reports back that RLT has helped them.

I look forward to viewing your site when it is ready and reading some common sense.

Thanks

Peter

[Peter]

I am defiantely satisfied and am definately going to continue for another 6 months. I'm actually contemplating wether or not to go all out and get an infrared array as well to supplement the red light.

Do you sue near infrared as well? Did you notice any extra improvement if you do?

Hello Fut

That's good as hopefully you will see more improvement.

No I haven't sued anybody yet and I'll leave that to the others :lol:

Seriously my fluorescent tube lamp is not quite infrared but I remember Heather saying her lamp was part infrared and it helped her. My advice would be to stay as you are for now seeing that you are getting good results with your existing lamp. You could always review whether to change in another 6 months time.

Good luck

Peter

[Steve95301]

YankeesRtheBest, I have the same question as you do and while I always hope that someone qualified to explain it will come along and do so, it never happens. If anyone does know, they aren't speaking up.

This time next year I'll have my BS in biochemistry, and maybe then I'll be able to shed a little light (red?) on the subject.

[IowaDavid]

Hey, Fut, I join Laura, some say Skywolf (I see wolves are being hunted again in the Midwest), in being keen keen to learn more about this blood vessel cycle. Go on, reveal such stuff as you have!
Not a problem.

Google Search: Red Blood Cells 120 days (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=red+blood+cells+120+days&btnG=Search)

The first instance of the "rosacea cycle" that I came about was from Dr. Nase. Just a random quote a pulled up from him:


It is becoming increasingly clear that chronic dermal inflammation
> causes thinning of the epidermis which perpetuates the rosacea cycle
> by allowing more topical insults through the barrier. On top of
> this, some people have a naturally thin epidermal lining.


Which is why RLT helps--it counteracts rosacea inflammation and boosts collagen production.

[MARPUSBEAN]

Even though my face is pretty good I have just had my yearly follow up IPL, now I have been using the usual creams that seem to help, BUT for the first time I have been using RLT.
Not only is my face improved but the level of angeogenisis is much less this time, there were far fewer vessels than last time.
Whilst it is true I have not been using RLT for very long the facts are I have had decreased angeogenisis.
We should remember that, although there have been some papers on RLT, its mechanism of healing is not fully understood!
Yes there is evidence of new vessels when it is used on perhaps an injured horses leg, but the circumstances are different.
As I have posted before I do well when i get plenty of sun in a hot dry climate (protected of course) that is the red light part of sunlight doings its work, I have never noticed increased vessels after long periods of sun.
I think is wise to be cautious, but we will have to rely on our own individual results, I have noticed no increase in angiogenisis, and when I read that Peter, David and TP, who have much longer usage, also have no problems I am pretty positive.

[Peter]

Hello Marpus

As usual you have summed it up perfectly.

Good to see you are doing well with RLT especially after your early reservations about a year ago during the “scaremongering” period. If you remember I always suspected it might help you because you reported back that your rosacea improved through sun exposure. As you say early days and fingers crossed.

Hope you will keep everybody posted with your progress.

Thanks

Peter

[Peter]

I've been using Red Light Therapy since June of 2006 and I'm very pleased with my results. Overall, my flushing has decreased dramatically and my chronic redness is much less. The tone, pore size, and smoothness of my skin is also very improved.
Now, here is where I'm confused with some research I've come across from a few different sources. A lot of us are familar with the research that suggests Nitric Oxide is higher in patients with Rosacea and is thought to be a great contributing factor to our condition. So, I found that Red Light Therapy improves the metabolism of Nitric Oxide which is obviously good.
However, (and this is where I'm confused) Red Light Therapy also increases the production of new capillaries which are additional blood vessels. Now, how can this be? How have I seen positive results with RLT if my blood vessels are actually increasing?
So here's the problem.....Being an advocate of Red Light Therapy, I'm still afraid that what if the increased blood vessel formation from RLT eventually starts to do more harm than good? The funny thing is...and I don't know if it's just me being neurotic, but my flushing has started to gradually come back. It's still so much better than before I started using RLT, but what is I am very slowly starting to regress? I was so happy with RLT, I really hope any fear I have is not true. If someone has any thoughts on this, I'd be very appreciative.


Hello YankeesRtheBest

Unfortunately none of us can fully answer your question but the best response I read was posted up (Guest Dan Fries) on another thread where a similar question was asked:

http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?p=35245&highlight=#35245

My hope is that when some results emerge later this year from the Hammersmith Trial then we will have a better understanding of the effect red light has on rosacea. Until then we will have to make do with the anecdotal data that we have available from those who have had success using RLT to treat their rosacea. People then have to make up their own minds whether or not they think it could help them.

In your case it seems to me that you have had very good results with it after 6 months but now you could be frightening or worrying yourself into thinking that it could be making you worse? From my experiences I haven’t come across anybody who has used RLT for that length of time to suddenly find out they are getting worse. If anything after that period, you are more likely to see yourself regress if you suddenly stop using RLT – as reported by Kristen once. Are you sure you haven’t changed anything else in your regime, diet or lifestyle?

I am certainly not suggesting that it couldn't happen after 6 months of improvement but just that it seems unlikely.

My advice would be to carry on as previous and try and keep a daily diary of events and your skin responses just to see if there is a pattern emerging with RLT or indeed something else. Hopefully you will continue to make progress and report back in another 6 months that you are doing well. Anyway, please keep us informed with good or bad results.

Good luck

Peter

[Capri]

I have no medical expierence to say that RLT is absolute safe, and without risks, and I can understand why people have concerns. However, while doing a search on here, someone, I think it might have been Dr Crouch said "Doing nothing isn't without risks". I'm not saying that means it's safe, but I really like that phrase. It's like when I was buying my first house at what everyone thought were the peak in prices in the UK - everyone said it was risky in case they crash, well yes, but it was also a risk to not buy one incase they carried on going up(which they did)!

Granted, I know you wanted a medical answer, and that's a philosopical one, but still, it might help someone!

[Skywolf]

I have no medical expierence to say that RLT is absolute safe, and without risks, and I can understand why people have concerns. However, while doing a search on here, someone, I think it might have been Dr Crouch said "Doing nothing isn't without risks". I'm not saying that means it's safe, but I really like that phrase. It's like when I was buying my first house at what everyone thought were the peak in prices in the UK - everyone said it was risky in case they crash, well yes, but it was also a risk to not buy one incase they carried on going up(which they did)!

Granted, I know you wanted a medical answer, and that's a philosopical one, but still, it might help someone!

Everything in life is a risk. This disease is so strange, what works wonders for one may cause another to get worse. RLT, IPL, antibiotics, herbal remedies, oils, creams. etc etc etc. Its a crap shoot to find what works and what makes it worse. Hell, getting out of bed in the morning and stepping into the shower is a gamble!
I don't want to get all sappy, but this about taking risks, I have it framed and sitting on my desk at home.

The Dilema
To laugh is to risk appearing the fool.
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental.
To reach out for another is to risk involvement.
To expose feelings is to risk rejection.
To place your dreams before the crowd is to risk ridicule.
T love is to risk not being loved in return.
To go foreward in the face of overwhelming odds is to risk failure.
But risks must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing. The person who risks nothing does nothing, is nothing, They may avoid suffering and sorrow, but they cannot learn, feel, change, grow, or love.
Chained by their certitudes, they are slaves. they have forfeited their right to freedom.
Only a person who takes risks if free.

Laura

[Peter]

Hello Laura and Capri

Excellent posts and very true comments.

And of course the famous Franklin Roosevelt quote:

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Thanks

Peter

[YankeesRtheBest]

Hey Peter, thanks for the reply. For the last few weeks I've been trying to figure out why I'm flushing a little more. I'm still way better than before starting red light. I'm very thankful for it. I play around with how long I use my red light and how far I have it from my face. Initially, I started at 15 min and moved up to 30. I placed my face very close to the light and this amazingly and dramatically reduced my flushing to almost non-existant. I started in June 06 and in about october I started to notice a little more flushing coming on. A couple weeks ago I had a couple bad flushes that I haven't had since before using red light. Obviously, there are a lot of factors. I'm a student teacher and I'm very stressed with school. The winter now is very cold. So I started playing with the distance and daily time I use it. I'm not sure what the ideal for these are. I'm still going to use the light. I'm a worrier, so I'm always concerned with whats happening. I guess I'd just love to know what is actually happening to my rosacea when I use this light. Maybe that study will enlighten us one day. I'll keep everyone updated. Take care.
-Chris

[Steve95301]

YRTB, any updates you could post on this thread in the future would be great. I'm the only one who seems to be put off by potential angiogenesis; nevertheless, any information on this subject can only benefit everyone.

It's difficult for me to continue to read information like this (https://www.oxhp.com/secure/policy/pulsed_monochromatic_light_therapy.html):

In studies of potential mechanism of action, pulsed monochromatic light therapy has been reported to decrease inflammation and improve [...] angiogenesis.

without thinking that while inflammation may be suppressed, vessel growth may be stimulated at the same time.

In spite of a stubborn (and transparent) resistance to this potentially unpleasant topic, it is still the elephant in the room.

It makes sense to me that while all rosaceans suffer from both vessel hypersensitivity and density, there exists a continuum at the extremes of which one of the two conditions predominates. For some, hypersensitivity is the main issue while for others it's vessel density (I place myself in the latter category, although this was not always the case). I would assume the distribution is like a bell curve, with most people having both problems nearly equally.

But for those in which vessel density is clearly the main problem, I would think that angiogenesis should be avoided at all cost; for those whose hypersensitivity is the main culprit, any decrease in sensitivity would outweigh any price paid in angiogenesis.

I don't base any of the above on anything other than my layman's reasoning. That being said, it seems perfectly reasonable to me and yet from the reactions I get from some on this forum you'd think I was coming from outer space, or adding two and two and getting five. There is inevitably a panicked rush to re-affirm the group consensus and direct it against the offending thought process (a remarkably successful tactic; nearly every time, the unwitting taboo-breaker will end up apologetic, professing their willingness to abide by the unspoken rules.)

In any event, I think it's an important line of inquiry.

[MARPUSBEAN]

The known effect of RLT is in helping better healthier stronger cell growth, hence my skin is smoother healthier looking, and almost no redness, and, indeed, flushing is reduced.
Now I am not qualified to get into the histology and physiology of the whole thing, but I am wondering, is it not, also, possible that any new vessels being formed are also stronger and more healthy, its not a very scientific postulation, but its worth thinking about!

[Twickle Purple]

In spite of a stubborn (and transparent) resistance to this potentially unpleasant topic, it is still the elephant in the room.

There's nothing unpleasant about the topic. :?: It's when the personal jabs are made that things seem to go a bit sideways, IMO. We can speculate til the cows come home, or we can try and document our results.

No one really understands this, what it's doing and WHY it's working. Which just illuminates how little both Rosacea and RLT are understood. In the meantime, people are looking at the whole and giving it a try. We can talk about what it's doing for us, and as more and more people use it, and more and more people say how well it works for them, well, the anecdotal evidence continues to stack up. Surely, our Rosacea skin would show if this was bad. That's the only beauty of Rosacea unfortunately, it lets us know very clearly and quickly when it doesn't like something.

I just think about all the useless supplements that folks injest, and what those could be doing, Under what conditions are they manufactured? I just read an alarming Consumer Reports article on the levels of lead they are finding in many over the counter supplements these days. That's scary!

I really don't understand what you mean by the "stubborn" and especially the "transparent" part. All I know is: we don't completely understand a lot of things. But we are free to make our own decision based on the information that is available -- and what is available is pretty darn reassuring.

[Peter]

Steve

Feel free to mention my name as I assume I am part of “some on this Forum” you refer to? You write as if there is some type of conspiracy on here to knock back anybody who goes against RLT or tries to mention even the possibility of side effects.

You talk about “panics”, “consensus”, “tactics”, “taboos” as if we are all part of some secret society. What a load of nonsense. The truth is that there are members of both the RS Group and this Forum who have successfully used RLT and are prepared to share this success for the benefit of others. Nobody is being forced to do anything and they can make their own minds up on whether it is a suitable option for them to try. I have always been honest about my experiences with RLT and as far as I am aware so have the others who have posted about it.

We did try and discuss your concerns in a reasonable manner last year but we went round and round in frustrating circles, only to finish up down the usual blind alley. As soon as you started talking about the Achilles tendons of frogs and laser causing angiogenesis, then man I just switched off, because I couldn’t see the relevance and I was fed up wasting my own time on such meaningless discussions.

With any treatment there is always going to be the exception to the rule and certainly due to the strange complexities of rosacea and the fact that we can all respond differently then I suppose anything you try could be construed as being a gamble. I know of one person with severe vascular rosacea who appears to be unsuited to RLT but then their particular case is not what you would describe as “normal” if that’s ever a description you can use with rosacea. Some people are very sensitive to artificial lights, especially fluorescent lights and also hypersensitive to sunlight, so again they may well be advised that RLT is not for them. Having said this the majority of people that I know who have tried RLT are very satisfied with the way things have gone and certainly in my case after over 8 years of near daily use I am still live and kicking.

I must admit in your particular case that I hadn't really understood before that it was such a personal concern about over-vascularisation (a pity this wasn't made clear earlier), rather than mainly hypothetical. Since no one was trying to persuade you to try RLT, I couldn't see why you kept on making such a fuss about it. This feeling was strengthened by your recent post:
http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?=35156&highlight=#35156

which made it hard to believe that you were not just taking the Mickey with your earlier vociferous demands for proof over RLT. This is what you said and I quote:

“I'm missing the logic here. The effectiveness of a product exists apart from the evidence which demonstrates that.

It's not like if a product is proven in studies to be effective, we say "Okay, NOW it's effective." The study just shows that the product was effective all along.

So if a product hasn't been tested, you can't say it's not effective, you can only say there's no evidence either way. And in fact there may be anecdotal evidence for effectiveness, or else by what criteria are clinical studies ever performed?”

I do now have a clearer understanding of the difficulties you feel and since it is an issue you obviously get very stressed-out over, and given that stress is unhealthy for everyone, including those suffering from rosacea, then you have probably have made the right decision to stand back and not try RLT until or unless more is known about the scientific basis for the treatment.

I'm the only one who seems to be put off by potential angiogenesis; nevertheless, any information on this subject can only benefit everyone.


To my knowledge angiogenesis does not appear to be an issue to those suited to the treatment and I covered that criteria above. Yes the more information gathered and reported back on those using RLT the better and that is exactly what we have been trying to do in-between the scaremongering and fictitious events that have had to be dealt with.

If you ever give it a go then I wish you luck. I think I have now exhausted everything I want to say on this subject and it’s time to move on. As and when any information comes out on the Hammersmith trial then I will keep those people who are interested updated.

Thanks

Peter

[Steve95301]

:D Bingo. Thanks, Peter. I know to what extent I've hit a nerve by the intensity of your response.

[Peter]

Nice try Steve but I'm cool.

As has been demonstrated before on previous threads we have continually made an effort to explain to you about RLT but your blinkered view and opinions, always made this a waste of time and once again you have confirmed this for all to see.

Hopefully what I have written here and in the past will help others and that's currently of much more interest to me.

[Twickle Purple]

Steve

Feel free to mention my name as I assume I am part of “some on this Forum” you refer to? You write as if there is some type of conspiracy on here to knock back anybody who goes against RLT or tries to mention even the possibility of side effects.

You talk about “panics”, “consensus”, “tactics”, “taboos” as if we are all part of some secret society. What a load of nonsense. The truth is that there are members of both the RS Group and this Forum who have successfully used RLT and are prepared to share this success for the benefit of others. Nobody is being forced to do anything and they can make their own minds up on whether it is a suitable option for them to try. I have always been honest about my experiences with RLT and as far as I am aware so have the others who have posted about it.

We did try and discuss your concerns in a reasonable manner last year but we went round and round in frustrating circles, only to finish up down the usual blind alley. As soon as you started talking about the Achilles tendons of frogs and laser causing angiogenesis, then man I just switched off, because I couldn’t see the relevance and I was fed up wasting my own time on such meaningless discussions.

With any treatment there is always going to be the exception to the rule and certainly due to the strange complexities of rosacea and the fact that we can all respond differently then I suppose anything you try could be construed as being a gamble. I know of one person with severe vascular rosacea who appears to be unsuited to RLT but then their particular case is not what you would describe as “normal” if that’s ever a description you can use with rosacea. Some people are very sensitive to artificial lights, especially fluorescent lights and also hypersensitive to sunlight, so again they may well be advised that RLT is not for them. Having said this the majority of people that I know who have tried RLT are very satisfied with the way things have gone and certainly in my case after over 8 years of near daily use I am still live and kicking.

I must admit in your particular case that I hadn't really understood before that it was such a personal concern about over-vascularisation (a pity this wasn't made clear earlier), rather than mainly hypothetical. Since no one was trying to persuade you to try RLT, I couldn't see why you kept on making such a fuss about it. This feeling was strengthened by your recent post:
http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?=35156&highlight=#35156

which made it hard to believe that you were not just taking the Mickey with your earlier vociferous demands for proof over RLT. This is what you said and I quote:

“I'm missing the logic here. The effectiveness of a product exists apart from the evidence which demonstrates that.

It's not like if a product is proven in studies to be effective, we say "Okay, NOW it's effective." The study just shows that the product was effective all along.

So if a product hasn't been tested, you can't say it's not effective, you can only say there's no evidence either way. And in fact there may be anecdotal evidence for effectiveness, or else by what criteria are clinical studies ever performed?”

I do now have a clearer understanding of the difficulties you feel and since it is an issue you obviously get very stressed-out over, and given that stress is unhealthy for everyone, including those suffering from rosacea, then you have probably have made the right decision to stand back and not try RLT until or unless more is known about the scientific basis for the treatment.

I'm the only one who seems to be put off by potential angiogenesis; nevertheless, any information on this subject can only benefit everyone.


To my knowledge angiogenesis does not appear to be an issue to those suited to the treatment and I covered that criteria above. Yes the more information gathered and reported back on those using RLT the better and that is exactly what we have been trying to do in-between the scaremongering and fictitious events that have had to be dealt with.

If you ever give it a go then I wish you luck. I think I have now exhausted everything I want to say on this subject and it’s time to move on. As and when any information comes out on the Hammersmith trial then I will keep those people who are interested updated.

Thanks

Peter

Very good and level headed reply there, Peter. You really take the time to help -- and you have made a tremendous difference to many of us here.

[Twickle Purple]

:D Bingo. Thanks, Peter. I know to what extent I've hit a nerve by the intensity of your response.

That's an interesting point of view. Peter's reply was reasoned and thoughtful.

[GJ]

Not a problem.


Thanks Fut, yet blood vessels are rather different from blood cells in structure, function, and, I fancy, longevity.

[fut]

Thanks Fut, yet blood vessels are rather different from blood cells in structure, function, and, I fancy, longevity.

:shock: oops, apologies.

[GJ]

Not a problem. :D

Not that anybody will have noticed your slip. Too busy playing bingo.
Two fat ladies, 88 etc

[phlika29]

[quote="Steve95301"] I'm the only one who seems to be put off by potential angiogenesis; nevertheless, any information on this subject can only benefit everyone.

Steve

This also remains a concern of mine and the only reason that I have not yet given it ago. I also have a strong vascular part to my rosacea (very very persistent dilated vessels, extreme flushing,etc).

Until further research is carried out I am happy to follow the good fortune of others and use other treatments.

Sarah

[Steve95301]

Steve

This also remains a concern of mine and the only reason that I have not yet given it ago. I also have a strong vascular part to my rosacea (very very persistent dilated vessels, extreme flushing,etc).

Until further research is carried out I am happy to follow the good fortune of others and use other treatments.

Sarah

Well put, that's basically my take on it too... very interesting but not something I'm willing to try yet. I enjoy researching it, it's an interesting puzzle.

[fut]

The red light....


it feels so good...


on my face....


like all my problems...


are being washed away.

[Peter]

This also remains a concern of mine and the only reason that I have not yet given it ago. I also have a strong vascular part to my rosacea (very very persistent dilated vessels, extreme flushing,etc).

Until further research is carried out I am happy to follow the good fortune of others and use other treatments.



Hello Sarah

Well at least you are in the unique position of being able to discuss RLT with Tony Chu and decide if at some stage this is an option to try.

At your next appointment ask him about red light and potential angiogenesis. Ask him for his opinion on how effective it can be in some cases for treating rosacea.

Kristen (Banshee) also had severe vascular rosacea and using red light coupled with Yag laser treatments certainly helped her. Check some of her posts out.

Take care

Peter

[MARPUSBEAN]

I think people just have to decide for themselves, and weigh up if they are prepared to have a go and try it, as Peter mentioned above, I sat on the fence for a while, and now have comenced treatment with very good results.
Now I have to confess, that since I have IPL every year, I simply decided that even if I had a small amount of angeogenisis I could stop, and any new vessels would be zapped away by the IPL, so there was nothing to lose.
Well, as mentioned before, my skin is improved and there is no sign of angiogenisis.
We need not make everything so complicated!
Its a step by step approach.
Firstly it has now become clear, by the number of people using RLT, who post here, that those who use a proper commercial lamp, or a similar Lamp properly constructed do NOT suffer burns and blisters etc. so that baby has gone away, and nobody on this forum is claiming that anymore.
Red Light cannot cause skin cancer, so the only possible negative would probably be increased angiogenisis.
Now nobody, has yet, experienced this problem, and people who have or can have IPL or laser treatment would be able to liquidate the offending vessels.
The only note of caution I would ofer, is that if I have to behave like a scientist I would point out that someone like me, whose skin has had regular IPL over the years, and who does not have too many nasty vessels, might have a different reaction to RLT than someone who has not.
Has anybody also thought of protecting themselves againt angiogenisis whilst treating themselves, i.e take a course of clarithromycin, or milk thistle, or Dermaweed, all things which are supposed toreduce angeogenisis.

[Peter]

Hey Peter, thanks for the reply. For the last few weeks I've been trying to figure out why I'm flushing a little more. I'm still way better than before starting red light. I'm very thankful for it. I play around with how long I use my red light and how far I have it from my face. Initially, I started at 15 min and moved up to 30. I placed my face very close to the light and this amazingly and dramatically reduced my flushing to almost non-existant. I started in June 06 and in about october I started to notice a little more flushing coming on. A couple weeks ago I had a couple bad flushes that I haven't had since before using red light. Obviously, there are a lot of factors. I'm a student teacher and I'm very stressed with school. The winter now is very cold. So I started playing with the distance and daily time I use it. I'm not sure what the ideal for these are. I'm still going to use the light. I'm a worrier, so I'm always concerned with whats happening. I guess I'd just love to know what is actually happening to my rosacea when I use this light. Maybe that study will enlighten us one day. I'll keep everyone updated. Take care.
-Chris

Hello Chris

Sorry I got sidetracked again.

As I said previously I think you will have to keep some sort of diary so you can see if you can work out what is causing the good and bad days. Rosacea can be such a strange animal that it can drive you nuts sometimes trying to understand the potential triggers unique to you. I used to find some days for no apparent reason I had a problem and then thought I had narrowed it down to a particular food, only to find a few weeks later that eating this food was fine. That’s the way it is I’m afraid, frustrating but something we have to deal with.

I used to have a major flushing problem but taking Clonidine for several years and using my lamp on a daily basis really knocked this on the head although sometimes for a reason and sometimes for no apparent reason it would re-appear, albeit short-lived. Remember also I have been using RLT since November 1998 and as many of us have pointed out the benefits of RLT are cumulative over an extended period of time.

I assume you are using LED and the distance you maintain from the unit will depend on whether it omits any heat? My advice seems obvious but try and find the distance that seems to suit you most and only use the unit for 15 minutes daily for a couple of months and then review your progress again. Accept it as part of your daily regime and try not to worry, especially about problems which we do not appear to have any evidence of. I use to be a worrier as well, once to the extent I used to worry if I had nothing to worry about. When you think about it probably 99% of the stuff we worry about, we have no control over anyway and is very unlikely to happen, so why bother?

Yes I would like to know the ins and outs of why RLT appears to benefit rosacea but to be honest I have been contented with the fact that it did work for me and also others. I have waited a long time for this UK trial to take place and I am optimistic that it will answer some of the fundamental questions about using RLT to treat rosacea.

As far as you are concerned you did seem to be doing well so please keep us updated with your progress and good luck.

Thanks

Peter

[betty]

How does one know if angiogenesis has occured? Is angiogenesis visible to the naked eye?

Betty. X

[Peter]

Hello Betty

"Angiogenesis" is simply described as "The development of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels".

It obviously becomes more complex than this and this is one of many links you could read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis

Rosacea is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by increased and fragile dermal blood vessels and therefore has excessive angiogenesis.

No doubt one of our resident experts can supply you with more information regarding it's relevance in rosacea if you need it.

Thanks

Peter

P.S. Did you ever get to see your dermatologist or did you manage to get an appointment with Tony Chu?

[betty]

Well, as mentioned before, my skin is improved and there is no sign of angiogenisis

Hi Peter,

I am sort of aware of the role of angiogenesis in Rosacea (well a little bit anyway)...it's just I didn't know whether you can tell if it's occurred or not. I don't know how marpusbean can tell if tell if angiogenesis has occured in his skin, I kind of assumed angiogenesis occurred at a level that was not visible to the naked eye...is it?

The reason I am a little concerned is that I was planning on starting RLT this week but have become bit hesitant after reading this thread. I believe my Rosacea was pushed from pre-Rosacea after using a retinol cream and retinol is supposed to be a strong angiogenesis stimulant.

I'm confused by the physiology of it all. I probably will go ahead in starting RLT, I just want to know if there is anything I should look out for, kind of to check to see if angiogenesis is occurring? I think that marpusbeans' suggestion of possibly using an angiogenesis reducer is a good idea, unless it would actually negate the effect of RLT?

I never did get to arrange an appointment with Dr Chu, though I may do in the future, since I managed to get myself out of the terrible flare I was experiencing when I last spoke to you. I have an appointment at the Royal Free mid April, who I don't think will be of much use really. I managed to get my GP to prescribe moxonidine, although at a very small dose as he is unaware of the uses with flushing. He had prescribed clonidine previously, but they didn't really agree with me. So far the moxonidine is helping with my evening flushes and applying aqueous cream before bed is on the whole reducing the irritation from laying my cheeks on my pillow.

Thank-you Peter for your reply,

Betty. X

[MARPUSBEAN]

Betty I will answer if I may, if, like me you have benefited from succesful courses of IPL, its very straightforward!
You have a lot of the visible vessels, some broken, on your face e.g side of nose, and cheeks, thats telangiectasia!!
After the course of IPL the vast majority of these visible vessels have been eliminated, shrivelled up and gone, and that is clearly visible.
Now over the following months one sees a gradual return of visible vessels, that is how I know there is angiogenisis.
Now there are things that can slow up this process.
After my IPL I have a course of a macrolide antibiotic, which doctors believe does reduce the chance of angeogenisis, and it seems to work in my case.
In addition there are the herbals, like milk thistle, and Dermaweed.
Of course a rosacea sufferers will always have a small amount of angeogenisis whatever they does.

[DukeCity]

Marpusbean: You have yearly IPL treatments - do you notice your symptoms ie: redness returning after less than year, is that why you return yearly - or do you just get IPL to be on the safe side and are in complete remission now???

[MARPUSBEAN]

Duke, I think as long as one has rosacea it is going to come back.
However with the triple pass IPL I had, and taking the antibiotic for a little while after treatment, I found the return was very little, and in General I am much improved, I am not prepared to use the word remission as there are still occasional flareups, but much milder and shorter than before, and my face is not quite as it was before rosacea.
So I go back, simply, to eliminate some of the few vessels that have returned, because non of us really understand this disease so its very difficult to judge at what point would there be enough vessels to really step up the flushing and flareups, so I ere on the side of caution.

[Peter]

Well, as mentioned before, my skin is improved and there is no sign of angiogenisis

Hi Peter,

I am sort of aware of the role of angiogenesis in Rosacea (well a little bit anyway)...it's just I didn't know whether you can tell if it's occurred or not. I don't know how marpusbean can tell if tell if angiogenesis has occured in his skin, I kind of assumed angiogenesis occurred at a level that was not visible to the naked eye...is it?

The reason I am a little concerned is that I was planning on starting RLT this week but have become bit hesitant after reading this thread. I believe my Rosacea was pushed from pre-Rosacea after using a retinol cream and retinol is supposed to be a strong angiogenesis stimulant.

I'm confused by the physiology of it all. I probably will go ahead in starting RLT, I just want to know if there is anything I should look out for, kind of to check to see if angiogenesis is occurring? I think that marpusbeans' suggestion of possibly using an angiogenesis reducer is a good idea, unless it would actually negate the effect of RLT?

I never did get to arrange an appointment with Dr Chu, though I may do in the future, since I managed to get myself out of the terrible flare I was experiencing when I last spoke to you. I have an appointment at the Royal Free mid April, who I don't think will be of much use really. I managed to get my GP to prescribe moxonidine, although at a very small dose as he is unaware of the uses with flushing. He had prescribed clonidine previously, but they didn't really agree with me. So far the moxonidine is helping with my evening flushes and applying aqueous cream before bed is on the whole reducing the irritation from laying my cheeks on my pillow.

Thank-you Peter for your reply,

Betty. X

Hello Betty

I am sorry this has happened and it does annoy me. This thread was started by someone in all innocence who had been using RLT successfully for several months but like yourself was worried by the bad publicity this treatment has unfairly received. Unfortunately as others using this treatment I do not have all the answers and all we can do is tell you about our experiences so that you can make your own mind up.

I took time out on Wednesday to carefully write a long post to try and clear some matters up, which also included my view on who probably should or shouldn’t try RLT. The easy option on this is to wait until we have more scientific evidence of how this form of treatment appears to benefit rosacea before trying it. If you read through many of the posts on the subject I think you will find there are now numerous members of both rosacea Forums who are very happy that they took the plunge. If you need my help in any way on this then you are more than welcome to PM me and I suspect TP and David would also be prepared to give you advice.

No matter what we try and do or say, there is this continuing element of circular logic which keeps returning with statements about a potential side effect that us the actual users of RLT have no experience or evidence of this being a problem. What else can I say?

By the way if you want an appointment with Tony Chu this year you will need to book quickly as I heard recently the earliest is August! My advice would be to book it now as you can always cancel if you change your mind.

All the best

Peter

[Peter]

Hello Marpus

Good common sense posting as we have come to expect. I am pleased that you are getting good results and I hope the improvement continues.



We need not make everything so complicated!


My sentiments precisely. I often wonder why and I reckon some people obviously seem to prefer it that way. Don’t ask me why?



Firstly it has now become clear, by the number of people using RLT, who post here, that those who use a proper commercial lamp, or a similar Lamp properly constructed do NOT suffer burns and blisters etc. so that baby has gone away, and nobody on this forum is claiming that anymore.


Correct it was total lies and fabrication.

Thanks

Peter