I think Drnase is no longer able to help us [Archive]

View Full Version : I think Drnase is no longer able to help us

Heady

23rd March 2006, 12:21 PM

scrumptious

23rd March 2006, 03:03 PM

I was listening today a local radio station talking about the cerebral palsy society as a whole having raised enough money to have already started gene therapy clinical trialing and my heart sank as it just seems we are so split as a group. there are all these separate organisations either raising small amounts of money, for what purpose i have no idea anymore, or raising large amounts of cash to put back into a profit making company that seems to already think the disease has been cured.

So yep, i am really quite depress too, but possibly not enough to be meeting my coffin anytime today.

Heady

23rd March 2006, 03:05 PM

Hello ALL...........
I think we are at a standstill now......
No good stuff to treat our red flushing face......
Really depressing......

1. drnase dont know where is him now?
2. wt is the latest news of Sansrosa?
3. neocutis (prescripton strength) No more news coming?
4. Chanel Thermo Pigment ........ No more news release?
5. No more news on epicream and neocream?

So how can i be patient to live with a terrible face everyday?

Anyone If u hear any latest news relate to these products or
drnase ........
Please Post it up........
Thanks Every Lovely member........ Hope we can finally have a good solution to deal with our red face

redhotoz

23rd March 2006, 03:52 PM

Hey Heady

Check this out:

"By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor
THE gene that causes dry skin and predisposes people to eczema and
asthma has been identified by scientists.

The discovery could lead to new treatments for conditions that affect
millions of people, and was welcomed yesterday by a range of charities
concerned with skin conditions.

According to researchers at the University of Dundee, the gene is the
one whose job it is to create the protein filaggrin, which is normally
found in the outermost layers of the skin. The protein is vital to
ensure that the skin forms a barrier to keep water in and foreign
organisms out.

All genes come in pairs, so the degree of disability depends upon
whether people have a single defective copy or two. About 10 per cent
of the population carry a single defective copy, and have dry and
flaky skin. But those with two defective copies - about 1 in 500
people, or 120,000 in Britain - make no filaggrin and have a severe
and persistent disease called ichthyosis vulgaris.

Common observation over many years has suggested a strong link between
eczema, allergies and asthma. Children who have one tend to have the
others, and doctors call the combination of symptoms atopic disease.
Believing the likely cause to be a malfunction of the immune system,
scientists in the past have looked for a common factor in immune
system genes, but without complete success.

The new research, which is reported in the journal Nature Genetics,
suggests that one common factor is filaggrin. Working with teams from
Dublin, Glasgow, Seattle and Copenhagen, the Dundee team, led by
Professor Irwin McLean, found several strong links:

# In families affected by ichthyosis vulgaris, a significant
association was found between filaggrin mutations and eczema

# About two thirds of a group of Irish children with eczema were found
to carry filaggrin mutations

# Among Scottish children with asthma there was a very strong link
between filaggrin mutations and eczema

# A Danish study suggested that more than 60 per cent of children
carrying filaggrin mutations get eczema in the first two years of life
Professor McLean said: "Finding this gene for atopic dermatitis
(eczema) and asthma allows us for the first time to understand what
goes wrong in the skin of these patients and paves the way for
development of new treatments or preventative measures."

The findings suggest that the weakness in the skin barrier allows
allergens access, triggering the immune system changes that then lead
to diseases such as asthma. The filaggrin gene is unlikely to be the
sole cause of the condition but its discovery suggests new ways of
treating the root cause rather than its symptoms.

SKIN DEEP
#

Eczema is a skin irritation characterised by itchy, red, flaky skin

#

It affects about five million people in Britain

#

There are several causes, but the most common are related to allergies

#

Sufferers are told to stay away from detergents, soaps and bubble baths

#

Millions of pounds are spent on treatments every year

#

Conventional remedies include antihistamines and steroid creams

#

Alternative treatments include evening primrose oil, tea tree oil,
burdock and oatmeal

#

Famous sufferers have included the artist Paul Gauguin and the actors
Ricky Tomlinson and Claire Sweeney"

Ok, the reference to famous people is not necessary but I was just quoting from a post made on the Yahoo Rosacea Support Group. The same info has also been referenced on this Forum.

Heady, there is every good reason to be excited about this!

Ok, it's not a cream, but I have to be honest with you and say that I do not believe any cream is going to cure you of Rosacea!

Look for the cause and then there is something to work with. Maybe sink your teeth into researching the cause of Rosacea and together we (all on-line Rosaceans, working together) might just work it out!

Don't lose hope Heady!

Always thinking of you!

Jen

Bob Bear

23rd March 2006, 04:39 PM

I dont know where is him now.........
No Update ......
No more response of our email......
I dont know wt he is doing now.......
Disappear or something......

Really Depress......Because Drnase is one of the
most important man in Rosacea society......
So if he is no longer to help us.......I dont know
how can we get more hope.......

I dont want to wait something like 10-20 years for new drugs......
At that time when the new drug hit the market......
Maybe i am no longer in the world.......
I think my Red Face will Follow me until i sleep in my coffin.........

Heady,

You have to remember mate, that just because Geoffrey no longer posts here, that doesnt mean he has left rosacea. As far as I know, he is busy working on a trial related to rosacea, and also participating in dermatology seminars.

So pucker up my friend, as things are still just as hopeful as they were before. I think it highly unlikely that you'll have to wait that long for something to help with your rosacea.

BB

Canada Dude

23rd March 2006, 09:37 PM

Dr Nase will be back, he is the man. Even when he is away or not posting on these forums you can still google or do a search on anything that he has answered before.

YankeesRtheBest

24th March 2006, 12:37 AM

I understrand that is a little disheartening to not have Dr. Nase on here. His posts made me say, "Today will be a good day because there are things in the works for a better tommorow." But Dr. Nase is a passionate person who is dedicated to helping all of us beat our rosacea because he experienced it himself and I know in my heart that he is not even close to giving up. He really does care about everybody. Just stay positive. When something big occurs, I'm sure he'll let all of us know.

If you ever see this Dr. Nase, I really hope you're doing well and we all miss ya. -Chris

Callien

24th March 2006, 06:11 AM

As far as I know, he is busy working on a trial related to rosacea, and also participating in dermatology seminars.

BB

I don't think he ever made it to the AAD seminar. He was supposed to be Dr. Syed's guest. Maybe he decided to throw in the towel on rosacea and focus on diabetes.

Bob Bear

24th March 2006, 04:49 PM

If this is the case I am happy for him. Whatever he needs to do to get his carreer on track, thats good enough for me. Ofcourse, I will miss Geoffrey. He has been an integral part of this community since the start.

But at the end of the day, we need to stop being so selfish for a change and think about whats best for Geoffrey himself. He was put on this earth to panda to our every need.

Personally, Im glad that Geoffrey has left the community, if only for a short while. The way things were going before was terrible. Sometimes we all need to unplug for a while and get some perspective, and this applies more to Geoffrey than to anyone (beings as he's been at it so long).

Where ever he is, I wish him luck and good health! :)

BB

Callien

24th March 2006, 05:11 PM

I agree with you Bob. I just worry if he is okay. I can't imagine going through what he has the past year. This is not excusing him for anything he might have done wrong. I just think he's been under an incredible amount of stress. Probably more than most people could bear.

Bob Bear

24th March 2006, 07:46 PM

I worry for him too. But I try to keep in contact as much as it possible. Last time we spoke he sounded very enthusiastic about his upcoming projects.

BB

Peter

25th March 2006, 01:46 PM

I worry for him too. But I try to keep in contact as much as it possible. Last time we spoke he sounded very enthusiastic about his upcoming projects.

BB

Hello Bob

Hey leave it out otherwise you will have me in tears soon. Excuse me but what about the verbal abuse and bullying he has dished out to people over the years ? What about the people who dare question his opinion and try to argue otherwise ? What about the lies and false information given out which has sent rosacea research backwards instead of forwards ?

Remember when I caught him out telling lies about his qualifications last year ? After that then of course the red light treatment I used was a joke and later this year when I returned to the Forum further attacks with out any evidence or proof were launched based on that the fact that he said he knew hundreds of people who were being badly burnt by red light. I was accused of selling lamps for Dermalux and making commission but proved this was false. And lastly I was accused of terrorising women daily on this site but again this was a load of nonsense but good coming from him based on his past track record.

I am certainly not going to worry about him and you should not either. Didn't he tell us he has his new Forum due to open soon with 7,000 plus members signed up and numerous background specialists in the wings waiting to help, so he certainly will not be lonely and he will be so busy I am sure he will not miss us.

Regards

Peter

JimJimson

25th March 2006, 05:31 PM

What's the point in continuing this argument? He's not here anymore.

Callien

27th March 2006, 05:49 AM

IowaDavid

27th March 2006, 07:14 AM

What about the lies and false information given out which has sent rosacea research backwards instead of forwards ?
I'm sure Geoffrey might have his faults but I don't know of any false information he has given out that has sent researh backwards. If anything I think the information he has provided in the past has helped many people.

I am certainly not going to worry about him and you should not either.

I understand that you and Geoffrey have had your differences but are the rest of us really expected to take sides?

Some of us leave because it's like dropping pamphlets to brainwashed-personality-cult-indoctrinated starving citizens.

I have no reason to post here anymore because I've said what I have to say several times, all I do is produce friction, and the posters here cannot, as far as I am able to understand, step outside this cyber-personality cult and ask questions.

Folks, we're all after the best way to treat our given subtype of rosacea.

Dr. Nase left that field of study awhile ago. He does indeed know alot more about rosacea than I do. I also know that he has falsified information that is, at its root, not serving the sufferers he likes to claim he serves. He is only serving himself, now.

I don't blame him for choosing to make money off of his studies and years of suffering and commitment to microvascular phisiology--I applaud that.

I must, however, take issue with his extended, intentional, obfuscation of alternate treatments.

Pray at whichever idol's feet you like; just open your heads up a bit.

How long has this paid forum been in the works?

I just see lame as lame.

Do what's best for your own specific condition.

David

MARPUSBEAN

27th March 2006, 08:42 AM

David, you should continue to post here, everybodys views and input are important, and certainly yours.
I believe Dr. Nase will be well advised to get his feet back on the ground, and have a long hard think about the best way in which he can contribute to the rosacea problem in the future, maybe he will not be able to contribute, and that would be a pity, but he need to realise that many people feel let down!
The answer might be that he is best suited to work in an environment where he has some sort of control exerted upon him, or has a manager above him, as has happened in his past jobs, some people are more suited to that, it stops them getting out of control, which can lead to the kind of excesses we have seen.
The lone wolf fighting against the world type of complex leads to what we have seen, and gets him nowhere.
I have flaws, and I am willing to interact with other people who are flawed, it just means looking hard at what they say, and deciding what is useful.
This works for me, however in the past more vulnerable and needy people may have been allowed, by accident, or maybe by design, to believe some things that wre exaggerations, or plainly just not true, and I agree with you people with our disease can do without that, even from somebody who has and can help us.

scrumptious

27th March 2006, 12:32 PM

It seems rather peculiar to criticise someone on this forum that is no longer posting or, from what i can see, even promoting himself currently outside his own website.

i would recommend anyone who wants to keep up with Dr Nase and his work, regularly checks his website for updates.

Callien

27th March 2006, 03:18 PM

Some of us leave because it's like dropping pamphlets to brainwashed-personality-cult-indoctrinated starving citizens.

I'm sorry you have such a negative view towards the members on this board. Some of us like to look at both sides of the issue.

the posters here cannot, as far as I am able to understand, step outside this cyber-personality cult and ask questions.

It's not that we have difficulty asking questions, it is dealing with these types of responses when we do.

I must, however, take issue with his extended, intentional, obfuscation of alternate treatments.

I assume you are referring to his claims that many had been burned by red light. My bullsh*t meter went off with that one too. But when he was backed up by Dr. Crouch who claimed that he had seen several patients burned and warned against increased blood flow with red light I thought there might be something to Geoffrey's exaggerated (in my mind) claims.

Pray at whichever idol's feet you like; just open your heads up a bit.
I just see lame as lame.

Some of us don't have our judgment clouded by hatred and can avoid the repeated use of hyperbole when making our point.

Do what's best for your own specific condition.

That is why we look at BOTH sides.

prometheus

27th March 2006, 05:49 PM

Well said Callien. And right on the spot I might add.

Peter

27th March 2006, 07:15 PM

What about the lies and false information given out which has sent rosacea research backwards instead of forwards ?
I'm sure Geoffrey might have his faults but I don't know of any false information he has given out that has sent researh backwards. If anything I think the information he has provided in the past has helped many people.

I am certainly not going to worry about him and you should not either.

I understand that you and Geoffrey have had your differences but are the rest of us really expected to take sides?

Hello Callien

It was not my intention to stir up an argument or ask anyone to take sides but I felt it was important to remind other posters on this thread of certain facts from the past. My differences with Nase in the past are well documented and I am sure the people here are more than capable of making their own minds up on the subject if that is required.

There are many examples around of false information he has given out previously and the motives behind these has always been very clear to me.

Anyway a couple of people have already told us that he is no longer here so probably better to move on now as we have all had our say.

Regards

Peter

IowaDavid

27th March 2006, 09:47 PM

Callien

28th March 2006, 06:42 PM

You keep bringing up the word, "hatred".
I have used the word exactly ONE time in the entire time I have been posting here. If you are incredibly bored you can do a forum search that will take all of 30 seconds.

I take issue when people post information that I know to be false.

I hope you include yourself in that. I’ll assume your accusations are based on your tendency to exaggerate and not on deliberate lying.

clsykes00

28th March 2006, 07:29 PM

Peter

31st March 2006, 03:42 PM

I must, however, take issue with his extended, intentional, obfuscation of alternate treatments.

I have learned that this is the very reason IowaDavid, as a moderator then, had Dr. Nase banded from this site.

Interesting time and circumstance that such passion from a former moderator comes to light in such a quotes. Thanks for providing clear motives in your recent posts.

Well looks like you have learned from the wrong source then. Warren and Jenny have already stated on here the reasons why Nase was banned and it would not have been the decision of solely one person either. Worth also taking into account that he is now banned from all three main rosacea sites and that is some achievement.

David's motive has always been to try and help others from his experiences and also share a treatment method which has transformed his life, but like others including myself decided to question the mentally of one person (ex member) who continually without any evidence published lies about this treatment. The purpose of any support group is to share experiences, good or bad and try and help others who are struggling, but sometimes this seems to be forgotten.

You could of course become a Moderator here yourself, but better still pay your money and go and join his site. Surely with all those thousands of members he said had joined, it must open soon ?

Thanks

Peter

Felix

31st March 2006, 04:04 PM

It is simple.

Having reviewed the title of this thread the answer is clear.

Dr. Nase can help you but "if you don't ask you don't get".

of course that was a fact, not a suggestion, make up your own mind.

Anything else is between you and him

clsykes00

31st March 2006, 10:59 PM

Well looks like you have learned from the wrong source then.

Is your source biased?

Yes, I understand it only takes two to ban someone here. David obviously was one of the two. Do you think its tough to get just one more person to agree to ban someone? There are enough people on both sides of the fence regarding Nase. I just happen to believe he knows more about rosacea than you and me.

Worth also taking into account that he is now banned from all three main rosacea sites and that is some achievement.

Are you sure he is banned from Yahoo Groups? I think he decided to never post there again (for several obvious reasons). Does anyone get "banned" from Yahoo Groups? Also, are you sure he is banned from ESFB? or does the site not allow ANYONE to post anymore? Or is this simply an example of exaggeration to try to prove something false?

Interesting angle though.

David's motive has always been to try and help others from his experiences and also share a treatment method which has transformed his life, but like others including myself decided to question the mentally of one person (ex member) who continually without any evidence published lies about this treatment. The purpose of any support group is to share experiences, good or bad and try and help others who are struggling, but sometimes this seems to be forgotten.

How would you guage David's temperment in his posts above? You describe him as a saint. But his posts above (and elsewhere) don't seem very saint like to me.

Is there a reason you can't say Dr Nase's name?

Why do you say Dr Nase was telling lies about "this" (LED Lamps) treatment? Do you have definitive, scientific proof that they work? Proof that also disputes Dr. Crouch's opinion as well?

You could of course become a Moderator here yourself

What is this comment supposed to mean?

but better still pay your money and go and join his site. Surely with all those thousands of members he said had joined, it must open soon ?

Your sarcasm only allows us to understand where your gun is pointed.

Best,
Trey

Felix

31st March 2006, 11:20 PM

ah the thick plottens!

a double double person flip eh?

it seems that there is a Dr. Nase look-alike prowling the arena!

Tis simple Mr sykes, if you were Mr Nase then you would be mad to discredit yourself.

If you are not Dr Nase then you are mad to invest so much time to discredit Dr Nase.

The answer is clear, whoever you are you are mad! The details are irrelevent.

:!: dictionary please!

edit: apologies to Dr Nase - hypothetical argument etc

clsykes00

31st March 2006, 11:52 PM

Felix

31st March 2006, 11:58 PM

thanks, i hear you are living in San Fransisco, only place with a big enough bridge for you.

MARPUSBEAN

1st April 2006, 04:03 PM

Just to set the record straight Dr. Nase was not bannned from the ESFB forum at the very end, WE ALL WERE, because the rosacea section was closed down because of the repeated attacks on Dr. Nase, and of course his repeated criticisms of his attackers, all of which made it impossible to continue.
Clearly he was partly the cause of the closure, but he was not actualy banned!

Peter

2nd April 2006, 04:16 PM

Hello Trey

Well I can hardly see having only two Moderators able to ban someone of Nase's stature would work because then the following day another two could reverse this and then back again the next. My understanding is that it was by a majority vote of the eleven moderators which to me seems the fairest way - don't you agree ? Why don't you send Warren a PM and ask him to confirm what happened but for you to single out David as being the only person who got him banned is a nonsense ?

Sorry but I do not understand why Nase knowing more than me and you about rosacea has got to do with all of this ? I am sure he does but how this knowledge gets used is questionable.

I never said he was banned from the Yahoo Groups. He was banned from the Rosacea Support Group on Yahoo. He resigned to join this Forum in June 2005, but he still wanted to post at Rosacea Support. After a few weeks, he queried the ban on his messages and was told by the Moderators that they were holding him to his resignation due to his erratic and emotional behaviour, not to mention the unbelievable health dramas he appeared to be having.

Yes he is definitely on a permanent ban from the ESFB. The whole board was shut down for several weeks in the Autumn of 2005 and Nase's membership was terminated. He was told never to return but he came back and posted as a guest anyway. The owner of the group stopped him from doing even that before closing the Rosacea section on 22nd November. Nase's last post still on the ESFB was dated 18th November. He was determined to force his way back and signed up again on 24th December, but it's a two-stage process and the board owner simply refused to activate his membership. Anybody can check this very quickly by:

http://www.esfbchannel.com/forum/

Memberlist, Sort by Username (Ascending) and you'll see on page 4, Dr Nase rejoined 24th December 2005, zero posts.

Didn't another Forum member, who knows the ESFB board owner, post an open question to Nase about three months ago: "Last time I talked to Ed, he said you were banned from ESFB and that you were the one that requested the Rosacea section to be closed ?"

David is no more a Saint than me and you but in my opinion he found something that worked for him and wants to share it with others. I like to think I follow the same ethics and I am sure you would be the same put in the same position.

I did say Nase's name throughout my previous post and once it was obvious who I was talking about so again what's the problem ?

Before I carry on it is important that you are aware that I use an all red converted acne lamp with infra red fluorescent tubes not LED. Nase consistently referred to me using LED lamps despite me repeatedly correcting him that I did not and he obviously struggled to take this in. He said he had received hundreds of e mails and letters from people being burnt by using commercially built lamps to treat rosacea but when asked for evidence he was never able to provide one example, let alone hundreds. Strange don't you think ? He then moved on to attacking both myself and David for apparently taking commission from selling lamps although again he could not when asked provide any evidence to support his claim.

He also got his facts wrong about a well known sufferer being damaged by using lamps and this particular person decided to join the Forum just so that they could put the record straight and say that this was not true and that red light had helped them. As he was then banned he got another member to state that in one of his posts he made a typo where he meant lasers and not LLLT. End of story no debate I think was said. Unfortunately for him it was debated because it was proved by another member that he had cut and pasted an article from the internet into his post, so it could not have been a typo and revealed he didn't know his lasers from his LLLT's.

No I do not have definite, scientific evidence that they (LED or Infra-red) do work. Do you have definite, scientific evidence that they do not work and harm rosacea sufferers ? I have myself never guaranteed to anybody that they will cure their rosacea but I have said they are worth a try and in combination with other treatments they could well get the same results that I did. If you search through the archives you will see that there are genuine people out there who have reported back that red light be it infra-red or LED has definitely helped their rosacea. A trial at Hammersmith Hospital, London is currently being planned using a LED light source on rosacea patients. The dermatologist involved happens to be mine who witnessed and monitored my progress using red light over 8 years so I don't think he would start a trial of this nature if there was any danger of a patient being burned.

As you were criticising a Moderator I was merely suggesting you might be want to be one yourself. They are always looking out for people to do this thankless job.

I didn't think I was being sarcastic about Nase's web site and I certainly do not have a gun but if the truth is bullets then so be it . He had stated on numerous occasions that he had 7,000 members plus a team of medical experts readily in attendance so it can't be long before it starts ? I am sure you must have already joined ?

Anyway as no doubt we will shortly be told by others, he is no longer here so why waste time discussing him ?

Best wishes

Peter

clsykes00

3rd April 2006, 03:30 PM

Well I can hardly see having only two Moderators able to ban someone of Nase's stature would work because then the following day another two could reverse this and then back again the next. My understanding is that it was by a majority vote of the eleven moderators which to me seems the fairest way - don't you agree ? Why don't you send Warren a PM and ask him to confirm what happened

What is fair and what is required are two different things. Do you agree? What is required is only two members to ban someone. Fact, not conjecture.

A group may have made that decision and more than the necessary two chose to ban him. I am not privy to those decisions and as such, will not hypothesize.

but for you to single out David as being the only person who got him banned is a nonsense ?

Did you misread my comment? This is what I said verbatim – “Yes, I understand it only takes two to ban someone here. David obviously was one of the two.” How did I single out David as the “only person?” You wrote the above quote after I wrote this. I find your comment very misleading, which affects your credibility.

Sorry but I do not understand why Nase knowing more than me and you about rosacea has got to do with all of this ? I am sure he does but how this knowledge gets used is questionable.

His knowledge has a lot to do with this discussion. Read the posts above. Heck, read the name of this thread. The board kicked out the very reason many people came here, rosacea knowledge. Unfortunately, the traffic and quality of knowledge on this board has deteriorated dramatically since Dr Nase left. I am sure you and David are happy that Dr Nase is gone because you two got the last say in the “red light” battle, but I know kicking him out has not enhanced (more like detracted) the rosacea communities knowledge about rosacea.

I never said he was banned from the Yahoo Groups. He was banned from the Rosacea Support Group on Yahoo. He resigned to join this Forum in June 2005, but he still wanted to post at Rosacea Support. After a few weeks, he queried the ban on his messages and was told by the Moderators that they were holding him to his resignation due to his erratic and emotional behaviour, not to mention the unbelievable health dramas he appeared to be having.

This is Dr Nase’s last meaningful post on Yahoo’s RSG (two others followed, but were simply directing people toward this site):

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/74010

Why would he be allowed to write this if he were banned? Wouldn’t he have been banned for something more harmful? And if he were banned, wouldn’t it have been hard to write a post directing people to this board and saying “my final post”?

Your account of the events sounds more like his resignation from the Board (similar to Board of Directors or Board of Overseers) of the RRF (the defunct org that has done very little with the capital contributed to it). Are you confused?

Yes he is definitely on a permanent ban from the ESFB. The whole board was shut down for several weeks in the Autumn of 2005 and Nase's membership was terminated. He was told never to return but he came back and posted as a guest anyway. The owner of the group stopped him from doing even that before closing the Rosacea section on 22nd November. Nase's last post still on the ESFB was dated 18th November. He was determined to force his way back and signed up again on 24th December, but it's a two-stage process and the board owner simply refused to activate his membership. Anybody can check this very quickly by:

http://www.esfbchannel.com/forum/

Memberlist, Sort by Username (Ascending) and you'll see on page 4, Dr Nase rejoined 24th December 2005, zero posts.

I think the only point gleaned from this is that the data is flawed:
Why would Dr Nase try to enter a forum in Dec 2005 when the site had been down in Nov 2005? Why would the site moderator accept anyone if the intention was to keep the site down?

Also, why do the “top ten” posters have ZERO posts?

Conclusion: Data is flawed. That was a meaningless exercise and hurts credibility.

I did say Nase's name throughout my previous post and once it was obvious who I was talking about so again what's the problem ?

You noticeably avoided his name. You tell me why that is a problem to say his name in a situation a person would normally use Dr Nase’s name.

I use an all red converted acne lamp with infra red fluorescent tubes not LED

Interesting. Thought that fluorescent light has been associated with causing flares in office environments?

No I do not have definite, scientific evidence that they (LED or Infra-red) do work. Do you have definite, scientific evidence that they do not work and harm rosacea sufferers?

Asking for the cart before the horse? A vast majority (nearly all) scientific rebuttals follow studies/proofs/experiments of results testing a stated positive efficacy of a treatment option. So until scientific proof demonstrates the advantages of red light, then I would not expect science to spend much time refuting a “non-theory.”

I still didn’t see you refute Dr Crouch (which I asked for evidence on my last post)? Or are you just going to single Dr Nase out again?

A trial at Hammersmith Hospital, London is currently being planned using a LED light source on rosacea patients. The dermatologist involved happens to be mine who witnessed and monitored my progress using red light over 8 years

I look forward to the results. Do you know how many patients are involved? Over what time period? What is the expected time frame? What is the purpose? Who is funding? Why a practicing derm would conduct such an experiment and not a researcher?

so I don't think he would start a trial of this nature if there was any danger of a patient being burned.

Are you expecting us to believe that experiments have not been done that have harmed humans? In the US in fact, phase I drug trials as an example are for this specific stated purpose (Including and specifically SAFETY):

Phase I trials are the first-stage of testing in human subjects. Normally a small (20-80) group of healthy volunteers will be selected. This phase includes trials designed to assess the SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of a therapy

Cited information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial

As you were criticising a Moderator I was merely suggesting you might be want to be one yourself. They are always looking out for people to do this thankless job.

A former moderator.

How this translates into proposing that someone become a moderator is beyond me. Other than, to be a wiseguy.

I didn't think I was being sarcastic about Nase's web site and I certainly do not have a gun but if the truth is bullets then so be it . He had stated on numerous occasions that he had 7,000 members plus a team of medical experts readily in attendance so it can't be long before it starts ? I am sure you must have already joined ?

Well, it’s obvious you are being sarcastic or not very logical (one of the two). In the very statement above, you said “it can’t be long before it starts” and then said “you must have already joined.” Error in logic or………?

It is obvious to me why NO ONE single expert can tolerate the madness of these boards. Posters drive the good ones away with limited basis for statements and flawed logic.

3rd April 2006, 07:15 PM

The blushing section over at ESFB is still extant. Oftentimes people pitch up with flushing and vascular rosacea. Some celebrated rosaceans continue to post there!

I believe Dr Nase joined the revamped ESFB on Dec 24th 2005. I recall this since there is a satisfying repetition of history here: Dr Nase joined the original ESFB on Dec 24th 2002.

Thus, in my quaint fashion, I like to think of Dr Nase as Santa Claus, dispensing nourishing information to emaciated red-faced wretches.

It is a shame ( for me, but I trust not for Dr Nase ) that Dr Nase is no longer around to answer my dumb questions.

It is a shame ( for me, but I trust not for Peter) that Peter is not around much.

Peter

5th April 2006, 10:35 AM

Hello Trey

I will try and answer your questions and ignore the underlying tone, which sounds so much like Nase.

It is obvious as his site with 7,000 plus members appears to have problems and he has nowhere to go, that he is waiting in the wings hoping that his fans can whip up enough support to have him returned to the Forum. Recently we have seen opponents of Nase here on the Forum be the subject of various attacks and this is no different. It is stirring up old ground which most of the genuine members here are tired and bored of and as he is no longer a member why waste time ?

As was said previously, why not e mail him via his assistant, try and join his site or set up your own so maybe he will join you ?

I will attempt to make my comments as clear as possible and if you want to manipulate them to suit you or another person then it's your credibility not mine at stake.

Warren has already stated why Nase was banned but maybe if you PM him he will explain to you the mechanics of how this decision was arrived at. Yes you have shown another of Nase's last posts. Think there are so many of them around the bugle could be playing for several hours. Believe me he was banned from Yahoo RS and I suggest you write to David Pascoe if you want confirmation. He was banned from ESFB and again write to Ed and see if he will confirm this to you.

Whether I say Nase or him in the context of the sentence seems irrelevant to me but obviously some sort of a problem to you ?

You know as well as I do that people with rosacea can react to practically anything in everyday life. Sure some people react to computer screens, fluorescent tubes etc. If you know that fluorescent light is a problem for you then it's pretty obvious you don't use any kind of fluorescent skin lamp and you try LED instead, or whatever other treatment you like.

This Forum has been running successfully and probably much smoother since his departure. I know you find it hard to believe but contained here and on the other site is an awful lot of rosacea knowledge for people to share and to help and the most important thing is that it is genuine and is the truth !

You called it a "red light battle" not me. Nase's accusations went far beyond debating this form of treatment and into other areas where again he could not provide any evidence to back up his claims. When he is losing an argument he starts to fight dirty as others out there can testify. He totally lost the plot on this one and finished up getting himself a permanent ban to add to his collection of other bans. His fault, not mine or Davids, so please remember that Trey.

If you say that most the people on here joined because of him then obviously when his new site opens all those members will leave here and rush to join of course, despite the fact they will have to pay ? Mmmmmmmm last I heard there were only 150 tops signed up and not the 7,000 plus claimed ? Surely even you must think 7,000, with nearly 100 more joining every day, sounds a little exaggerated even for Nase ? I mean that's more than this Forum and the RS Group added together and in such a short time ? Coincidence or just more lies ? Where have all these people come from ? Must be magic I suppose ?

Did I single out Nase or did he come looking for me just to try and devalue a form of treatment I followed just to attempt to settle his own personal grievances ? Why should I refute Peter Crouch ? From what I remember his concerns were over the use of home built high powered LED units which I know nothing about. He and David swapped views within the thread and from what I remember he told David not to be put off by his posts, congratulated him on his ingenuity and told him he had no problem with properly constructed / tested / calibrated devices with FDA approval and within the context of the thread that was good enough for me.

It was Nase who seemed to have the problem with LLLT's of any kind, whether home built or approved, but could not provide a single scrap of evidence to back up his accusations despite being repeatedly asked. Sorry, but with Nase, it's when he says it's wrong it must be wrong and when he says it's right it must be right, but he never has to justify or prove anything he says !!!

We have evidence, be it anecdotal at the moment, of various rosacea sufferers using approved LED lamps (some for several years) with no adverse effects at all and reporting that their condition has improved. David has used his home built LED unit for years also and it has transformed his life. I have used a different form of red light since 1998, had my progress regularly monitored by one of the best dermatologists in the World and he has seen how it halted the progression of my rosacea and improved my skin. With this and positive reports back from others he decided that red light needed further investigation with rosacea sufferers, hence the trial.

Why don't you write to Dr Tony Chu, Consultant Dermatologist at Hammersmith Hospital London, and ask him your questions about the trial ? Feel free to mention my name.

Better still get Nase to write to him about his concerns that all the patients will be badly burnt by the LED and no doubt based on his advice but no supporting evidence he will cancel it straight away !!! Oh sorry of course Nase can tell him about and send copies to him of all the hundreds of letters he has received from the badly burnt traumatised victims, none of the medical regulatory authorities in Britain and the US have ever heard of, let alone from. Do me a favour, please ! Does this man think we are all as stupid as him !! How much more mumbo jumbo do we have to put up with ?

Don't worry when I hear of the results, good or bad, conclusive or inconclusive, I will post here and you will be the first to know, Trey.

Don't give me a lecture on trials, please. Get Nase to save it for Tony Chu as I am sure he will be extremely interested, or perhaps not.

You consider me a wise guy then ? Well Nase wrote to me several times and taunted me that I had to be real smart to outwit him so obviously I do not qualify as wise guy material. He told someone once that I had the brain power of a squashed Ant so I am obviously not clever enough to get myself banned from the two sites I belong to ! Apologies if you do not understand this but I just want to be remembered as a person who tells the truth and that is what I have done in every single one of my posts.

Did not Nase proudly boast on several occasions that he had more than 7,000 members as mentioned earlier signed up (joined) for his new cutting edge top notch Forum or did I imagine this ? So if this is the case you must have already signed up (joined) by now, being a Nase supporter. Seems a perfectly reasonable statement to make for most people but probably not for you.

Time to move on.

Regards
Peter

Mats

5th April 2006, 11:19 AM

MARPUSBEAN

5th April 2006, 12:07 PM

Yes I agree, its too much.
Peter is an honest guy, and has a lot of knowledge about the lamps, and of potential benefits some people have had from them.
This is just the kind of thing we want to here about, then people can make their own decisions about it!
Thats were this site comes into its own!
Peter stop going on about Dr. Nase!!!
Most of us understand clearly the points you have made, and I think we also understand the help Dr. Nase has given, and could have continued to give had he not become a victim of himself and his obsession with knowing everything and always being right.
I guess it also annoys and hurts that he started to be inventive, and bent the truth sometimes, but he is long gone!
Even those of us who would be happy to participate in his site (if it ever happens) know of the pitfalls of dealing with him!
I think his time here is long over, lets move on please.

redhotoz

5th April 2006, 02:35 PM

Peter every think is not about Nase because that’s all you talk about.
I say get a life and stop wincing about Nase all the time.
Have a good day if you know what that is.
You don’t have to reply sorry I will reword that please don’t reply.

Hi Mats (and Forum members reading this)

You are dead right...it is not all about Nase! What you are dead wrong about is that all Peter talks about is Nase!

Mats, please see the bigger picture! If you were made a target for exposing the truth, wouldn't you want to defend your reputation? Not only for yourself but for all Rosaceans?!

What does that mean?

Well, the way I see it is that Nase was attacking Peter for exposing the truth about Nase's highly inflated credentials last year, as has already been mentioned in this thread. So, belittling red light therapy was an easy target for Nase to have vengeance on Peter. But by doing that, it turns Rosaceans off the idea of ever considering red light therapy as a cheap alternative to those way over priced topicals! Sheesh, aren't we all sick of paying out big bucks for miracle creams?!

You can choose to bag Peter all you want, with no background info, but the truth is that all Peter has done is to try and tell people about his personal experience with red light therapy and how well it has worked for him, whilst clearly stating that it may not be for everyone. It's the standard thing for Rosacea as we all know...what works for one may not work for another. Of course, the truth can not be told without someone jumping in and saying Peter is bagging Nase! ](*,)

Please look at the bigger picture!

Perhaps draw a parallel. Let's say you came across something that really helped to control your Rosacea. You want to tell everyone about it but each time you try, a bunch of people come down on you like a ton of bricks! Why would that happen? Well, in Peter's case it was because Nase was full of vengeance and it was an easy target to get back at Peter.

David was kind of caught in the middle of it all really. He was getting good results from using a red LED light array but was tarred with the same brush by association. How objective is that?

Mats, please know that I am NOT trying to target you but your post did upset and frustrate me and I wanted the truth to be known, or perhaps re-stated.

Now, I am not saying that red light therapy, being red fluorescent lamps or a red LED array will cure Rosacea. All I am saying is that it is simply something else to consider and from the reading I have done it seems worthy of consideration. Am I making any money by saying this - NO! Was Peter - NO! Was David - NO! I have kept all posts from the RSG in a folder for reference on red light therapy to see who has had good or bad results. So far, I haven't read any bad results.

Anyway, that's the truth, as far as I know it. I like being here in the Forum and people have really started to open up and share things on a more personal level of late. Ok, not everyone wants to join in with the 'fluffy' stuff, but it's nice to know that we can share these things without being trampled on anymore!

Jen

Peter

5th April 2006, 02:49 PM

Hello Marpusbean

I agree with virtually everything you said, but other people continually bring Nase up, asking for him to return. If you read my other post, you will see that I said to Trey everybody will be bored, so let's move on. Perhaps you didn't notice that in her last post Trey asked me 23 questions?! On this board, if someone doesn't respond to questions, the claim goes up that they can't. That's the problem, isn't it?

Regards

Peter

MARPUSBEAN

5th April 2006, 05:02 PM

Yes, but I have some sympathy for the insecurity that people feel.
Dr. Nase pumped out thousands of pieces of info over the years.
Some of it important some very helpful, later there was too much, it seemed to be driven by sheer quantity rather than quality, to a certain extent it became addictive to members of forums, so we do have a certain amount of "withdrawal symptoms" now he has gone.
Some of this creates a backlash every time his name is mentioned by someone who is critical of him.
My position is well known, I am older and have spent a lifetime dealing with people, many who were flawed but had much to offer, that has been my attitude.
Of course I have not had the experience of being attacked by Dr. Nase for something I believe in and I know helped me, as you have, although I am one of these people who do well when I have exposure to moderate sunshine, and Dr. Nase would explain his face was not exposed to one minute of sun for a couple of years, so there we would disagree.
Well I think thats enough from me on this subject, we both basically agree, but our approach may be a bit different, but as you mentioned thats what forums are about!

Peter

5th April 2006, 09:47 PM

Hello Marpusbean

I have answered the questions and given my opinion so I am moving on. Well I am older as well but also wiser and hopefully like you able to make a sensible contribution to this Forum.

Interesting what you say about the sun improving your skin because although it used to be a big rosacea trigger for me initially I also found it then after several days exposure healed my skin back to normal. That is why I always felt the original acne lamp would be able to help my rosacea. A book well worth reading is called "The Healing Sun" by Richard Hobday - ISBN 1 899171 97 5 Very interesting and covers sunlight and health in the 21st Century.

It could be that using red light will help you but perhaps better to see what Jen comes back with from her experiment and also what emerges later from the clinical trial I mentioned.

Good luck.

Peter

Jimmy D

6th April 2006, 01:06 AM

what a monster geoffrey has become in the few short weeks that he has been no longer able to defend himself!

MARPUSBEAN

6th April 2006, 05:32 PM

Peter, in answer to your point about the sun, my situation has always been if I was having a flareup and my face was painful, irritated and very sensitive, I had to be patient and stay out of the sun, as hot sun on such a face is unpleasant.
However, if my face was calm, reasonable periods in the sun with a good mineral sunscreen resulted, obviously, in a tan which looks good, but as well my face felt good and indeed the period until the next flareup was extended.
Surely this must also apply to the lamps, I cannot imagine your face would respond well to a lamp in the middle of a very bad flareup??

Peter

6th April 2006, 09:52 PM

Hello Marpusbean

The all red lamp I use is not the same as being in the sun but it does incorporate a certain wavelength from it's spectrum of light at around 660 nanometres which are outside the ultraviolet spectrum so therefore do not damage the skin. Red light has been proven to help heal the skin and for rosacea it's believed it has an anti-inflammatory effect. As we well by know there is no scientific proof yet of it's benefit to rosacea but we have the Hammersmith trial hopefully to confirm this one way or the other.

In January 2001 I wrote a report on my history for the RS Group and hopefully it is still in the archives under ACNE LAMP - PETER. If you can find it check it out as it might answer some of your questions. For me using red light actually calmed and improved my skin but of course I cannot guarantee it would do the same for you as would apply with any treatment. LED has the same effect and is a more gentler form of light and to my knowledge nobody has ever had a problem from using a commercially built lamp. David is the expert on LED and was resourceful enough to build his own unit. Banshee (Kristen) has used both Infra-red and LED units for several years again without any problems and has written extensively about this form of treatment, so worth doing an archive search against her name.

By the way I have no problem in strong sunlight now and tan fairly easily providing I am careful and build up my exposure. I do not use a sunscreen on my face as I have found they all irritate my skin but I am not always convinced that a sunscreen is a necessity, for me anyway, with rosacea.

Regards

Peter