logo

Help SUPPORT Miss J's Forum by shopping through: Miss J's AMAZON PORTAL

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login.
Registrations are CLOSED. Please see this topic for more information.

Notification

Icon
Error

4 Pages123>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MissJ  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:10:45 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,586
My thoughts on LASERS:

The "best" LASER is the one the doctor PURCHASED and needs to sell you on to help pay it off.
So the "best" LASER and your doctor's advice as to which one is the "best" will differ from doctor to doctor depending on which one they have already PAYED FOR and need to make payments on.

The LASER with the LOWEST amount of RISK, in terms of your doctor not having documented poor results or not seen any bad results is the NEWEST one. This is because NEW LASERS come with 'virgin' risk profiles. A 'virgin' risk profile is when there has been NO TIME to observe how many people the LASER has 'fucked up'. So a NEW LASER has the lowest amount of risk of really damaging you simply because it has not had enough time to damage people given that it is NEW.




If you think this sounds preposterous, THIS is HOW the LASER industry operates. That is WHY no matter HOW MANY different types of lasers out there aimed at the same objective, it will ALWAYS be the ONE your doctor ALREADY PURCHASED that will be the "best one for your case". It's also why the NEWEST lasers have very few statistical data points for damage. It's because the statistics have not come in yet. That is WHY the laser industry is always generating NEW lasers. It's because "safety" from the perspective of the LASER industry = 'New enough not to have generated any observations of actual damage.

Edited by user Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:04:29 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Miss J. Seeing eye companion to the aesthetically blind since 1998.


If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL seen at the top of each page.

Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Sponsor
If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Offline stache  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:16:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/15/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,700
Man
Location: Payne Whitney Ward #3
Plus there is a tremendous amount of $ in generating new devices.
Offline DCNGA  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:36:34 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
MissJ wrote:
My thoughts on LASERS:

The "best" LASER is the one the doctor PURCHASED and needs to sell you on to help pay it off.
So the "best" LASER and your doctor's advice as to which one is the "best" will differ from doctor to doctor depending on which one they have already PAYED FOR and need to make payments on.

The LASER with the LOWEST amount of RISK, in terms of your doctor not having documented poor results or not seen any bad results is the NEWEST one. This is because NEW LASERS come with 'virgin' risk profiles. A 'virgin' risk profile is when there has been NO TIME to observe how many people the LASER has 'fucked up'. So a NEW LASER has the lowest amount of risk of really damaging you simply because it has not had enough time to damage people given that it is NEW.

If you think this sounds preposterous, THIS is HOW the LASER industry operates. That is WHY no matter HOW MANY different types of lasers out there aimed at the same objective, it will ALWAYS be the ONE your doctor ALREADY PURCHASED that will be the "best one for your case". It's also why the NEWEST lasers have very few statistical data points for damage. It's because the statistics have not come in yet. That is WHY the laser industry is always generating NEW lasers. It's because "safety" from the perspective of the LASER industry = 'New enough not to have generated any observations of actual damage.


Thank you, thank you, thank you Miss J. And, AMEN! You are more right than anyone can imagine.

The amount of research I have on lasers, thermal & DNA damage, IPL dangers, etc. is huge. Just ask, and I can provide several papers on the subject and tell of things that the FDA never divulges and is certainly not on one doctor's medical release for any of these devices. It is all staggerings and scary.

Thank you for posting your stance on lasers as people trust you and believe in your 'smarts'.
Offline MissJ  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:58:40 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,586
DCNGA,
Do you think I should make this a 'sticky' and tell people to click your BLOG button to find more commentary on lasers--like people who suffered from them. If so, I would be happy to do that.
Miss J. Seeing eye companion to the aesthetically blind since 1998.


If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL seen at the top of each page.

Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Offline Bugjune  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:28:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009(UTC)
Posts: 4,633
Woman
Location: The leaf I am sitting on
I'd do it - cuz there are many on this board interested who'd be interested in the blog.

I have plenty of erudite thoughts about lasers ... but mostly in short, 4-letter words. Same goes for their operators.


=====================================
MissJ wrote:
DCNGA,
Do you think I should make this a 'sticky' and tell people to click your BLOG button to find more commentary on lasers--like people who suffered from them. If so, I would be happy to do that.
I bug you.

UserPostedImage
Offline DCNGA  
#6 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:33:35 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
That would be great, Miss J. They could also click the WWW on my posts or profile to view the support board and read the actual stories of those damaged by these devices.

Or click on this link to go to the support board:

http://iplandlaserdamagesupport.prophpbb.com

Offline MissJ  
#7 Posted : Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:04:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,586
OK, it's now a sticky.
Miss J. Seeing eye companion to the aesthetically blind since 1998.


If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL seen at the top of each page.

Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Offline DCNGA  
#8 Posted : Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:04:41 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
She uses IPL/lasers in her practice....

Quote:
EDITORIAL, Amy E. Newburger, MD
Cosmetic Medical Devices and Their FDA Regulation
REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/VOL 142, FEB 2006 225

CLINICAL DERMATOLOGY PRACTICE HAS exanded to include the use of many procedures and devices for cosmetic purposes. This is a consequence of not only the rising interest in aesthetic medicine but also the economic pressures on the practitioner participating in managed care plans, as well as increasing regulation and requirements of office practice.

However, the increased reliance on new cosmetic procedures and devices has resulted in confusion over their real benefits and risks. This confusion has arisen, in part, as a result of aggressive marketing by manufacturers. For example, entering the cacophonous technical exhibits hall at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting is an experience similar to walking in the Central Bazaar in Istanbul, where myriad merchants are plying their wares, each exhorting the superiority of his product over that of his neighbor. Many practitioners greet these innovative devices with unbridled enthusiasm, which tempers over time as the disadvantages and risks become apparent.

It is clear that many physicians who use these products to enhance their patients’ appearance do not understand the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process for devices such as lasers and injectable dermal fillers. Without this knowledge, the physician is limited in understanding the safety and effectiveness of the devices and may not be advising or treating the patient appropriately. To determine what is best for our patients, we must become better informed about the benefits and risks of these devices, rather than relying solely on the sales force of the company entreating us to purchase their “FDA approved” device. Many physicians erroneously seem to believe that FDA approval of a device is paramount to receiving the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Rather, it is more appropriately likened to an Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing. For example, the electrical socket with the UL label is approved for a particular use, but improper use will give you a nasty shock. Similarly, FDA approval is granted for a specific use with specific indications, and this information is available in the manufacturer’s labeling and instructions for use of the device. The approval does not imply that the device is safe for every use or indication. Physicians are familiar with the FDA requirements for drug approval but much less knowledgeable about the different regulations that apply to medical device approvals for the marketplace. After a drug or device is approved, the adverse cutaneous reactions such as those described in this issue of the ARCHIVES1-4 become known.Careful reporting of such events is far less stringent in the postapproval marketing phase than in the preapproval period. It behooves the physician to understand the data supporting the risks and benefits of a medical device, as well as the limitations of the evaluation of these devices because only then can he or she use the device in a safe and effective manner.......

The following checklist should help physicians use medical devices most effectively:

DO understand the extent and the limitations of the testing. If the product has been approved by a PMA, get a clear understanding of the success/failure statistics. Examine closely the safety issues and contraindications, and check the sex and ethnicity of the test populations.

DO ask to see the safety and effectiveness data if the device has been cleared for marketing by a 510(k) application. (The PMA would have the clinical data in the labeling in the package insert.) Most clinical information you are provided for 510(k)-approved devices consists of a white paper developed for marketing purposes, which would not withstand scrutiny in a good peerreviewed journal. If the manufacturer cannot provide real data, perhaps there is not sufficient evidence to use the technology at this time.

DON’T jump on the bandwagon as a result of marketing pressure. Some adverse effects may take time to manifest. This is particularly important in new technologies. Consider, for example, Thermage (Thermage Inc, Hayward, Calif ) radiofrequency device treatments that were touted on the Oprah Winfrey show.15 Myriad patients rushed to undergo the procedure described there. As of September 2005, there have been 155 adverse events reported on the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.16 A substantial proportion of these events were the development of fat atrophy and scarring 3 or more months after the procedure. Subsequently, the manufacturer recognized the problem and changed the treatment algorithm. Hopefully, the new treatment parameters will avoid or mitigate these sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians must take more control of the marketplace to adequately protect our patients. We are confronted daily by patients requesting medications and procedures in response to direct-to-consumer marketing. There is powerful enticement in the positioning of these devices on television and in print media, with physicians providing testimonials about the benefit of their use. These physicians are often consultants paid by the device manufacturers. Consumer demand for these procedures is currently market driven. If we do not require documentation on real clinical effectiveness and safety, and if we purchase these devices based on trust rather than on sound science, then there is no incentive for the manufacturers to improve their track record. We can have a powerful impact on the safety of cosmetic procedures and devices for aesthetic uses if we understand how they have been studied and are labeled and if we demand scientific diligence. In this way, we will fulfill our obligation to our patients and to our profession.


Offline cosmo  
#9 Posted : Monday, July 12, 2010 3:21:14 AM(UTC)
Rank: Unapproved: write to MissJ521@aol.com for approval

Joined: 7/16/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,733
LOL that was a good post missj. Does anyone know if laser hair removal safe? I haven't had any problems from 6 or 7 procedures on laser and like 8 on IPL (which did nothing) - but is there risk of long term damage like UV damage? They say it only affects the follicle... but not the surrounding skin due to the way it is targeted (at the pigment). I got burned once where it hit a more tan area slightly... but all my pale skin can handle it...just looks gross after. Most of it grows back, even with laser too.
Offline DCNGA  
#10 Posted : Monday, July 12, 2010 7:22:46 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
What are they using on you, Alexandrite/Ruby laser? I believe these are the devices that can accomplish hair removal:

IPL
Diode Laser
Nd: Yag Laser
Alexandrite Laser
Ruby Laser

On the support board there are a lot of references that do indicate an accumulation of various types of damage. I do believe one is a possibility of accumulated UV damage, but not definitive. It seems the non-ablative lasers are more 'guilty' of unseen damage that develops over the course of time--sometimes a short time, sometimes a longer time. None of the devices used for hair removal are ablative, of course.

Thing about these lasers/IPLs/whatever cosmetic device is it can go well for you for many times, then the next time the problems start. Too unpredictable to be trustworthy, imo.

Edited by user Monday, July 12, 2010 9:08:50 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline cosmo  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:20:36 AM(UTC)
Rank: Unapproved: write to MissJ521@aol.com for approval

Joined: 7/16/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,733
Hi DC. They use the Alexandrite on me. The IPL was used in 2005-6 when I didn't know any better (the company running that show is bankrupt now - every single customer they had asked for a refund, including me). So far it has been ok safety-wise but the hair removal aspect is not stellar.
Offline Delphi  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:16:57 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,103
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Thanks for the post Miss J...I was gonna get some laser treatments (pulse-dye) this month but decided to wait...need to get it ALL over my face (lucky me...pale Irish cr*ppy skin). :-/ You're right...the one's that have been around for a while are probably the best to go with seeing as they've had more chance to build up a reputation (for good or ill).
Offline MissJ  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:44:51 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,586
Glad you found the post useful.
Miss J. Seeing eye companion to the aesthetically blind since 1998.


If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL seen at the top of each page.

Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Offline Talullah  
#14 Posted : Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:09:12 AM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/5/2009(UTC)
Posts: 579
Location: USA
Hell yeah, MissJ! Excellent post.
Offline Faith99  
#15 Posted : Sunday, September 19, 2010 4:22:42 PM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/31/2010(UTC)
Posts: 71
Woman
Location: Canada
I have been doing V-Beam and Gemini (KTP) Laser for a couple of years successfully.

I agree with the thoughts above re: docs selling a certain type of laser - especially if they only carry the type of laser that they are trying to sell.

If you go to doctor specializing in laser treatments, preferably with 5 or more types of lasers, you have a much higher probability of getting very good results.

Edited by user Monday, September 20, 2010 2:31:23 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic
Guest
Previous Topic Next Topic
4 Pages123>»
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.