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 Pages<1234>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MissJ  
#16 Posted : Monday, September 20, 2010 5:35:12 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,614
Those are lasers for zapping caps. Cap zapping or even laser hair removal don't seem to have as many 'unpleasant surprises' as lasers aimed at skin tightening.
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 watchthemoon  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 21, 2010 2:43:51 AM(UTC)
Rank: Unapproved: write to MissJ521@aol.com for approval

Joined: 1/20/2009(UTC)
Posts: 592
Woman
MissJ wrote:
Those are lasers for zapping caps. Cap zapping or even laser hair removal don't seem to have as many 'unpleasant surprises' as lasers aimed at skin tightening.


Well I got a gigantic skin dent in the tip of my nose from a sore that formed after a cap zapping laser(versapulse) from too high a setting and hasn't improved after many months.
Offline DCNGA  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:01:20 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
Some have had devastating affects even though the application was for hair removal or broken caps. Burns are the most common side-effect for hair removal, but fat loss has definitely happened to some who were being treated for hair removal or broken caps.
Offline MissJ  
#19 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 1:47:16 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,614
FAT LOSS FROM IPL LASERS:


Just found a paper relating to FAT LOSS from IPL lasers. It's technical. But the salient point is they CAN induce a mechanism that very much relates to FAT LOSS. Mechanism being; lipid peroxidation; a type of FREE RADICAL DESTRUCTION of fat cells.


http://archderm.ama-assn...i/reprint/143/3/363.pdf

"Nine healthy volunteers were exposed
to IPL or UV-A or simulated solar UV radiation, and then
thymine dimer and lipid peroxide concentrations were
determined in skin biopsy specimens of the exposed sites.
Only exposure to solar UV radiation (7-J/cm2 UV-A80-
mJ/cm2 UV-B) produced measurable amounts of thymine
dimers inDNAfrom skin biopsy specimens, whereas
UV-A radiation (40 J/cm2) and IPL (9 J/cm2) induced
3-fold and 6-fold increases of cutaneous lipid peroxides respectively."


Notes:

A: "lipid peroxidation" has to do with FAT BREAKING DOWN .

B: LASERS have "fluence" levels--kind of like a 'power' level they can be set to. So. 9J(oules)/square centimeter is a fluence a laser can be set to and the researchers found that it was associated with a 6 fold increase of cutaneous lipid peroxides (markers of fat breaking down).

C: Many people getting IPL actually have the fluence set HIGHER than 9J/cm2.

D: I found reference to this paper, in all places, a message board for DOCTORS using lasers and GUESS WHAT??? The doctors using and promoting lasers IGNORED mention of the paper---had nothing to say about it. Instead, most of them were found in the other sections asking other doctors HOW to use the lasers they had. LOL

Conclusion:
Many doctors using and promoting lasers are busy being baffled trying to figure out HOW to use the things and are still 'practicing' (on patients). Gives new meaning to "medical practice". Few doctors seem to pay attention to papers like this one, especially those who tell patients things like: "I never heard of FAT LOSS from these lasers".
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 Sarah W  
#20 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 4:01:42 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2008(UTC)
Posts: 9,121
Woman
Wow, good find MissJ
Offline kosmeds  
#21 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 8:40:52 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,276
Location: United States
People don't get IPL every day, but they do get UV exposure every day. It looks like a single IPL session is about twice as bad as a single high dose of UV exposure--maybe an hour at the beach for a sensitive skin type. But a lot of people here think that high protection from UVA radiation is a waste of time. What they forget is that the damages are cumulative. They use Zinc Oxide in such a way as to deliver may be a factor of 2 in UVA protection for the first two hours of use tapering down to essentially 0 2- 4 hours later.

Another thing is that lipid peroxidation is not exactly the same as fat loss. It's still fat but its damaged fat. People can be damaging their protein and carbohydrate-like skin components, too, with sun and invasive procedures and so-called minimally invasive devices.

If it removes skin, it's going to do damage, no matter what the method, and it's going to generate a host of oxidative stress reactions. Peels of all strengths, lasers, anything irritating will do this to varying degrees. Adding routine, incidental exposure to the sun or using a weak sunscreen ineffectually, if at all, makes it worse and prolongs recovery.

It's really not fair to point to IPL and suggest its soley responsible for problems. Almost anything capable of making a a significant difference to the skin that is too strong for daily or several weekly uses for a long period of time is going to generate problems.

The real problem with IPL and these other "gentle" devices is that under inexperienced operator hands some people are getting much deeper damage than what they expected or paid for. There's also a greater potential for scarring the deeper the damage is.

Probably the safest things of all for skin jobs are regular use rx retinoids, dermaroller, and of course blocking out UV and especially UVA to the fullest extent practicable. But people don't like to use powerfully protective sunscreens and they don't like to use rx retinoids, either. And when you've let damage accumulate too far, you really will need something more powerful than these, at least in the beginning.
Offline DCNGA  
#22 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 12:32:58 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
MissJ wrote:
FAT LOSS FROM IPL LASERS:

Just found a paper relating to FAT LOSS from IPL lasers. It's technical. But the salient point is they CAN induce a mechanism that very much relates to FAT LOSS. Mechanism being; lipid peroxidation; a type of FREE RADICAL DESTRUCTION of fat cells.

http://archderm.ama-assn...i/reprint/143/3/363.pdf

"Nine healthy volunteers were exposed to IPL or UV-A or simulated solar UV radiation, and then thymine dimer and lipid peroxide concentrations were determined in skin biopsy specimens of the exposed sites. Only exposure to solar UV radiation (7-J/cm2 UV-A80-
mJ/cm2 UV-B) produced measurable amounts of thymine dimers inDNAfrom skin biopsy specimens, whereas UV-A radiation (40 J/cm2) and IPL (9 J/cm2) induced 3-fold and 6-fold increases of cutaneous lipid peroxides respectively."


Yes, Miss J, this is very true. I found this paper last year and have it on our forum. I have been in contact with one of the authors, Oliver Sorg (main researcher on that paper)

Our Resources section has a great many papers that spell out the dangers/possible side effects of IPL, Fraxel, etc. Dr. Sorg is a PHD researcher, not an MD but he wrote to me last year and said that IPL has the potential for great harm. Our Resource section has many excellent sources such as the peroxidation paper that back up much of what has been experienced by our members yet doctors deny. Actually, there are several well known docs who've seen members of our board and treated them post-laser and told our members that they've SEEN fat loss from these devices and KNOW this happens, then they merrily fill up their faces with fat. Go figure.

We have 7 members who have severe eye problems, three of whom have been diagonosed with thyroid masses and two with small pituitary tumors. None of them were given proper eye protection. Of the two with pit tumors, one had the doctor lift up her plastic goggles and use the IPL close to her lash line. The other with a pit tumor was given NO eye protection. One member is virtually blind. She was actually able to have an opthamologist tell her that the IPL damaged the nerve sheaths of her face/eyes and she is suing the doctor. We have an indentifiable pattern, but who's going to investigate and do anything about it? It's not possible to sue device makers, they are protected by a supreme court ruling. We've tried to get doctors to listen but they close ranks and stop being forthcoming once they are told that the patient had IPL or laser treatments.

There are other things I cannot really speak about openly, but suffice it to say that doctors do KNOW. They even turn on their own and device manufacturers come after doctors who are brave enough to expose the truth or they are 'black listed' within the medical community for speaking up. Parts of my forum are now private for just this reason. I had a member of the laser training community ATTACK me verbally and bombard me with threatening emails, so this is not conspiracy theory stuff, it is very real and SCARY, trust me.

Edited by user Saturday, October 9, 2010 1:10:30 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline DCNGA  
#23 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 1:15:49 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
This quote is from a WELL KNOWN LASER GURU (whom you would all know if I put in his name) who treated and terribly scarred one of our members. As he says skill is important, but it is still NO GURANTEE that even in the best/most skilled of hands that there won't be deleterious affects from these devices and there are definitely NO GURANTEES:

Quote:
According to Dr. D****, the safest technology is the pulsed dye laser, with some minor circular scarring as the worst possible long-term side effect. He cautions, however, that the infrared sources can cause significant scarring if the cooling fails even slightly. He also warns against IPL-induced permanent hypopigmentation with atrophy, especially on the neck and chest, which is irreparable. “When using these devices, you need to have skill and talent in using them. And, you must be a bit cautious when doing them.”

Dr. D**** is also concerned about combining fillers with non-ablative technologies. “I’m not sure it’s a great idea to irradiate the skin with infrared radiation, which penetrates relatively deeply into skin — at least to the depth of collagen — right after you inject it.”



I don't know who owns this website or who produced this documemt, so please consider that as the source. Scroll down to Polaris™, Titan™, Fraxel™ Laser Skin Treatments to harmful side effects:

http://www.centerforphysicianscare.com/ ... risons.pdf

Quote:
Harmful Side Effects

As with any cell altering procedure using laser or infrared energy, there is a risk of scarring and fat atrophy; though less common than ablative devices.

Offline DCNGA  
#24 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 1:26:57 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
This particular paper has always interested me, as well, for its implications:

Here is a link that is a synopsis of the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19587691

Quote:
Abstract
Direct heat exposure to cells causes protein degradation and DNA damage, which can lead to genetic alteration and cell death, but little is known about heat-induced effects on the surrounding tissue. After burns or laser surgery, loss of viability in the surrounding tissue has been explained by a temperature gradient due to heat diffusion. This study shows that, in the absence of any direct heating, heat diffusion, or cell-to-cell contact, "bystander" cells that share the medium with heat-exposed cells exhibit DNA damage, apoptosis, and loss of viability. We coin this phenomenon "active thermal bystander effect" (ATBE). Significant ATBE was induced by fibroblasts exposed for 10 minutes to a temperature range of 44-50 degrees C (all P<0.011). The ATBE was not induced by cells heated to lethality above 54 degrees C and immediate medium exchange did not suppress the effect. Therefore, the thermal bystander effect appears to be an active process in which viable, heat-injured cells induce a signal cascade and/or mediator that damages or kills surrounding bystander cells. The ATBE may have clinical relevance for acute burn trauma, hyperthermic treatments, and distant tissue damage after localized heat stress.

Offline MissJ  
#25 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 6:16:22 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,614
kosmeds,

On a TECHNICAL level, I would agree with you: more people in general are exposed to types of sun radiation than IPL radiation, lipid peroxidation is not 'exactly the same' thing as fat loss and some of your other points.

However, I am approaching this from a public advocacy point of view with the objective of stressing that lasers, laser devices are NOT as 'safe' as the laser industry leads the public to believe. To do that, I need to 'break down' some concepts or over simplify them. Otherwise the SALIENT message of RISK would be lost.

Consider that this is an industry in which the INFORMATION relative to consumer safety is HIGHLY CONTROLLED by that industry and controlled in such a way to generate profits for that industry. You state the "real problem" is that operators of the laser devices are "under experienced". Well, yes, that is true BUT that resolves to the real problem being that the laser industry, with sole motivation of PROFIT, gladly sells these things to under experienced operators.

I'm surprised you would even intimate they have some kind of 'victim' status; "It's really not fair to point to IPL and suggest its soley responsible for problems." An industry, entity, etc that has it's aim at CONTROLLING information and does so in accordance with generating profits where in the wake of those confluent goals, you find patients HARMED by the devices promoted, DESERVES to have one of it's devices singled out.

Yes, with regard to sun exposure, that too is a culprit for skin damage. But consider that the SUN is not an industry aimed at controlling information that exposes it's potential dangers. The LASER (industry) is.

In terms of 'fairness' the playing ground is UNFAIR in FAVOR of the laser industry which is essentially a propaganda machine. Consumers have little hope of protecting themselves from that type of propaganda machine if we are to drowned the potential dangers of laser devices with blue stocking technical arguments as to why it's 'unfair' to single some of them out. The environment is that laser marketing propaganda needs to be challenged so that fewer patients fall victim to it.

In terms of technical knowledge, in my opinion, a patient with NO technical knowledge who is just intuitively distrustful of all these new devices coming to market is probably better off than someone buying into the information the laser industry puts out.





kosmeds wrote:
People don't get IPL every day, but they do get UV exposure every day. It looks like a single IPL session is about twice as bad as a single high dose of UV exposure--maybe an hour at the beach for a sensitive skin type. But a lot of people here think that high protection from UVA radiation is a waste of time. What they forget is that the damages are cumulative. They use Zinc Oxide in such a way as to deliver may be a factor of 2 in UVA protection for the first two hours of use tapering down to essentially 0 2- 4 hours later.

Another thing is that lipid peroxidation is not exactly the same as fat loss. It's still fat but its damaged fat. People can be damaging their protein and carbohydrate-like skin components, too, with sun and invasive procedures and so-called minimally invasive devices.

If it removes skin, it's going to do damage, no matter what the method, and it's going to generate a host of oxidative stress reactions. Peels of all strengths, lasers, anything irritating will do this to varying degrees. Adding routine, incidental exposure to the sun or using a weak sunscreen ineffectually, if at all, makes it worse and prolongs recovery.

It's really not fair to point to IPL and suggest its soley responsible for problems. Almost anything capable of making a a significant difference to the skin that is too strong for daily or several weekly uses for a long period of time is going to generate problems.

The real problem with IPL and these other "gentle" devices is that under inexperienced operator hands some people are getting much deeper damage than what they expected or paid for. There's also a greater potential for scarring the deeper the damage is.

Probably the safest things of all for skin jobs are regular use rx retinoids, dermaroller, and of course blocking out UV and especially UVA to the fullest extent practicable. But people don't like to use powerfully protective sunscreens and they don't like to use rx retinoids, either. And when you've let damage accumulate too far, you really will need something more powerful than these, at least in the beginning.
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 MissJ  
#26 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 6:43:26 AM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,614
The doc whom I think you are referring to is pretty high on the propaganda pyramid for lasers as he is one of the key doctors they use in promotions. Consider that on one hand, he points out that success with them is highly "operator dependant". Although that is true (for the most part as he too has had unhappy patients even though he's a top laser guy), consider that he plays a very active role with regard to the laser industry being able to market and sell those devices to the mass MD market in which the buyers in that market (all you need is an MD to buy a laser) have little knowledge about lasers.

Sure, one can say outcomes are "operator dependant" but if one is using their guru status to PROMOTE SALES of these devices to a mass market of MDs, they are part of the PROBLEM because in effect, they are part of the process that sells the devices to operators with no demonstrated capacity to use such devices.

Laser gurus such as Dr. D**** certainly are not active in getting the laser industry to LIMIT SALES to doctors who actually have some background in laser science. Instead they are active in promoting sales to doctors with no background in laser science.





DCNGA wrote:
This quote is from a WELL KNOWN LASER GURU (whom you would all know if I put in his name) who treated and terribly scarred one of our members. As he says skill is important, but it is still NO GURANTEE that even in the best/most skilled of hands that there won't be deleterious affects from these devices and there are definitely NO GURANTEES:



I don't know who owns this website or who produced this documemt, so please consider that as the source. Scroll down to Polaris™, Titan™, Fraxel™ Laser Skin Treatments to harmful side effects:

http://www.centerforphysicianscare.com/ ... risons.pdf


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  
#27 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 8:50:48 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
This is a 'poster' from the ASLMS regarding IPL dangers:

http://www.dr-kimmig.de/...ownload/Poster_ASLMS.pdf
Offline kosmeds  
#28 Posted : Saturday, October 9, 2010 11:58:34 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,276
Location: United States
MissJ wrote:
I'm surprised you would even intimate they have some kind of 'victim' status; [color=blue][i]"It's really not fair to point to IPL and suggest its soley responsible for problems."


You misinterpreted my intent. I'm baffled at how blithely people take sun protection. The paper cited states one IPL session is about twice as damaging as one MED. But a lot of people here get more than one MED on a regular basis: far more often than they get IPL. Where I live, a lot of people get more than that ever day for six to nine months out of the year, year after year.

I do not see any real danger outlined in this particular paper. Many people here go swimming in the summer, and expose themselves to more damage than a single IPL session as outlined in the paper, and they are not up in arms about it. They do it repeatedly.

Also, as I previously stated: all skin rejuvenation methods that are not regular use topicals are damaging. One has to destroy and remove the damaged skin to make any significant change in the appearance. This is not possible without some adverse effect. Whether it's a device or a peel, long-term problems remain unknown. But people think the potential for problems is worth the trade-off regarding potential for improvement.

I think the entire device industry is a waste of money, because in almost every case the same effect can be had for an appropriate peel or series of peels for less money. But both alternatives require experienced, gifted operators and one does not always get that. In fact, it's pretty rare.

I also think it's difficult to find papers that show exactly how damaging procedures can be in the wrong hands, and patients are rarely if ever shown such pictures. I've never found any papers outlining the type of damage I experienced myself, and of course was not given one iota of info about potential problems by the doctor, but I have seen horrific outcomes from CO2 laser.

Maybe in the future, there will be papers stating that IPL is incredibly damaging, but this paper most certainly does not.
Offline kosmeds  
#29 Posted : Sunday, October 10, 2010 12:50:20 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/8/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,276
Location: United States
I don't think that people who are making a big deal about this paper understand what an MED (minimal erythemal dose) is. So that people will understand what one MED is:

One MED in the summer near noon at 25 degrees north is

10 minutes of exposure for phototype I
15-20 minutes for phototype II
30 minutes for phototype III

The paper states an IPL session under controlled conditions is about as damaging as two MED, twenty to sixty minutes of exposure for fair to medium skins, which is routinely exceeded by many people on sunny days.

Offline DCNGA  
#30 Posted : Sunday, October 10, 2010 1:19:53 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 7,139
Woman
To be fair to Sorg (author of this paper), when he wrote to me he said that using IPL in an iterative way is what holds the most potential for harm and that the repeated use of these devices (mechanism of action) long-term is not well enough understood to use them long term. He is from Switzerland and he spoke with derms who use IPL in their practices and NONE of them are using it in an iterative mode due to the unknown long-term deleterious effects IPL could have. He feels IPL has a place, but only when used for a specific condition and in a specific area.

Personally, I think the 'poster' by Kimmig is more damaging to the reputation of IPL.

The problem with these devices is not just the operators, albeit that is the most important aspect if you have them to lessen your chances of bad outcomes but it won't eliminate bad outcomes completely. Their mechanism of action is not fully (100%) understood. Most doctors using them will admit this but they feel they know enough to declare them safe?! The main problem with these devices is how they are marketed, how they are promoted as "safe" with no side effects (other than burns and hypo/hyperpigmentation), and that none of them have long term studies to back up their efficacy. The FDA 501K process is the blame, along with medical device makers making good deals with laser gurus to become laser luminaries and push these devices at all of the major medical conferences and funding 'research' into the efficacy/safety of these devices. This is like the wolf guarding the hen house. ALL OF THIS is what people need to realize and own, all of the papers in the world speaking of possible bad outcomes or side-effects won't change any of that. Only we, as consumers, and doctors who know the truth and are brave enough to stand up to the device makers/FDA can change the first and most important problem: THE COSMETIC MEDICAL DEVICE APPROVAL PROCESS IS FLAWED.

Think of it like this, would you want a pacemaker put in your chest that was approved by the FDA simply because there was a similar device on the market in the 1960s or 1970s and the one being put in your chest in 2010 has had NO true clinical trials to prove it works, no true clinical trials to prove it does what it says, no true clinical trials to prove it is safe, and no true clinical trials that prove the long term side effects from its use? If so, go for it. Personally, I'm not taking anyone's 'word' for it that these things are safe, especially from the people manufacturing them or profiting from using them on the unsuspecting. But, maybe that's just me.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Previous Topic Next Topic
4 Pages<1234>
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.