Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,557

    Default LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing

    Until I get this up on my site, I wanted to post once on this topic.

    If you have Type I rosacea with a red face, inflammation, facial flushing, or sensitivity to the outside elements you should absolutely not use the LED or LLT systems.

    I will keep this brief. There may be 6 people on all these boards that have reported positive experiences and they were mainly on acne as is to be expected.

    The LLT and LED mechanism of action is claimed to be "anti-inflammatory". This is the most overused and misunderstood word in the rosacea sufferers vocabulary. In many cases, things that promote dramatic increases in blood flow remove the inflammation -- e.g look up arthritis treatment and diabetic wound healing. This is great because these disorders are NOT based on a flushing disorder.

    You do not treat a flushing disorder with a flushing machine. You may push along some of the old neutrophils, but there is a greater chance that your face will become much more sensitiive.

    I was a little baffled at the degree that one or two people will defend this to their life's end. Now I understand better -- some get commissions for each unit sold. They submit a name or the person buying it is asked to mention their name. That is what is behind many (but not all) of these "sellers" attacks. I thought it was germane that everyone knew this.

    If there are 5 or 6 good reports (and these people are using 4 to 5 other medications which makes it impossible to locate the beneficial variable), I have received well over 110 to 125 reports of blister skin, 1st degree burns, and increased flushing. We should kindly ask Dermalux how many rosacea sufferers returned their machines within the first 30 days -- that would speak for itself.

    I think this idea of treating ones self 20 mintues a day has a very appealing lure to it. I truly wish it would work, no matter what others think. But it does not.

    I spoke to one of our laser gurus in the UK over the phone two days ago and he brought up the fact that he was treating patients using LED or LLT that had hurt themselves. Others he is turning away because he does not know what to do with these cases. This physicians reputation is beyond reproach, but I do not think he will ever butt his head in here because he does not want to be involved in any controversy. Two other laser physicians from the UK have treated over a dozen burn cases and one UK dermatologist who I am in constant contact with has treated three cases. I know 7 people from Australia on this board who have returned their machines within 30 days for full refund due to uncontrolled flushing and 24 hour red faces. I have over 60 reports from US rosacea sufferers trying it and 4 well known laser physicians who we have all heard from who are treating these patients now for LED and LLT-induced permanent side effects. I hope that these physicians will come forward, but with the recent animosity, I doubt they will.

    In all humility, I know more about both of these systems than almost everyone else. I know the physics behind these machines, the effects on living tissue and cells and MOST importantly the clinical actions on patients. If you do not have the clinical experience and see what is happening first hand and actually measure the blood flow increases with laser doppler, you cannot go back and forth via words on this board with any degree of accuracy.

    I am stepping in right now because with one moderator pushing this hard and another who (well no comment), this board is going to turn into an LED and LLT treatment board.

    Be warned, most rosacea sufferers will be harmed by this treatment. To make a home made system and then pass out information on how to make something never tested on rosacea skin is absolutely irresponsible. In fact, the UK laser physicians who we all know quoted that he just treated, "a rosacea sufferer who put together an LED machine from Radio Shack parts". This person has a first degree burn and the flushing, redness and burning may never be treated fully.

    If you want real medical explanations, please call any Diabetic Wound Healing Center, Rhuematoid Arthritis Treatment Center, Carpel Tunnel Treatment Center and talk to the physicians on staff. They will tell you point blank that they use these systems to increase blood flow to the area. Blood flow increases are dramatic -- reaching up to 600% increase in blood flow. Is this what rosacea sufferers want? Please use common sense on this one.

    Currently the FDA has passed the use of LED and LLT therapy for disorders that "can be treated by increased blood flow".

    1. Laboratory studies have shown that skin cells grow 150-200 percent faster when exposed to certain LED light wavelengths. Independent research for over 40 years has shown LED red and infrared light delivers powerful therapeutic benefits to living tissue. Both visible red and infrared light has been shown to affect at least 24 different positive changes at a deep level. Visible red light, at wavelengths from 630-660 nanometers, penetrates tissue to a depth of 8-10 mm. LED light is very beneficial in treating problems close to the skins surface such as wounds, cuts, and scars. Skin layers, because of their high blood and water content, absorb red light very readily and deliver enough energy to stimulate a response from the body to heal itself. This photobiomodulation is achieved solely through significant increases in skin blood flow through all levels of the skin.


    2. You may have recently read about L.E.D. Light Therapy in a recent issue of Elle Magazine, boasting the anti-aging and anti-inflammatory benefits. Their studies revealed that exposing the skin to red L.E.D. lights for a little under 20 minutes can plump skin, smooth wrinkles and fine lines. Another study revealed that exposure to L.E.D. lights for approx. 3 minutes per area can promote collagen stimulation by 200% within a 24 hour period! LED works by increasing blood flow by up to 4 times the resting amount (400%) and this is the main mechanism by which these systems work. Buyer Beware – these machines are NOT made for rosacea because it is not a stable inflammatory skin process. It is an inflammatory process that feeds on itself – more blood flow to the area helps damage more blood vessels, hypersenitize them and create a vicious positive feed back loop that may be very hard to break. The home unit which was mentioned in magazine article retails for $2,495 and the photo of the unit shown in the article appeared to have the smaller (weaker) 3 - 5 mm lights.


    Now, there is one very intersting effect of both systems directly on cells. They can stabilize and make cells healthy via photobiomodulation. Someone make a machine that just does this and does not increase blood flow and you have something.

    This subject was much too important for me to ignore it and continue working on my site. This is an absolute buyer beware and just know that many of the physicians that I have been in contact do not know how to treat a burn on top of rosacea flushing and redness.

    Feel free to take this subject where you will. There is no harm to present medical information on these two systems. I have no other response to either of these systems. Updates will be placed on my site as debates are not constructive here with a few.

  2. #2
    Senior Member peter.crouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Geoffrey Nase must have been reading my mind when he posted this as I was just about to press submit with the following:-

    Dear All,
    In no way do I want this post to diminish from the personal initiative of others seeking to find a cost effective treatment for their rosacea however I have seen two patients this week (one on Monday and another today) who has seriously risked their skin health (and possibly their vision) by exposing themselves to home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays. The LEDs were purchased from separare mail order electrical wholesalers - (one was Maplin) in the UK. They require little expertise to solder onto printed circuit boards and wire up to a 12v mains adapter.

    One patient had purchased 20 of these 26mm LED Clusters each consisting of 14 LEDs and arranged them in 2 face panels - all quite ingenious really. They output very bright light in the 570-660nm wavelengths. He had sat in front of these for 30-60 minutes last Saturday (he cant remember exactly how long) and then again on Sunday as he had noticed only slight warmth. He came to see me on Monday with swelling of his eyelids and extreme facial redness. I think that if anything this will have made his rosacea worse not better and I had to advise him not to use this home made device again and to get his eyesight checked - he couldnt keep his eyes open long enough for me to formally assess his eyesight as his eyelids were too swollen so I asked him to see an optician a.s.a.p. I heard today that the optician told him that he hasn't suffered permanent damage (thankfully) but not to do it again.

    The other patient that I saw on Wednesday had constructed a similar array using different LEDs and had tried to use it on four occasions over the past 2 weeks each time for less time but each time had stopped after 20-30 minutes due to "sunburn". I had to advise him not to try this again.

    When I think of the regulations, testing, calibration, trials and approvals that any medical device needs to go through before it can be used safely, I shudder to think of the damage that could have been caused by these improvised devices. The technology has now advanced to the point that Superbright LEDs output in these arrays can represent significant danger unless properly prescribed and delivered in a controlled and regulated manner.

    Geoffrey - I agree, sometimes, you cant stand by and remain silent in the face of unwitting, well intentioned but dangerous self exploration.

    Please, no one else attempt to construct your own LED array and risk your health in this unpredictable, unregulated way. Medical Devices should be properly constructed not thrown together from items never intended to be used for medical treatments.

    Kind regards,

    Peter

  3. #3
    Senior Member IowaDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Iowa, U.S.
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drnase
    Until I get this up on my site, I wanted to post once on this topic.

    If you have Type I rosacea with a red face, inflammation, facial flushing, or sensitivity to the outside elements you should absolutely not use the LED or LLT systems.

    I will keep this brief. There may be 6 people on all these boards that have reported positive experiences and they were mainly on acne as is to be expected.

    The LLT and LED mechanism of action is claimed to be "anti-inflammatory". This is the most overused and misunderstood word in the rosacea sufferers vocabulary. In many cases, things that promote dramatic increases in blood flow remove the inflammation -- e.g look up arthritis treatment and diabetic wound healing. This is great because these disorders are NOT based on a flushing disorder.

    You do not treat a flushing disorder with a flushing machine. You may push along some of the old neutrophils, but there is a greater chance that your face will become much more sensitiive.

    I was a little baffled at the degree that one or two people will defend this to their life's end. Now I understand better -- some get commissions for each unit sold. They submit a name or the person buying it is asked to mention their name. That is what is behind many (but not all) of these "sellers" attacks. I thought it was germane that everyone knew this.

    If there are 5 or 6 good reports (and these people are using 4 to 5 other medications which makes it impossible to locate the beneficial variable), I have received well over 110 to 125 reports of blister skin, 1st degree burns, and increased flushing. We should kindly ask Dermalux how many rosacea sufferers returned their machines within the first 30 days -- that would speak for itself.

    I think this idea of treating ones self 20 mintues a day has a very appealing lure to it. I truly wish it would work, no matter what others think. But it does not.

    I spoke to one of our laser gurus in the UK over the phone two days ago and he brought up the fact that he was treating patients using LED or LLT that had hurt themselves. Others he is turning away because he does not know what to do with these cases. This physicians reputation is beyond reproach, but I do not think he will ever butt his head in here because he does not want to be involved in any controversy. Two other laser physicians from the UK have treated over a dozen burn cases and one UK dermatologist who I am in constant contact with has treated three cases. I know 7 people from Australia on this board who have returned their machines within 30 days for full refund due to uncontrolled flushing and 24 hour red faces. I have over 60 reports from US rosacea sufferers trying it and 4 well known laser physicians who we have all heard from who are treating these patients now for LED and LLT-induced permanent side effects. I hope that these physicians will come forward, but with the recent animosity, I doubt they will.

    In all humility, I know more about both of these systems than almost everyone else. I know the physics behind these machines, the effects on living tissue and cells and MOST importantly the clinical actions on patients. If you do not have the clinical experience and see what is happening first hand and actually measure the blood flow increases with laser doppler, you cannot go back and forth via words on this board with any degree of accuracy.

    I am stepping in right now because with one moderator pushing this hard and another who (well no comment), this board is going to turn into an LED and LLT treatment board.

    Be warned, most rosacea sufferers will be harmed by this treatment. To make a home made system and then pass out information on how to make something never tested on rosacea skin is absolutely irresponsible. In fact, the UK laser physicians who we all know quoted that he just treated, "a rosacea sufferer who put together an LED machine from Radio Shack parts". This person has a first degree burn and the flushing, redness and burning may never be treated fully.

    If you want real medical explanations, please call any Diabetic Wound Healing Center, Rhuematoid Arthritis Treatment Center, Carpel Tunnel Treatment Center and talk to the physicians on staff. They will tell you point blank that they use these systems to increase blood flow to the area. Blood flow increases are dramatic -- reaching up to 600% increase in blood flow. Is this what rosacea sufferers want? Please use common sense on this one.

    Currently the FDA has passed the use of LED and LLT therapy for disorders that "can be treated by increased blood flow".

    1. Laboratory studies have shown that skin cells grow 150-200 percent faster when exposed to certain LED light wavelengths. Independent research for over 40 years has shown LED red and infrared light delivers powerful therapeutic benefits to living tissue. Both visible red and infrared light has been shown to affect at least 24 different positive changes at a deep level. Visible red light, at wavelengths from 630-660 nanometers, penetrates tissue to a depth of 8-10 mm. LED light is very beneficial in treating problems close to the skins surface such as wounds, cuts, and scars. Skin layers, because of their high blood and water content, absorb red light very readily and deliver enough energy to stimulate a response from the body to heal itself. This photobiomodulation is achieved solely through significant increases in skin blood flow through all levels of the skin.


    2. You may have recently read about L.E.D. Light Therapy in a recent issue of Elle Magazine, boasting the anti-aging and anti-inflammatory benefits. Their studies revealed that exposing the skin to red L.E.D. lights for a little under 20 minutes can plump skin, smooth wrinkles and fine lines. Another study revealed that exposure to L.E.D. lights for approx. 3 minutes per area can promote collagen stimulation by 200% within a 24 hour period! LED works by increasing blood flow by up to 4 times the resting amount (400%) and this is the main mechanism by which these systems work. Buyer Beware – these machines are NOT made for rosacea because it is not a stable inflammatory skin process. It is an inflammatory process that feeds on itself – more blood flow to the area helps damage more blood vessels, hypersenitize them and create a vicious positive feed back loop that may be very hard to break. The home unit which was mentioned in magazine article retails for $2,495 and the photo of the unit shown in the article appeared to have the smaller (weaker) 3 - 5 mm lights.


    Now, there is one very intersting effect of both systems directly on cells. They can stabilize and make cells healthy via photobiomodulation. Someone make a machine that just does this and does not increase blood flow and you have something.

    This subject was much too important for me to ignore it and continue working on my site. This is an absolute buyer beware and just know that many of the physicians that I have been in contact do not know how to treat a burn on top of rosacea flushing and redness.

    Feel free to take this subject where you will. There is no harm to present medical information on these two systems. I have no other response to either of these systems. Updates will be placed on my site as debates are not constructive here with a few.

    Quote Originally Posted by peter.crouch
    Geoffrey Nase must have been reading my mind when he posted this as I was just about to press submit with the following:-

    Dear All,
    In no way do I want this post to diminish from the personal initiative of others seeking to find a cost effective treatment for their rosacea however I have seen two patients this week (one on Monday and another today) who has seriously risked their skin health (and possibly their vision) by exposing themselves to home constructed super bright Infra red LED arrays. The LEDs were purchased from separare mail order electrical wholesalers - (one was Maplin) in the UK. They require little expertise to solder onto printed circuit boards and wire up to a 12v mains adapter.

    One patient had purchased 20 of these 26mm LED Clusters each consisting of 14 LEDs and arranged them in 2 face panels - all quite ingenious really. They output very bright light in the 570-660nm wavelengths. He had sat in front of these for 30-60 minutes last Saturday (he cant remember exactly how long) and then again on Sunday as he had noticed only slight warmth. He came to see me on Monday with swelling of his eyelids and extreme facial redness. I think that if anything this will have made his rosacea worse not better and I had to advise him not to use this home made device again and to get his eyesight checked - he couldnt keep his eyes open long enough for me to formally assess his eyesight as his eyelids were too swollen so I asked him to see an optician a.s.a.p. I heard today that the optician told him that he hasn't suffered permanent damage (thankfully) but not to do it again.

    The other patient that I saw on Wednesday had constructed a similar array using different LEDs and had tried to use it on four occasions over the past 2 weeks each time for less time but each time had stopped after 20-30 minutes due to "sunburn". I had to advise him not to try this again.

    When I think of the regulations, testing, calibration, trials and approvals that any medical device needs to go through before it can be used safely, I shudder to think of the damage that could have been caused by these improvised devices. The technology has now advanced to the point that Superbright LEDs output in these arrays can represent significant danger unless properly prescribed and delivered in a controlled and regulated manner.

    Geoffrey - I agree, sometimes, you cant stand by and remain silent in the face of unwitting, well intentioned but dangerous self exploration.

    Please, no one else attempt to construct your own LED array and risk your health in this unpredictable, unregulated way. Medical Devices should be properly constructed not thrown together from items never intended to be used for medical treatments.

    Kind regards,

    Peter

    Can either of you please post the specific energy levels that were used by these patients that harmed themselves? Give us something to work with here rather than categorically saying LEDs are "bad". That's like saying lasers are bad, but failing to note that you were treated with a YAG at 500j/cm2.

    Plus, if you're spending 2,500 USD on an LED unit you are a) A fool with money to burn, or b) Buying LEDs that are rated far higher than the LEDs I'm using. It's impossible to get burned by the LEDs on my array as beyond an inch or two from the array there is no heat!

    That's the whole point of the LEDs! They are non-thermal! This is why the wavelength is important and not the output. If I wanted a super power output I'd go buy football stadium lights and put a monochromatic filter over them. THAT would be 660nm red light that was thermal in nature. That would certainly cause flushing.

    All of the abstracts I read about red light therapy were quoting numbers that were measured on the scale of joules/cm2--that's getting into thermal treatment.

    As I said before, this is _non-thermal_ treatment. That's why the wavelength is important as the wavelength appears to be the reason it is effective at non-thermal levels. Sitting in front of a normal 60-watt light bulb would produce much more thermal energy and might very well cause a rosacea sufferer to flush as this is light energy that is high enough to heat the surrounding air/or skin if you're nearby.

    And, please, do not conflate "light" and "LED light". LEDs work differently than other light sources. That's the reason local governments are putting them into traffic lights and they are being used for other civic necessities--they last a very long time and don't waste energy by producing heat.

    As I have seen Dr. Nase call the Dermalux unit an "LED" unit in the past (it does not use LEDs), I would implore both Dr. Crouch and Dr. Nase to a) quote the energy output of the units that harmed these patients, and b)what the light source is.

    Thanks,

    David
    35 year-old male
    Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular
    20 + laser treatments.
    Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisturizer. I don't use a special cleanser. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes.
    BEST and CURRENT TREATMENT I use: Low-Level Red Light Therapy LED array.
    Please feel free to PM me with your low-level red light therapy (LLRLT) questions. I'm happy to help if I can.

  4. #4
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    There is no way in this world that a constructive debate can come out of this but in the pursuit of courtesy, I will try to answer Davids most cogent questions.

    1. Every single LED and LLT will cause dramatic increases in blood flow. Every one, every wavelength, and every self made system.

    2. Non-thermal is not what you think it means. It just means that heat is not generated in the skin via the machine -- it does not mean that subsequent heat will be generated from the flushing, because it will. Non thermal does not relate to the blood flow increases.


    Thats really about it. Each system or variation has the same basic mechanism of action so you dont need to address them separately.

    That is all I wated to do in this post -- present the medical side of this for safety sake. This could easily be a four pager with debates. That is not my intent. The informatin is up there from LED and LLT supporters and from medical and biomedical professionals. Now people have information that they can base a decision on.

  5. #5
    Senior Member IowaDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Iowa, U.S.
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Dr. Nase, with all due respect, you did not answer my question. And, furthermore, your point 1. is prima facie not true. That's silly.

    Please, can you give me the energy level where these patients were harmed by red light? I really am interested in understanding this.

    Quote Originally Posted by drnase
    There is no way in this world that a constructive debate can come out of this but in the pursuit of courtesy, I will try to answer Davids most cogent questions.

    1. Every single LED and LLT will cause dramatic increases in blood flow. Every one, every wavelength, and every self made system.

    2. Non-thermal is not what you think it means. It just means that heat is not generated in the skin via the machine -- it does not mean that subsequent heat will be generated from the flushing, because it will. Non thermal does not relate to the blood flow increases.


    Thats really about it. Each system or variation has the same basic mechanism of action so you dont need to address them separately.

    That is all I wated to do in this post -- present the medical side of this for safety sake. This could easily be a four pager with debates. That is not my intent. The informatin is up there from LED and LLT supporters and from medical and biomedical professionals. Now people have information that they can base a decision on.
    35 year-old male
    Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular
    20 + laser treatments.
    Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisturizer. I don't use a special cleanser. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes.
    BEST and CURRENT TREATMENT I use: Low-Level Red Light Therapy LED array.
    Please feel free to PM me with your low-level red light therapy (LLRLT) questions. I'm happy to help if I can.

  6. #6
    Senior Member adyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    somewhere in Europe
    Posts
    242

    Default

    You are both intelligent persons. I respect both of you because you are intelligent persons. Please do not get involved in a personal confrontation and please accept that there are different points of view for every issue.

    Adrian

  7. #7
    Senior Member peter.crouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    162

    Default Energy Output query

    Dear All,
    The problem is I have absolutely no idea what the energy output of these devices is - this is exactly the problem associated with constructing and using them.

    For example, I don't know precisely what the distance the patients were from the device and neither patient knew if they kept at a constant distance throughout the treatment as they had their eyes closed.
    The arrays had 2 types of LEDs in the clusters - some at 570nm and others at 660nm. As neither patient brought the devices with them when they came to see me I can't measure the energy output (actually I don't have a device that can measure this - our lasers and IPL machines each have a calibration meter so I know the output and the treatment time and exact treatment distance).

    Although I don't know what energy output these improvised devices are producing, what I can see however is the tissue damage arising from using them ~ both patients were lucky to escape permanent damage. I have no problem with properly constructed/ tested / calibrated devices with FDA approval.

    Kind regards,

    Peter

  8. #8
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,557

    Default Re: Energy Output query

    Quote Originally Posted by peter.crouch
    Dear All,
    The problem is I have absolutely no idea what the energy output of these devices is - this is exactly the problem associated with constructing and using them.

    For example, I don't know precisely what the distance the patients were from the device and neither patient knew if they kept at a constant distance throughout the treatment as they had their eyes closed.
    The arrays had 2 types of LEDs in the clusters - some at 570nm and others at 660nm. As neither patient brought the devices with them when they came to see me I can't measure the energy output (actually I don't have a device that can measure this - our lasers and IPL machines each have a calibration meter so I know the output and the treatment time and exact treatment distance).

    Although I don't know what energy output these improvised devices are producing, what I can see however is the tissue damage arising from using them ~ both patients were lucky to escape permanent damage. I have no problem with properly constructed/ tested / calibrated devices with FDA approval.

    Kind regards,

    Peter

    Thank you Dr. Crouch for that medical information and analysis.

    As one person brought up in an email, I am personally interested in the effect of photobiomodulation. The ability of certain lights and energy to ""heal" skin cells and blood vessel cells. The "light" hits millions of cells throughout the skin and increases mitochondrial action (oxygen and energy),, helps fix plasma membranes and increases the influx of calcium to help normalize the cell membrane potential. These are all great things for cells on rosacea skin.

    HOWEVER, each of these processes signals a significant increase in blood flow to each cell to support all of these upregulated functions and remove metabolic byproducts. That means a sustained increase in facial blood flow to millions of cells. That is a problem. All of these systems do that no matter what variant of machine.

    Find a machine that will heal all the damaged inflammatory cells without increasing blood flow or increasing the chance of a burn or more flushing and you have really got something.

  9. #9
    Senior Member IowaDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Iowa, U.S.
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Hi Dr. Crouch, yes, I was concerned about harming myself with red light therapy as well. I started gingerly with the all-red acnelamp 3-headed model. As per that company's data, the blue/red mixed acnelamp has an output of 2.65 ujoules/cm2 for the red light.

    The all-red acnelamp head has 3 times the number of red LEDs so the output for my unit, for each head, is 7.95 ujoules/cm2 at a distance of 6 inches (the distance recommended by the company). I started using this model 15 minutes per day. As the days passed, I began to notice that my face was calmed after using the all-red lamp, so I began extending the time of treament. Then I started using it twice a day (after speaking to the company about this via email), for 15 minutes each time. When I saw this was helping rather than hurting, I gradually raised my exposure time each day until I was using the lamp for between 30 minutes-60 minutes each day (depending on the time I had).

    I thought that it was silly to spend an hour in front of a lower-powered lamp when I could make my own, more powerful array, and spend less time sitting there with my protective goggles on. I measured, with a flash meter, used for photograpy, that, at a distance of 6 inches, one head of the acnelamp had an intensity of 40 footcandles.

    I did some research, found a supplier of red LEDs that produced light at 660nm, taught myself how to wire them, and created 3 3-headed arrays with 28 red LEDs arranged in roughly the pattern of the acnelamp's (the acnelamp lamp heads have 24 red LEDs). So this new array was, in theory, 3 times as powerful as the acnelamp (though I do think the LEDs I bought are brighter than the acnelamp's LEDs). I arranged these arrays so I had one pointing head-on and one on either side (to get the sides of my face and my ears). I measured the footcandles with the light meter of this array that I built, and found a distance where the light intensity was about 40 footcandles (at first, I just tried to put my face 6 inches from these arrays, but their viewing angle was 15 degrees, so the light would not diffuse and provide overlapping/total coverage at this distance). I played around with the distance I sat from the array while treating myself and checking how I responded at various distances (and thus, varying intensities of light~ujoules/cm2).

    After a few months of using this array, I found that I was doing the same thing as with the original acnelamp: I was extending my treatment times up to 40-60 minutes each day. Again, I thought it was silly to spend this much time in front of the array when I could build a more powerful one.

    By this time, I was beginning to suspect that anything I could build with the LEDs I was using would not harm me. I ordered a new batch of 1500 red LEDs at 660nm but this time with a viewing angle of 30 degrees (so that the array and my distance from them could be shrunk, as the light would diffuse at half the distance as the 15 degree viewing angle red LEDs).

    So, I am now using this array:


    And, again, I'm finding that I can spend long amounts of time in front of it. So, assuming there is a threshold for intensity/output where red light treatment begins to be harmful (I would honestly like to know where this is so I could stop wasting my time experimenting), it is most likely far higher than anything I could make with these LEDs.

    I'm trying to figure out how to rig a second tier of arrays like the ones pictured above, and compose each tier of 8, rather than 6, rectangular "towers", so instead of 6 towers, I would have 16. But, I'm still working on this. I haven't measured the output of the array I'm currently using (there wasn't any need, really) with the flashmeter, but I can check it.

    I've spoken with another member on this board, who knows far more about engineering, electronics, and physics than I do, and he seems to think that what I'm currently using is toward the lower end of the "beneficial" range of red light therapy.

    So, that, in summary (a bit of a long one ) is how I got to where I am right now. I started using the acnelamp regularly in late March or early April of last year (I can't remember exactly when I started using it everyday), so, I have around 9 months of cumulative experience, using one of the above-mentioned arrays at least once a day, but usually twice, for an average total exposure time of, I would guess, 30-35 minutes a day (but, that's using the three different arrays so cumulative photon exposure is kind of hard to estimate). I don't know what kind of red light device the patients that experienced negative effects were using; and, as you mentioned, the power of these devices is also unknown.

    I just don't want people to be scared off from this treatment because someone posts here and has a "Dr." in front of their name, because it has proven to be a godsend for me, especially when used as an adjunct treatment modality to in-office laser treatments like the Gemini or Lumenis or what-have-you.

    I appreciate your post, and I, like you, would very much like to find out what sort of device the people that were harmed were using so we could find some sort of benchmark or "limit" for red light therapy.

    Best regards,

    David
    35 year-old male
    Erythmatotelangiectatic rosacea & Ocular
    20 + laser treatments.
    Toleraine Soothing Light Facial Fluid for moisturizer. I don't use a special cleanser. Clonidine daily; klonopin sometimes.
    BEST and CURRENT TREATMENT I use: Low-Level Red Light Therapy LED array.
    Please feel free to PM me with your low-level red light therapy (LLRLT) questions. I'm happy to help if I can.

  10. #10
    Senior Member peter.crouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Dear David,
    Please don't be put off by my posts - certainly my agenda for posting is not to diminish what you have achieved (hence my reference to admiration for those who have the personal initiative to research and the ingenuity to construct home made devices).

    As Geoffrey says, the interaction between physics and biology with LED photomodulation is an exciting development. The prospect of being able to trigger repair and rejuvenation processes at the cellular level with a sequence of light is truly fascinating. The issue here is not one of high power output, but one involving correct sequencing of the colour of the LEDs in the arrays. Anything that is going to increase blood flow is likely to be a bad idea for rosacea sufferers because they are a special group (but the technology will legitimately exist for treating other conditions).

    It sounds like you have you have been careful not to construct something too powerful to risk doing any real harm. The patients I saw this last week had not been so cautious and both sufered injury and I suspect that it is inevitable that it will be people with "Dr" in front of their names that people turn to when things go wrong. Geoffrey, as a vascular physiologist with an international rosacea pedigree is patently concerned that increasing blood flow will do more damage than good.

    Geoffrey and I are only urging caution and reiterating that doing anything that increases blood flow seems to be counterintuitive with rosacea. If the only means of testing home constructed devices is to sit in front of them and see what happens is it any wonder that harm results for some ?

    Kind regards,

    Peter

Similar Threads

  1. Accutane induced flushing/rosacea
    By Nana in forum Prescription medications
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 15th December 2013, 11:33 PM
  2. Does seb derm always itch to at least some degree?
    By Meadowlark in forum General rosacea questions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24th December 2012, 11:21 AM
  3. Retinoid induced flushing..
    By pleasehelp123 in forum Prescription medications
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 7th December 2011, 06:37 AM
  4. Best med for exercise-induced flushing?
    By pleasehelp123 in forum Prescription medications
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11th July 2011, 12:52 PM
  5. Accutane induced facial flushing?
    By RatherBeSkating in forum General rosacea questions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18th August 2009, 03:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •