Re: why do derms reject DR Nase bit of a moan about derms I'm afraid

[Guest guest]

I think Rick and Sallie have some really good observations. I agree

that some sort of double-blind test with controls for photoderm would

have helped. I could be wrong in that it could have been done, but I

don't think it has. (If someone knows of something, please correct

me!)

About the somewhat critical tone it has of derms, I think it's more

out of frustation similarly to the situation I've faced with derms

myself for the past 25 years. No derm told which ingredients to watch

out for in cleansers. No derm cared that I couldn't use any

moisturizers without flaring. No derm suggested using certain oils on

my face or grapeseed extract or antihistamines or Tagamet. All these

items have really helped bring my rosacea under control. Maybe now is

not the time to try to appease doctors but to show that a lot of us

have results with suggestions that were given to us by Dr. Nase which

were gathered from legitimate studies. Those studies are out there.

Why haven't they paid attention to them before I went to ever see a

derm for rosacea? I don't know if a book being less critical towards

derms would help the situation. Would it really help them pay

attention?

I have to admit that the NRS has changed their tune in the last 2

years from when I started getting their newsletter in '94. They

mention antihistamines as a way to circumvent flares brought on by

eating trigger foods, they mention photoderm as a way to clear up

visible broken blood vessels, they mention that the cause of rosacea

should be found. None of this was said before. The NRS used to

recommend topicals and antibiotics to control the situation. That was

the best they could offer for years.

I wonder why they changed their positions so suddenly. Could it be the

work of Dr. Nase and the communications from people from our group and

those helped by Dr. Nase pushing them for something better? It may be

that standing up for something better could be more beneficial in the

long run than trying to appease a certain segment that hasn't helped

us that much. Sometimes you can get further with vinegar than honey.

Just my two cents about the situation....

Take care,

Matija

> > > I am constantly reading about rejection of Dr Nase's work by

derms.

> > I can't

> > > understand this, why do derms not agree with him and reject his

> > work so

> > > easily?

> > > I can understand that a person may be wary of accepting another

> > person's

> > > theories especially with medicine but to not even take a peep or

to

> > just say

> > > " no he's wrong " . I would be perfectly happy if they came up

with a

> > > scientific reason for why Dr Nase but noone has offered one as

of

> > yet.

> > > If you also look at a lot if Dr Nase's research he has used many

> > references

> > > and has spoken to many other doctors so he has opened his mind

and

> > has been

> > > able to develop the knowledge he has today by listening to

others

> > and then

> > > ofcourse doing his own experiments and making his own

observations.

> > > When starting a science course one of the first things our

> > chemistry and

> > > biology teachers said was to be willing to learn and open your

mind

> > and use

> > > your observational skills. Did these derms go on a different

> > course? With

> > > science new things are being learnt every minute and it's so

> > important to

> > > keep " up to date " .........

> > >

> > >

> > >

_________________________________________________________________

> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

> > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

> >

> > --

> > Please read the list highlights before posting to the whole group

(http://rosacea.ii.net/toc.html)

> >

> > See http://www.drnase.com for info on his recently published book.

> >

> > To leave the list send an email to

rosacea-support-unsubscribe@y...

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Matija,

Here is an earlier post of mine raising the same issues on photoderm:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/28705

Geoffrey did respond immediately thereafter with this note:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rosacea-support/message/28707

You may recall you and I exchanged some private notes bemoaning the

lack of serious studies of photoderm efficacy. I think there is some

support in the literature for its impact on telangiectasias, but my

major issue is with claims of flushing reduction. (BTW, I strongly

suspect that the vast majority of laser derms would advocate pulsed

dye laser for significant shallow telangiectasias - sure it causes

significant purpura, but no one can argue that clearance occurs in far

fewer treatments than photoderm...)

In the past 6 months or so, Bitter Sr has started advocated even

higher filters (up to 1024nm YaG), presumably because he realizes that

he needs increased depth of penetration to get at the infamous

" feeder " vessels.

About a year ago, I visited Yale Med for a consultation there with a

leading expert in microcirculation (he literally wrote the standard

text on the subject). We got to talking about photoderm, and I gave

a quick lecture to him and a couple of his residents on the whiteboard

discussing my limited understanding of the physics of photoderm

(gleaned largely from ESC " application notes " ). I subsequently sent

him a series of notes and references, and he responded that he was

quite cynical of the claims about destruction of 'deeper' facial

vessels - he implied, if successful, this could have somewhat serious

implications beyond flushing (like impacting delivery of nutrients to

facial tissues).

The fact that Bitter Sr is still twiddling with higher filters

suggests to me that he is still not satified with the impact on

flushing. As I said in the above post, I challenge him and other

serious advocates to monitor facial blood flow via well-known

laser-doppler measurements during an entire photoderm series. Only

when I see these data will I be convinced that this is more than a

great way to make $500 for 30 minutes work. (Last statement is

intended to be deliberately inflammatory ...!!).

Rick

> I think Rick and Sallie have some really good observations. I agree

> that some sort of double-blind test with controls for photoderm

would

> have helped. I could be wrong in that it could have been done, but

I

> don't think it has. (If someone knows of something, please correct

> me!)

>

> About the somewhat critical tone it has of derms, I think it's more

> out of frustation similarly to the situation I've faced with derms

> myself for the past 25 years. No derm told which ingredients to

watch

> out for in cleansers. No derm cared that I couldn't use any

> moisturizers without flaring. No derm suggested using certain oils

on

> my face or grapeseed extract or antihistamines or Tagamet. All

these

> items have really helped bring my rosacea under control. Maybe now

is

> not the time to try to appease doctors but to show that a lot of us

> have results with suggestions that were given to us by Dr. Nase

which

> were gathered from legitimate studies. Those studies are out there.

> Why haven't they paid attention to them before I went to ever see a

> derm for rosacea? I don't know if a book being less critical

towards

> derms would help the situation. Would it really help them pay

> attention?

>

> I have to admit that the NRS has changed their tune in the last 2

> years from when I started getting their newsletter in '94. They

> mention antihistamines as a way to circumvent flares brought on by

> eating trigger foods, they mention photoderm as a way to clear up

> visible broken blood vessels, they mention that the cause of

rosacea

> should be found. None of this was said before. The NRS used to

> recommend topicals and antibiotics to control the situation. That

was

> the best they could offer for years.

>

> I wonder why they changed their positions so suddenly. Could it be

the

> work of Dr. Nase and the communications from people from our group

and

> those helped by Dr. Nase pushing them for something better? It may

be

> that standing up for something better could be more beneficial in

the

> long run than trying to appease a certain segment that hasn't

helped

> us that much. Sometimes you can get further with vinegar than honey.

>

> Just my two cents about the situation....

> Take care,

> Matija