Derminator



Please only post questions when you could not find the answer searching this forum or our instructions. Pre-and post-sales questions about our products only. Thank you!

Author Topic: Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.  (Read 13545 times)

lenamom

  • Guest
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« on: February 26, 2010, 01:55:46 AM »
Hi Sarah,

May I ask your opinion on L.E.D light therapy for home use eg. baby quasar? Does it have the same effect as dermarolling, ie.collagen induction? From what I can make out it does but would like to know what you think.

Also, how about using copper peptides used in conjunction with  the dermaroller? From my reading, it seems alot of people are getting great results with these.

Last question, I promise! Do I need at least a 1.0mm needle to induce collagen or will my 0.5mm induce some too or just improve product penetration?

Thanks for your time...this is fascinating stuff and I value your opinion and advice!

SarahVaughter

  • www.owndoc.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Medical journalist
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2010, 05:35:08 AM »
It is clear that "Baby Quasar" definitely does not induce any collagen formation. In my opinion, is a complete waste of (very much) money.  There have been studies done that seem to corroborate their claims, but I do not put the slightest credence in that device of theirs, after having read their website thoroughly. Look at the "study" (anyone can claim anything and publish it as a "study", the only thing that makes it credible is where it is published, and "Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery" is a glorified advertising rag. You'll see, when you read the abstract, that the idea and money for the "study" was put up by four commercial sponsors, all skin clinics. It would be interesting to find out whether one of the owners of those clinics also is the inventor/shareholder of the device or the company that makes it. The conclusion of their "study" is a joke. They claim to have found a "pulse code" that entices the skin to produce collagen, lol. You are free to believe whatever you want of course - by all means buy it, try it and I'm sure we're all interested in seeing a comparison between microneedling and that thing. The best evidence would be to do one half with a dermaroller/single needle, the other half with the "Baby Quasar". I will give you your money back for all dermarolling products you have ever bought from us if the "Quasar" works better than our dermarolling products.

Since the invention of electric light, snakeoil salesmen have been selling gadgets with blinking lights, claiming they will cure just about any ill. Perhaps this is the first device that does what it promises, who knows.

The only study they mention (but not identify or link to) is "Clinical studies in the U.K. revealed that the combination of red/infrared light (Baby Quasar) and blue light (Baby Blue) treatments provided the maximum benefit in treatment of inflammatory acne." Nothing about collagen! And they falsely suggest that this "study" used their products. The only light that can help inflammatory acne is UV (ultra-violet) light, because it kills bacteria. But the "Baby Blue" does not use the (very expensive) UV LEDs, on the picture on their site they clearly use ordinary visible-light LEDs, so their product won't even work on acne - let alone on scars, wrinkles etc. The picture on their site is either fake or they use white LEDs with a purple filter, because purple LEDs do not exist.

I have delved into the publications that mention "mitochondrial antennae molecules" and the other terms they fence with, and it is all rather questionable. Even worse, the "Baby Quasar" is in fact a cheap, debilitated ripoff of the equally questionable invention by Dr. Robert Weiss. Perhaps the easiest way to debunk their claims is proving that their advertising is highly deceptive (a pack of lies). Look at this for example: http://www.cosmeticsurgery-news.com/babyquasar.html where it is claimed that the system is a "Home Laser" . Well - their device does not contain lasers, because even their own advertising material says it doesn't. Their device is just a cheap gadget with a few dozen ordinary LEDs and in materials it's worth about thirty bucks. But they charge a whopping 449 dollars. Look at how they market this thing: "Using technology developed by NASA for healing in space". Come on, do they really believe we're that stupid? from their FAQ, we learn that they're lying about how many wavelengths they "heal" with: Only red and infrared, making two wavelengths, not four. Red LEDS are the cheapest, perhaps that explains why they chose red ones. Infrared is nothing but heat, so they could just as well have put in an ordinary lightbulb or heating spiral. So this patented NASA "healing tech" is twelve red LEDs. The cheapest red LEDs cost 5 to 7 cents a piece, but the world's brightest red LEDs cost half a buck each. The same with infrared LEDs. So the device has at most twelve dollars in LEDs and a few bucks in additional electronics. The aluminum casing might be the most expensive component. The thing is nothing but the most expensive LED flashlight in the world. Here you go: For $ 19.95 you have an ultra-bright red LED flashlight with an aluminum case. No need for infrared LEDs - those red LEDs give off enough heat by themselves, especially if you press the flashlight to your skin.



If you look further, in their FAQ they actually don't say it does anything specific for scars, stretchmarks, wrinkles etc. Nowhere they talk about collagen regeneration - of course, because there is no scientific evidence to back up such a claim, and since it's a US-based company, they'd get slammed for deceptive advertising. They only say in "How does it work": "The red and infrared light stimulates the human skin at the cellular level to increase the cellular level of activity. This, in turn, stimulates the body to build new capillaries and improve the lymphatic system, which are both essential to creating improved skin. The result is a younger, healthier looking skin." I also am very interested in specifically which NASA astronauts have used that "technology" for their "skin healing", in space..



If you want to improve your skin appearance you'll have to work at it and suffer a little - there are no magical shortcuts. For $ 449,- you can get a few year's supply of excellent dermarollers and skin products. Don't get duped by those scammers. Dermarolling is that "quantum leap", that amazing invention allowing you to greatly improve your skin with relatively little effort. If you would like me to post a dozen scientific articles that prove dermarolling works, I can easily do so. I invite them to do the same here. Blinking purple mumbo-jumbo voodoo "quasar" lights impress the impressionable but won't do a thing for your skin. It makes sense that skin produces new elastin and collagen when it's damaged. It does not make sense that the skin does that when you flash Morse-code onto it with a bunch of colored LEDs.

LEDs are simply light emitting diodes, those are those tiny colored "lamps" used in consumer electronics for the past three decades. "Baby Quasar" says they use "NASA technology" and "four wavelengths of natural light", meaning at most, if we were to believe their claims (which have turned out false), they cobbled together some dime-a-dozen red, green, yellow and blue LEDs and conjured up some pseudo-scientific abracadabra. Four frequencies of light together = white light. Ordinary sunlight should therefore work just as well or even better than their device. But we all know from experience that it doesn't.

Collagen- and elastin formation is caused by complex chemical changes in the skin, caused by serious mechanical damage to it. Blinking LEDs are quite literally not going to cut it.

We read about their "SequePulse® technology" and frankly, it's hilarious. I'm sure they don't even believe it themselves.

Copper peptides indeed have demonstrated positive effects and you can certainly try them. There are some ifs-and-buts and I plan to write a front page article about them soon, perhaps this weekend - thank you for the idea!

If anyone else has good ideas for an article - let me know :-)

A 0.5 mm roller will hardly induce any new collagen formation. 0.5 mm needles penetrate only 0.3 mm into the skin and that simply is not enough.

(John helped me with this posting - he understands electronics)
My comments should not be considered medical advice.

The dermaneedling part of our site is http://owndoc.com/dermarolling/

Our digital dermaneedling device ($170 for home users and clinics): http://derminator.com/

Derminator videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/owndoc/videos?flow=grid

lenamom

  • Guest
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2010, 02:18:32 PM »
Thank you so much for that info-it certainly is food for thought!!!

cutismax

  • Guest
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2010, 05:22:37 PM »
Sarah,

I must disagree with you in regards to the LED technology being completely useless. I agree with you that it does not stimulate collagen, however patients do note that there is an improvement in overall texture to the skin. As far as Robert Weiss, MD he did not invent the LED machine to which you are referring, that would be David McDaniel, MD Dr. Weiss, did do a study with this machine and presented his findings at the ASLMS (American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery). With that said, Dr. Weiss is contacted pretty much by all of the laser companies to do studies since he is one of the top dermatologists working with lasers in the world. Having met Dr. Weiss on several occasions and casually speaking to him when asked "What do you really think can improve the overall appearance of the skin?" he'll say its photomodulation. This was in a setting when we were doing a free skin cancer screening and casually chit chatting about what technology is out there. He wasn't out to sell me lasers or anything. (BTW Dr. Weiss has this amazing poreless complexion its almost too perfect for a man, but he attributes it to regular use of gentlewaves). I've even seen him give a talk about a completely different machine (a fractionated laser) and he will say the same thing. I feel comfortable believing Dr. Weiss' studies only because every dermatologist that I've met that knows him, and every resident that I meet from Johns Hopkins and Universtity of Maryland medical school will say that he is probably the most ethical docs out there and he can't be bought. You many roll your eyes, but I've met too many people who can corroborate it. Addtionally, Tina Alster, MD, another top dermatologist in lasers and cosmetic procedures had talked about her skepticism in regards to the LED technology and she tells a story about a patient that she was treating with Botox and fillers and noted that her skin was looking fantastic and she asked the patient if she was doing anything differently and the patient replied that the aesthetician would put her in front of the "blinkety-blink" device (ie gentlewaves) after her facials.

As far as LED technology in general there are far more studies out there supporting its role in cosmetic and medical dermatology than there are for collagen induction therapy.

I do agree that we all need a healthy amount of skepticism when looking at any of these new devices or treatments.  I think its important for individuals to have realistic expectations and be prepared for the possibilty of disappointment. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is, but that doesn't keep us from hoping it might be true.

SarahVaughter

  • www.owndoc.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Medical journalist
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2010, 06:13:33 PM »
There may be something to photostimulating the Mitochondria as I've written about here, but a theoretical possibility doesn't mean that actual results are being achieved in the field. It all reeks pungently of quackery. Pulsating/blinking lights are a gimmick, since the frequencies required to stimulate cells and molecules are many orders of magnitude above human perception.

The claim that "less than a minute" is required for the actual inpatient treatment is another sign of scammery. I suppose that's done to be able to process as many patients as possible with just one of those "gentlewave" machines. The whole "Gentlewaves" thing stinks to high heaven. Have you seen their TV commercial? "I am Dr. Doris Day and NASA uses the GentleWave technology to heal cuts and bruises in space!".. You do realize, don't you, that such a "machine" cost less than a hundred dollars? A yellow LED costs about one cent, bulk wholesale. To the end consumer they're sold for 3 cents. A few hundred in a plastic case and Bob's your uncle. Investment recouped on day one, then it's pure profit, made in less than a minute with zero effort or risk. A quack's dream. Of course the producer must make enough money to pay for those TV commercials, so those flashing LED things are produced for $99,- in China and then sold for thousands to the clinics, who make tens of thousands off gullible folk such as yourself. Do youself a favor and buy, for 25 dollars from the link I gave you, a few hundred LEDs, stick them in a couple of seven-dollar breadboards, hook up an old power supply (e.g. an old laptop adapter - John says they'll have plenty oomph for the job - put about twelve 1.6 V LEDs in series for the standard 18 V power supply) and you'll have a DIY "Gentlewaves" device that costs less than two sessions at the clinic. Within 100 treatment seconds you'll be saving money! It takes about an hour to build such a device yourself. No soldering required. John says a seven year old child could literally make one of those flashing LED panels like this. If you insist on the flashing, push and pull the plug in the power socket on-off-on-off..

The lady in the TV commercial says that the LED frequency is "very special" - 590 nanometres. 590 nM is another word for "yellow". As you can see in the first link - 588 and 591 nM LED's are almost a dime a dozen. NASA tech allright..

Even cheaper: Since the Sun outputs all frequencies, from Infrared through the entire visible spectrum to ultra violet, all you have to do to achieve the same effect as the "GentleWaves machine" is to face the bright sun and wave a piece of cardboard in front of your face for a minute.

On top of that, the before-and-after pictures show absolutely nothing, on Gentlewaves' site, skintreatment.com. They're tiny photo's that can't be enlarged. Impossible to see any improvement on them. The site is 100% geared towards sales, it's a typical "sales funnel" site with much more emphasis on selling than on real information. People can believe whatever they want. If you choose to believe that 45 seconds of blinking lights (for the price of a good dermaroller..) gives better results than a dermarolling session then be my guest, relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten!
My comments should not be considered medical advice.

The dermaneedling part of our site is http://owndoc.com/dermarolling/

Our digital dermaneedling device ($170 for home users and clinics): http://derminator.com/

Derminator videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/owndoc/videos?flow=grid

cutismax

  • Guest
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2010, 07:30:57 PM »
Sarah,

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your statement. Obviously you have a lot of anger about this whole LED issue. I'm saying LED technology is not worthless.

I didn't say much about dermarolling other than there are more studies to back up LEDs. I actually find collagen induction therapy via needling a concept that makes sense, we need more data for it to gain credibility in the general cosmetic medical community. I think CIT is worthwhile, and I will gladly perform it on myself and let my patient's know what I have experienced. I'm a PA in dermatology and patients ask me all the time about all the things that are available to improve their skin. The practice that I work for does not offer cosmetic services or sell product I refer people out. But I do give them my opinion on what is worthwhile and what is not. It all depends on what a patient is trying to achieve. I don't think LED as a standalone treatment would make a patient happy, but I do think that it is a nice adjunctive treatment. Where does CIT fit into my recommendation list? If a patient were to ask I would say that the theory behind it makes sense and its worth looking into. Since my primary interest is the treatment of skin cancer, I'm always looking at what is available to treat these patients, and reduce their tumor load. Luckily I have a lot of options, including photodynamic therapy with LED (no, not the gentlewaves but other wavelengths). Again, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. It does not look like CIT will help with reducing precancers or skin cancers as evidenced in the before and after pictures on Des Fernandes' and Horst Liebl's websites where there is an obvious basal cell skin cancer and obvious actinic keratoses before AND after treatment. They remain because the epidermis is intact, but the collagen is stimulated. It appears that the skin is firmer and plumper and the wrinkles are reduced, just as claimed. So if I had a patient with a lot of precancerous changes who was wanting rejuvenation or collagen stimulation, I would say they would benefit from Levulan with IPL or LED or a fractionated laser if they were willing to spend the money. Again what works depends on what you are trying to achieve.

And as far as Gentlewaves being a big bad profit monger, well all of these companies are like that. I've been to conferences  where on the exhibit floor the reps are pushing pushing pushing product and then you get them away and they think you aren't listening and I hear them bashing their company and product. I recall Thermage still around, very painful, expensive and works on some people but you can't predict who it works for and who it doesn't work for. I also remember the Threadlift people coming around and there was so much buzz about it, but the results were crappy and expensive.

Anyways, I'm not trying to get into an argument, nor am I trying to bash Dermarolling/CIT. I wouldn't be rolling myself or buying product from you if I thought it was a waste of time and money. I do think you have some good information on dermarolling and obviously trust that you have a decent product that I'm willing to use to create a bunch of punctures on my skin without risk of irreparable injury. I simply disagree with your statement about LED technology and its usefulness or lack thereof.

SarahVaughter

  • www.owndoc.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Medical journalist
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2010, 08:03:34 PM »
>Obviously you have a lot of anger about this whole LED issue.

I merely explained that there is no evidence that it works. All there is is evidence that those who sell it are scammers. I pointed out some of that evidence. Of course, when people like yourself come on our forum, advertizing a competing product we think is a scam, saying that those LED's have more scientific validation than microneedling, they have to expect some counter-arguments.

If you want a serious discussion, you should back up your opinion with for example links to studies, so that we can examine, criticize and discuss those. Simply pulling rank ("I am a dermatologist and I think it can be useful") is counterproductive. For all I know, you are a major stakeholder in GentleWaves. I noticed that you posted your GentleWaves advocacy here less than 48 hours before I first mentioned GentleWaves. Are you sure you're not part of their forum spam team?
My comments should not be considered medical advice.

The dermaneedling part of our site is http://owndoc.com/dermarolling/

Our digital dermaneedling device ($170 for home users and clinics): http://derminator.com/

Derminator videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/owndoc/videos?flow=grid

cutismax

  • Guest
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2010, 11:23:17 PM »
Omnilux and Lightwaves seem like solid LED devices. BTW I think Light Biosciences website is no longer active. So no I am not a stakeholder in any laser company unless by some round about way my 401K is somehow invested in whatever bundle of mutual funds I have.

Pubmed.gov  search for "percutaneous collagen induction" = 17 hits of which 9 are relevant 3 of the articles did not have abstracts available. 1 article was a rat skin study saying that PCIT may not cause dyspigmentation  and 1 article was the same rat skin study but this time they were talking about PCIT as possibly being helpful in regenerating skin without scarring. Another article is a review/commentary on how PCIT works. The last article (which was the 1st published) is the retrospective study of 480 patients and looks at evidence of improvement of wrinkles and scars. The 3 articles that did not have abstracts available have the same set of authors as the 2 published rat skin studies, so I'm inclined to think that this is looking at the same set of rats but different parameters other than dyspigmentation and scars.

I don't see any other human prospective double-blinded studies or split face studies with a larger N than 480 for PCIT

At pubmed search "light emitting diodes" yielded 1,495 hits so I narrowed it down to "light emitting diodes and skin" any got 84 hits here a just a few of the relevant articles.

Importance of pulsing illumination parameters in low-level-light therapy.

Barolet D, Duplay P, Jacomy H, Auclair M.

J Biomed Opt. 2010 Jul-Aug;15(4):048005.

Prophylactic low-level light therapy for the treatment of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a case series.

Barolet D, Boucher A.

Lasers Surg Med. 2010 Aug;42(6):597-60Radiant near infrared light emitting Diode exposure as skin preparation to enhance photodynamic therapy inflammatory type acne treatment outcome.

Barolet D, Boucher A.

Lasers Surg Med. 2010 Feb;42(2):171-8.

Photorejuvenation with topical methyl aminolevulinate and red light: a randomized, prospective, clinical, histopathologic, and morphometric study.

Blue-light irradiation regulates proliferation and differentiation in human skin cells.

Liebmann J, Born M, Kolb-Bachofen V.Regulation of skin collagen metabolism in vitro using a pulsed 660 nm LED light source: clinical correlation with a single-blinded study.

Barolet D, Roberge CJ, Auger FA, Boucher A, Germain L.

J Invest Dermatol. 2009 Dec;129(12):2751-9. Epub 2009 Jul 9.J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Jan;130(1):259-69. Epub .Immunohistochemical expression of matrix metalloproteinases in photodamaged skin by photodynamic therapy.

Almeida Issa MC, Piñeiro-Maceira J, Farias RE, Pureza M, Raggio Luiz R, Manela-Azulay M.

Br J Dermatol. 2009 Sep;161(3):647-53. Epub 2009 Jun 10.

Improvement of postfractional laser erythema with light-emitting diode photomodulation.

Alster TS, Wanitphakdeedecha R.

Dermatol Surg. 2009 May;35(5):813-5. Epub 2009 Apr 6.

A study to determine the effect of combination blue (415 nm) and near-infrared (830 nm) light-emitting diode (LED) therapy for moderate acne vulgaris.

Sadick N.

J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009 Jun;11(2):125-8.

c

ETC

These are just a few and I'm tired of cutting a pasting.

Basically I do know that LED has been studied more than CIT with a lot more evidence backing it up. A lot of the studies that are coming out now is looking out how and why we see biologic changes with light therapy. I don't appreciate you accusing me of misrepresenting myself to sell a product that basically is no longer for sale. I'm stating an opinion that LED isn't completely baseless and furthermore I'm also validating CIT does look promising and has some basis to work. You know when I first found out about this technique I was really excited. When I talked to other dermatologists they were a lot more skeptical. I think its important to have an open mind about things and making broad statements about something being a piece of crap and worthless without the experience or the research to back it up limits you. I simply felt that I have some background knowledge in regards to things related to skin.  Is it ok for someone to state a difference of opinion in this forum without being called a liar? Being that I'm a guest in your forum I will graciously walk away from this topic. Goodnight.

SarahVaughter

  • www.owndoc.com
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
  • Medical journalist
Your opinion please- LED's (Baby Quasar) and copper peptides.
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2010, 04:24:46 AM »
I never said that light can't have a positive effect on skin. I'm not even disputing all studies done. You are not even citing specific studies and their results, you're merely pasting some studies. For all we know, their results are negative. I have read the most promising studies already, and I wasn't impressed. The results achieved by micro-needling are spectacular and repeatable and logically explained. The before-and-after pictures are amazing. So there is no need to do endless studies. We already know that it works. Sure, there may have been be more studies on LEDs done. But their outcomes are exceedingly boring. All they do is prove that intense light improves acne and inflammation. But we already knew that. A bit of direct sun does wonders for zits and pimples. UV light kills bacteria. No big deal.

What I am saying is that if one were to use controlled exposure to ordinary sunlight, that the effect would be similar or better. Because we like logic here. Our site is based on hard science, not on what we "like to believe", as you put it. An attractive belief for sure, because it would be the easiest conceivable way to make money, for dermatologists. A few seconds in front of a flashing light - a science-fiction dream come true.

In essence, the studies on LED's say this:

- Infrared light does slightly helpful things for skin problem A

- Blue light does slightly helpful things for skin problem B

- Yellow light does slightly helpful things for skin problem C

- Red light does slightly helpful things for skin problem D

We don't dispute this per se, even though the studies are often done by folks having a stake in the outcome. Because studies are usually commissioned, funded or otherwise sponsored by the stakeholders in the LED/Laser devices. Those devices are much better patentable, and those patents are much better enforceable, than microneedling products. And the profits are orders of magnitudes higher. Hence there is plenty of investor money to fund studies with. A funded study is the same as a bribe in our book. Sorry.

We don't dispute the notion that light can be beneficial to skin, simply because it is a natural thing for the skin to be exposed to light, and it is a known fact that a lack of sunlight leads to a higher incidency of cancer even. In short, sunlight is important for healthy skin - only not too much!

It's of course a logical conclusion that when just about any light frequency tested (infrared, red, yellow, blue, ultraviolet) does something allegedly useful, that this implies that sunlight would be the very best, because it radiates all those frequencies simultaneously!

A similar, albeit reversed conclusion can be made pertaining homeopathy. Homeopathy-believers claim that infitesimally small amounts of certain substances can cure certain illnesses. And they claim that some studies show some evidence for that. However, their assertions can be disproved by simply noting that seawater would then cure all disease, because it contains trace amounts of all substances on Earth. As with the LED studies, Homeopathy-believers can't point to randomized double-blind studies showing results that would give us credence into their beliefs.

What we say is that the wrong conclusions are drawn by questionable companies, that are solely out to make money and do not care about skin treatment. Their "conclusion" is that "If various light frequencies do various good things for the skin, then we should sell various LED devices for the skin and get rich. We will cite the studies as proof that it is money well spent".

I disagree with that. I think that a few minutes of sunlight per day are better than any of these LED devices, simply because the exposure time and light intensity are negligeable, especially compared to what can be achieved with sunlight exposure. It's simple common sense in the face of the highly dodgy marketing efforts we see out there. Believe all you want, but when you come here pushing GentleWaves, you can expect the reaction that you got. You would have gotten the same reaction if you had advocated Homeopathy, Reiki or Astrology.

Astrology is a good comparison. I am not denying that there is not such a thing as different character of people based on their star sign, but I reject all the other nonsense around it. A person's star sign simply is the distance to the Sun when certain brain structures were developed. Because the Earth goes in an ellipse around our Sun, hence its distance varies with the seasons. The growing fetal brain is exposed to a different solar gravitational pull when conceived in spring, than in Autumn.

So there is some scientific backup for Astrology and for dermal light therapy.  However I disagree with Astrologers' and LED-therapists further conclusions. I disagree that twice 45 seconds a week of flashing yellow lights does anything for the skin, as the GentleWaves people claim. I think it is deliberate deception of people, cheating them out of a hundred dollars a month for a while. And it is naive "professionals" like you that facilitate it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

The GentleWaves folks certainly appear to be ducks. Everything they say and write is baloney. "NASA uses the same technology to heal cuts in space". Dressing up as doctors, using scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo, yawn-inducing before-and-after pictures, it's nothing but a scam. There may be legitimate uses for certain Laser treatments for certain skin conditions for example. But the commercial devices I've seen so far are quackery, that's our opinion and you haven't managed to change it. I remind you that "Doctors filing patents" means absolutely nothing. All it means is that someone hopes to make money by trying to monopolize a gadget. Patents neither vetted for neither legal nor technological viability. The village clown can get a patent for an immortality device made out of empty detergent boxes and it will be duly granted after paying the filing fees.
My comments should not be considered medical advice.

The dermaneedling part of our site is http://owndoc.com/dermarolling/

Our digital dermaneedling device ($170 for home users and clinics): http://derminator.com/

Derminator videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/owndoc/videos?flow=grid