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!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SarahVaughter

1726
Dermarolling / Microneedling / do you sell any products in a kit?
« on: November 10, 2010, 06:01:40 PM »
Hi Anna,

We stopped selling kits quite a few months ago because of technical reasons having to do with automatic stock management in our web store. Our store's stock management system is not able to update the number of items in store when sold items are part of a kit, and we needed to start tracking our stock quantities for logistical reasons, as our dispatch center is not our house any more but we have a real dispatch center now, with staff.

So sorry, no, you'll have to order any micro-needling products separately in our store here:

Dermarolling products


1727
Dermarolling / Microneedling / which cream should I use?
« on: November 10, 2010, 02:29:14 PM »
Yes, Pantothenic acid is an anti-inflammatory but the most important aspect for you is that it can be used during pregnancy or breast-feeding. It promotes would healing and keeps the rolled skin moisturized. (It is even recommended to promote the healing of nipples during breast feeding).

 

  I am not able to answer whether it has the same effect as copper peptides. There is no miraculous cream for stretch marks. Copper peptides are anti-inflammatory as well.

   

  The ointments typically contain 0,05 g of Pantothenic acid per g. of ointment so that amounts to 5%.

   Correct, you should use it in conjunction with vit. C.

1728
No preference. Several studies found no difference, meaning it's not the red blood cells responsible for the beneficial effects.

Autologous blood has been also used in Orthopedics to promote healing of tendons, muscles, joints etc.

   

 

This study claims that platelet rich plasma is not superior to "ordinary" blood:

   

    "Autologous blood injections for refractory lateral epicondylitis". Edwards SG, Calandruccio JH. (2003).

  “As yet, there has been no study to demonstrate that a PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma) injection is superior to ABI (Autologous Blood Injection), with both techniques demonstrating improvement in 70-80% of patients.[3]  

  http://www.medlibrary.org/medwiki/Autologous_blood_injection

 

   

 

The same here:

    Platelet Rich Plasma Injection

  "A PRP injection is similar to an ABI (Autologous Blood Injection), with the only difference being that a larger amount of blood is withdrawn from an arm vein. The blood is then placed into a tube, which in turn is placed into a machine called a centrifuge, which spins many thousand times a minute. The blood is left to spin for 15 minutes. At this point, the cells in the blood have separated from the fluid component of blood (plasma) into the three main cell types: red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. The platelets are then selectively removed and used for injection. In this way, the theoretical benefit is that a greater concentration of platelets is delivered into the damaged body part than if whole blood was given alone (approximately 8-10 times greater concentration). There is, however, no scientific research documenting this benefit at the time of writing."

  http://www.melbourneradiology.com.au/fact-sheets/autologous-blood-injection-platelet-rich-plasma-injection.html

 

   

In this study, "ordinary" blood was used for acne scars:

 

The use of autologous blood as a chromophore and tissue augmentation agent


  "After drawing blood from the patient, this was immediately reinjected into premarked areas of atrophic scars."

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14134738

1729
Dermarolling / Microneedling / Baby Quasar vs Clarisonic vs dermaroller?
« on: November 10, 2010, 03:31:57 AM »
Sounds good. Could I ask what you paid for it?

1730
Dermarolling / Microneedling / which cream should I use?
« on: November 09, 2010, 05:43:39 PM »
Try a cream or ointment containing Dexpanthenol or Pantothenic acid (also called Calcium Pantothenate or vitamin B5).

     

  No cream can get rid of stretch marks but Pantothenic acid is good for skin regeneration.

1731
Collagen is triggered as long as the needles reach the dermis. An 1 mm  roller reaches the dermis. It doesn’t reach the entire dermis (depending  where on the body you roll though) but it goes deep enough to make a  difference.

  Roll every 2 - 3 weeks (every three weeks very vigorously and densely  or every 2 weeks less vigorously).

   You should keep the skin moisturized after rolling and definitely  protect it by high-factor sun screen lotions.

1732
Dermarolling / Microneedling / Baby Quasar vs Clarisonic vs dermaroller?
« on: November 09, 2010, 10:06:50 AM »
I already wrote a long article on why I have no faith in Baby Quasar here:

http://forums.owndoc.com/dermarolling-microneedling/Your-opinion-please-LED-s-%28-Baby-Quasar-%29-and-copper-peptides /a>

More about LED (light-emitting diode) skin treatment here:  http://forums.owndoc.com/dermarolling-microneedling/LED-skin-treatment

 

I can't possibly comment on all those "miracle devices" out there, they're popping up like mushrooms on a wet Autumn day. Collagen regeneration does not happen when you shine some blinking colored lights on your skin for a minute, or when you vibrate your skin for a minute with ultrasound.

All these devices for the home market are deliberate scams. They are produced in China for around 15 dollars a piece and they are sold for at least ten times more to gullible people who put credence to their claims of "scientific studies proving.."  and "doctors/NASA/celebrities using.."

So far, there is only one proven method for collagen/elastin regeneration, and that is by causing very small skin injuries. Apart from IPL (intense pulse light) and Laser devices used by dermatologists, there is no light device for sale to the home market that does this. I add that IPL yields a lesser result than microneedling. I haven't seen evidence that ultrasound devices work at all.

The Clarisonic only says that it cleanses the skin and makes no claim to collagen regeneration.

Some non-microneedling devices do work, and their action is based on heating up the dermis, but there is a crucial difference between heating up the dermis and cutting through it. The latter method is much better, for many reasons. One reason is that blood plasma enters the micro-injuries and provides growth factors, hormones, vitamins and nutrients at the cellular level.

1733
Yes, some short lasting redness is normal even after rolling with 0.25 mm.

   

  Vit. C is acidic - it's Ascorbic acid. That is why it stings when applied on rolled skin.

   

  You can either dilute your serum with more water or do not apply vit. C immediately after rolling.  Rolling greatly enhances vit. C absorption but if the stinging is too unpleasant you can apply it later. Skin care should not become an ordeal :-)

    After rolling with 0.25, apply any skin care product of your choice.

   One of the reasons we chose Infadolan was that it contains a non-acidic form of vit. A called Retinyl acetate. Acidic forms of vit. A such as Retinoic acid (Tretionoin) will also sting when applied after dermarolling.   Infadolan is a skin-regenerative and protective ointment, not a cream. Ointments are very greasy and you should apply just a little.

   

  You can combine 0.25 mm three times a week with 1 mm, rolling every 2 - 3 weeks (every three weeks very vigorously and densely or every two weeks less vigorously).

1734
Dermarolling / Microneedling / I found a dermaroller with 540 needles
« on: November 07, 2010, 03:47:17 PM »
Ah, that one.

No, I wouldn't use that one at all. It doesn't use needles but a stamped "sword", as you can see on their picture (12th picture in the top picture caroussel on hansderma.net:



The problem with that is that it slices the skin open instead of puncturing it. Especially with so many needles, there is an unacceptably high risk of scarring with that method.

There really is no other cost-effective way to make 500 holes than abandoning the concept of needles and go for this much cheaper approach.

I understand that they want to be unique with many needles, but they aren't needles, they are knives and that's a very bad idea - too much skin damage will occur, especially at that density.

Buy an ordinary dermaroller with real needles instead of cheap stamped knives and simply roll a few times more up & down.

Picture of ruined skin sent to us by a customer of that 540-knives dermaroller (see below for a picture of the knives themselves):

1735
Dermarolling / Microneedling / what size roller is appropriate
« on: November 07, 2010, 05:50:41 AM »
I don't think so. The patent holder of the Dermaroller™ says it's useless and risky to go so deep as to penetrate the subcutaneous fatty tissue and areas with nerves. On top of that comes the risk of infection. 2 mm is really as deep as you should go on thick skin. We are considering selling 2.5 mm in the future, but only with a disclaimer that adverse side effects are the risk of the customer.

With such needle lengths (2.5 mm and above), proper sterilization is very important. You really shouldn't re-use such dermarollers. 2.5 mm and above is in the realm of doctors, not home-use. Some dermatologists do use such longer needles, but they are too risky to be used at home.

1736
Dermarolling / Microneedling / I found a dermaroller with 540 needles
« on: November 07, 2010, 05:44:26 AM »
Are you talking about this one?

http://forums.owndoc.com/dermarolling-microneedling/SRS-Micro-Meso-Roller

If we would think anything else but what we sell would be useful, we would sell it already. We are free to sell whatever we want because we don't produce rollers ourselves. We do think dermastamps are useful, so we're going to sell them soon. They are on their way to us.

1737
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.

1738
>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?

1739
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!

1740
Dermarolling / Microneedling / what size roller is appropriate
« on: November 04, 2010, 03:07:29 PM »
You can use 1.5 mm. It will be just a bit more painful and since you are a "beginner", I thought a less painful roller might be better for you.

   You can use the roller around the eyes except for the upper eyelids. The upper eyelids must not be rolled due to the risk of injuring the eyeball.

   

When you roll under the eyes, stick to this:  

  When you put your finger under your eye, you'll feel a bone. Do not roll closer to your eye than where that bone is. Pull/stretch your skin downwards from the eye with your other hand and roll it with the other.

     

  We sell a very small narrow 1.5 roller that is very easy to maneuver around the eyes and above the lip area. This roller has fewer needles and should not be used on large areas (such as the whole face) because it blunt faster due to the small number of needles it has.

   You can roll around the eyes with a normal size roller as well.

   You can for example buy a 1 mm roller + single needles and use the roller on your scars and around the eyes and use the single needles only on individual scars.

  Dermarollers are also very good to rejuvenate sun-damaged skin of the décolleté, forearms etc. You will only achieve results after repeated rolling. Pre-treat your skin with dry brushing or scrub with fine salt (in the shower) and apply vit. C.