 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:51 pm  |
James
You asked why I did not call you. It is a long distance call from Switzerland. I did send you TWO PMs, which you did not respond to.
I honestly do not see why you had a problem with me saying that I expected the company to provide the best links to scientific data. I am in business, and this is a normal practice.
I said I was underwhelmed by the information in the links.
No where in my message was there any attack on you - either direct or insinuated. Non was intended.
I am actually offended by what you wrote when I was asking normal questions before spending money for the device. I said I could not find research, for skin rejuvenation and was asking for your help as you are the company that is selling the device.
From what you wrote, you do not have the research to show that this works in skin rejuvenation. It would be better to say this. The links you provided that were newsletters is not scientific research - more marketing material.
Regarding the long term improvement - these are NOT my words but the words from one of the links you referenced
'Antiaging' Visible red light at 660nm activates ATP in skin cells and increase the rate of production of collagen for a few days, giving a lifting effect. No permanent improvement of skin aging has been demonstrated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:21 pm |
I have had trouble ajusting to my Quasar SP after using my Baby for 4 months. After 2 treatments with the Quasar I called James and told him that I wasn't getting the plumping of the skin like I did with the Baby, and he has been more than happy try help me find a regemin best suited for my skin. I was using the Quasar just the way I used the Baby every 5 days, and James asked me to use it every 3 days instead, and "Voila" I think I am seeing results....Infact, James still does not know, I got to call him tomorrow to let him know that I am happy with the 3 day routine for 36 minutes. There you go James - now you know...LOL.
I can only speak for myself - for me it was a matter of fine tuning. Thanks James.  |
_________________
3938 |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:03 pm |
FoxyMama1,
Thank you. I will call James tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:09 pm |
Forgot to say that I am using it only once a week since I have dry and sensitive skin. Looking forward to James suggestions. I really want it to work very much. 
Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:20 pm |
Doba,
so do I.
If you get new recommendations from James - please, let me know as well.
TIA,
Lucy, |
_________________
Early 50s, Skin: combin.,semi-sensitive, fair with occasional breakouts, some old acne scars, freckles, under-eye wrinkles; Redhead with hazel eyes |
|
|
|
|
Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:30 pm |
| sigma wrote: |
Doba,
so do I.
If you get new recommendations from James - please, let me know as well.
TIA,
Lucy, |
Lucy,
I will. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:35 am |
| swissmiss wrote: |
James
You asked why I did not call you. It is a long distance call from Switzerland. I did send you TWO PMs, which you did not respond to.
I honestly do not see why you had a problem with me saying that I expected the company to provide the best links to scientific data. I am in business, and this is a normal practice.
I said I was underwhelmed by the information in the links.
No where in my message was there any attack on you - either direct or insinuated. Non was intended.
I am actually offended by what you wrote when I was asking normal questions before spending money for the device. I said I could not find research, for skin rejuvenation and was asking for your help as you are the company that is selling the device.
From what you wrote, you do not have the research to show that this works in skin rejuvenation. It would be better to say this. The links you provided that were newsletters is not scientific research - more marketing material.
Regarding the long term improvement - these are NOT my words but the words from one of the links you referenced
'Antiaging' Visible red light at 660nm activates ATP in skin cells and increase the rate of production of collagen for a few days, giving a lifting effect. No permanent improvement of skin aging has been demonstrated. |
:::GROUP HUG:::
I will gather something more suited for what you are looking for. I repeat time and time again about the struggles because of the ambiguity and twists everyone puts on the research, if you look back at my previous posts.
I will be back in touch shortly.
James |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:43 am |
| hkyarrington wrote: |
I think Swissmiss has a very legitimate question, asking if the (baby)Quasar has been tested itself. I wondered that myself too, do you have that information James? when you apply for the FDA I assume you will have to come up with that information as well?
Its easy to say that well you buy a Honda, or Chanel you do not know either, but at least those are established brandnames. When someone is willing to spend 450 or 1800 dollars, it is reasonable to get an answer how we know that it has the wavelights you say it has? |
First, HK, I totally agree.
FOR ALL TO READ. UNDERSTANDING MY POSITION MOVING FORWARD
Because I chose to engage in a part of the business that I have no authority over, I can now only offer limited answers and access to sensitive, legal, government, or FDA information. Not a bad thing, I go back to the fun part of the business that my reputation is built on.
Luckily for me, I just go back to the good times of helping customers who have questions about light therapy, want to do comparison shopping, or need my help because they want to find the correct regimen on achieving results for specific things. And, of course, talk to all of our existing customers from time to time, which I love!
That is the part of my career I enjoy most, and what others have written positive and heart warming comments about.
HK - Now to your questions...
What I can tell you is that we are manufacturing our devices in FDA approved facilities, and do have FDA approal on our devices.
We always offered the wavelength range that we use, but our sequepulse technology and specific wavelengths are sources of competitive advantage, and therefor you may not find them public. We have to be using technology that is FDA approved, or our devices would not be approved.
I really do hope that makes sense.
For Everyone continued
Back to the James you are used to (hope that is a good thing   )
The James you speak to when talking about Light Therapy, Quasars, how it will work for you, how to better treatments and techniques, and on and on and on. The things you were used to from all my previous posts.
Yes, from time-to-time, I can answer some more burning questions, but if they are out of my authority at AdvanThera, you must contact our CEO directly.
Yes, I will continue to point you to places and products that answer questions for you.
I think this will make us both happy when it comes to my relationship with you. The sensitive topics I mentioned must be directed to our CEO Peter Nesbitt at: peter@advanthera.com
I do hope you understand. I would appreciate your repsonses or PM's letting me know your thoughts. I do take our customers to heart and accept you as friends and family.
Being between a rock and a hard place put me in an even further bad place by potentially disrupting my reputation that I had with you, and I value that too much to risk it. I did risk it by replying to a question that I shouldn't have, and taking it a little personal (sorry swiss).
The questions you are asking are valid and I do encourage you to seek those answers by contacting our CEO and OTHER companies as well. I wish I was allowed to do this for you, but currently, it is not in my authority to do so.
Simply. I miss you gals/guys. It was not my job to offer my personal contact information and ability to reach me on weekends, nights, crazy hours. It was my choice when joining AdvanThera. Why? Because of the amazing customers and my belief and witness to the technology.
- Be Well -
James Bressi
AdvanThera
P: 800.944.1523
C: 610.999.2668
E: jamesbressi@AdvanThera.com
On The Web:www.AdvanThera.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:05 pm |
| sigma wrote: |
Doba,
so do I.
If you get new recommendations from James - please, let me know as well.
TIA,
Lucy, |
Lucy,
I spoke to James and told him that after six times I don't see any improvement. He told me that after three times he likes people to use it differently. He asked several questions and here is my new routine: I will still use it every 7 days, however, I am not going to use orange light any longer. I will start with red light first. After that I will use CW-the green light for 4 minutes per section. And if want I can continue to use the cone on problem areas (I plan to use it on the areas that are hard to reach, such as my nose). He also told to use a cleanser and exfoliater before each use. He suggested 2MM by Ice Elements and their cleanser. After the treatment, I have to wash my face and apply a good moisturizer. I hope that this will work. If not, James will suggest something else. 
Lucy, please call James and talk to him because my routine might not be good for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:14 pm |
Doba,
thank you so much.
I am going to call him in a few minutes (still in the office, just got a few free minutes).
Will keep you posted.
Thanks again,
Lucy. |
_________________
Early 50s, Skin: combin.,semi-sensitive, fair with occasional breakouts, some old acne scars, freckles, under-eye wrinkles; Redhead with hazel eyes |
|
|
|
 |
Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:02 pm |
| doba wrote: |
| sigma wrote: |
Doba,
so do I.
If you get new recommendations from James - please, let me know as well.
TIA,
Lucy, |
Lucy,
I spoke to James and told him that after six times I don't see any improvement. He told me that after three times he likes people to use it differently. He asked several questions and here is my new routine: I will still use it every 7 days, however, I am not going to use orange light any longer. I will start with red light first. After that I will use CW-the green light for 4 minutes per section. And if want I can continue to use the cone on problem areas (I plan to use it on the areas that are hard to reach, such as my nose). He also told to use a cleanser and exfoliater before each use. He suggested 2MM by Ice Elements and their cleanser. After the treatment, I have to wash my face and apply a good moisturizer. I hope that this will work. If not, James will suggest something else.
Lucy, please call James and talk to him because my routine might not be good for you. |
Yes -
Here is a little more detail:
First, I ENCOURAGE GREATLY that you keep in touch with me.
Now, I do prefer you FIRST use a cleanser (typically non-foaming) that is catered to your skin type (normal-to-dry, normal-to-oily) and wash your face. (I get mine from Ice Elements). Pad your face dry and make sure it "cools off".
Then, in a non-humid area (humid areas are like your bathroom), use Ice Elements 2MM (2 minute miracle) exfoliating gel. It can take a few times to get it just right, but apply a thin layer to your face, let it sit for about 2-3 minutes, and then rub your skin in massaging circles. You will notice "balls" build up, which accoring to Ice Elements is not the product, but your skin. This isn't something you use every day, but about once every 3 days.
Wash your face CLEAN of ANY PRODUCT. I want you to perform your light therapy treatment on skin clean of any left over product.
Now, just like mentioned, I prefer that you see how you respond after following the general guidelines the first 2-3 weeks, and then "graduate" to the the higher level by abandoning the low frequency (orange) setting.
Instead, start with the High Frequency (red indicator) for two minutes per each section (6 in total), and complete all each sections (12 min. in total). Then follow with th Continuous Wave Moe (green indicator) for four minutes per section and compplete all sections of the face (24 min.)
After you have completed this, apply a great moisturizer to your skin. I have fallen in love with the moisturizer that I got from Ice Elements.
If you have products that do what I have mentioned above and they work great for you, continue using them. I, and other customers, have had such positive results from Ice Elements (specifically the products I mentioned), that I am using them as a source.
NOW MOST IMPORTANT, is how you are performing the technique. It is hard to make it look as simple as it is when typed out in black and white, so give me a call and we can go over it.
From there, I will further monitor your response and results and figure out if more frequent use, less use, or spot treatments in between will help you achieve results or better results than you are currently experiencing.
Again, my recommendations vary, and I may change up your routing a few times unti lwe get it just right. It was best said above "I hope that this will work. If not, James will suggest something else.
Lucy, please call James and talk to him because my routine might not be good for you."
Give me a call!
James Bressi
AdvanThera
P: 800.944.1523
C: 610.999.2668
E: jamesbressi@AdvanThera.com
On The Web:www.AdvanThera.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:30 am |
There are often contradictory results and conclusions from different studies... For example some studies suggest that kojic acid, parabens or various other substance used in skincare products are cancerous. Other studies yield different conclusions.
There are lasers on the market that do more harm than good depending on the patient's skin type and skill of the doctor. When it comes to this type of technology, one cannot possibly know everything - there are infinite studies that can be done in this field and it's up to us to take an educated risk, if we choose to take one at all.
In my humble opinion, James is doing an excellent job in answering questions and addressing issues. I don't think there are many people who could do better job- as much as he likes his job, it is a job and we can't expect him to answer on his off time. There is life outside LEDs
I hope he doesn't become a scapegoat . There are other other companies selling LED products but he was kind enough to post. He sold units from his presence here but I have to say from personal experience, it is very rare to experience the level of service that he provides.
I only had the unit for a short while but I"ve already seen improvements on my skin. I too am very concerned about the safety but as knowlegable as he is, I don't expect James to know everything. It would be ignorant and irresponsible of me to expect otherwise. If I wanted to get an unbiased opinion, it's my own responsibility to look up all the research there is and draw my own conclusion. Even drug companies who have millions to spend on research have been known to put drugs with very harmful heatlh effects on the market.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
E from Canada (Thanks James for emailing me after I received my instuctions; I didn't get to emailing you back yet because eveything went ok with my quasar) |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:37 am |
angelina I agree with alot of what you said. As someone that has been questioning LED technology both from an effectiveness standpoint and from a safety standpoint lately I want to add something here. I just want to make it clear what my intentions were in case anyone thinks that I am one of those that does not appreciate James' input or that I am trying to make him a scapegoat.
If you look the thread I started concerning the safety of these devices when it comes to IR radiation. I was just putting out some information that I found because I thought it might be of interest to those using or considering buying these devices. I also was hoping that someone had seen the studies and could provide more infromation that contradicts them. I did PM James to bring his attention to the thread but I did not insist that he reply. I was not a challenge to AdvanThera! James chose to reply and he chose to look at the studies. I have looked at the studies and have made my own preliminary conclusions. These are my conclusions and are subject to change should I find evidence to the contrary. I appreciate the fact that James has chosen to look at the studies and respond. He does not have to do this. However, since he chose to look into this I am honestly looking forward to reading his response! Yet it is up to me to decide what I think and it is up to me to do further research on this. James' reply will be greatly appreciated though and if he provides enough evidence to convince me that is great! But I am not in any means forcing him to "prove" that these devices are safe or effective.
Of look at this thread (or the Quasar SP thread where I actually posted the questions) where I posted some qusestions about studies that show an aging photorejuvenation benefit. I have done some research here and hadn't seen any studies other than what I mentioned about Gentle Waves and also studies that did not deal with aging specificaly. In fact when I first posed my question I asked if anyone had seen such studies. I assumed that since some of you are evidence oriented and have actually chosen to purchase these devices you might have been able to help me out. I was not being lazy and I was not trying to get out of doing the research. I thought that this is what our forum was about, being able to ask if anyone knows some information whether it is information about how greasy a face cream is or information about a study someone might have seen. When James came on the tread I did ask him some questions because I assumed that as a seller of such products he would at least be aware of the relevant studies if there were any. He could have chosen not to answer my questions and yet he didn't seem to mind answering them.
I don't expect James to know everything. I also don't expect him to answer my questions for me or to tell me what to think. I don't even think that he is required to come on the forum and answer questions. The last thing I would do is to make him a scapegoat. No other seller of these products has taken the time to come on our forum and discuss not only treatment aspects, etc. but also to discuss the science behind them. Do I appreciate the fact that James has chosen to discuss these things? You bet I do! Do I expect James to answer every scientific question that I ask about LED therapy? Absolutly not.
In closing angelina I have to totally agree with your "humble" opinion that James does do an excellent job of answering questions. If you read my recent posts I don't feel that I am expecting too much of James and I think you will see that I have very freely expressed my appreciation to him. I honestly have no clue if you even had me in mind when you wrote your post. But in case you did or in case anyone thinks that I am not willing to think for myself and expect James to do the research for me or that is am trying to make him a scapegoat or that I am not appreciative of his contribution to the forum, I just want to set the record straight! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:00 pm |
Theresa,
No part of the post was directed at you at all. I appreciated your posts and felt you were very fair. As a consumer, I would also like to know both sides. If James is able to answer, that would be great because I have my own fears regarding the safety of long-term use of this device. I also empathize with James because he is limited in what he can say because of legal and professional reasons- He did not lead the research in any of the studies presented so it's difficult for him to refute any conclusions that the researchers came up wih. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:23 pm |
angelina thank you for mentioning that. I wasn't quite sure.
I just want to let you know that my post was more so an attempt to clarify where I stand on James, research and posting questions.
As for refuting research studies. I really don't expect James to refute them although I do get the impression that he will try! My comment about providing studies that directly refute another study is something I like to see because I find it particularly convincing but perhaps on this I was asking too much.
A little dilemma I guess. 
If I post a concern or question the effectiveness then James will feel the need to respond because even it is not about his devices in particular he still must believe they are safe/effective and will want to show everyone that this is the case. So James ends up in a position that he might not want to be in for many reasons-legal, not being a scientist that has done such studies,etc.
Or if I have a concern or want more proof on something and don't say it then other members might miss some valuable information that would help them make a better decision. The safety issue is something that I particularly feel should be brought up so that others can make a choice.
Thoughts anyone?? Should I refrain from such questions or what would be a good way of going about it? I have avoided trying to make James feel that he has to answer my questions but perhaps there is a better way. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:00 pm |
| Safety should always be discussed whenever there is any doubt. People can choose to read the post or not read it. I just think discussions should be fair to all parties. That's all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:01 pm |
Ladies, stop worrying. Angelina & Theresa, thank you both for your support and understanding. I will contribute when I can and when appropriate.
No one is in the wrong here. You all only ever have the kindest of things to say about me, and I really love communicating with you all.
James
p.s. I am now furnishing my room between the rock and the hard place  Just a little humor to lighten everyone up.
Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:26 pm |
| Advanced Therapeutics wrote: |
p.s. I am now furnishing my room between the rock and the hard place Just a little humor to lighten everyone up.
Cheers! |
James you never fail to amuse me. I don't think I will ever forget your comment about going out and sticking your face to the tail lights of your BMW or Lexus.
BTW as you go about furnishing your room-be sure to include a nice reading lamp for all those studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:37 pm |
| TheresaL wrote: |
| Advanced Therapeutics wrote: |
p.s. I am now furnishing my room between the rock and the hard place Just a little humor to lighten everyone up.
Cheers! |
James you never fail to amuse me. I don't think I will ever forget your comment about going out and sticking your face to the tail lights of your BMW or Lexus.
BTW as you go about furnishing your room-be sure to include a nice reading lamp for all those studies. |
I love to make people smile, laugh, or be light-hearted, and many of you do the same for me! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:06 pm |
| I just wanted to stick my oar in here and tell you all why I was quick to buy the BabyQ once I had heard about it (on this forum). A few years ago (maybe 4 or 5) I read in an English women's magazine about a Dr McDaniel. He was a dermatologist and had noticed that patients treated with LED light for dermatological problems had the additional benefit of reduced lines and better skin tone. He was quoted in that article as saying that he saw no reason why there should not be development for home use. His system at the time was called 'Gentle Wave'. For a couple of years after that I fairly frequently Googled both his name and 'Gentle Wave' and came up with nothing, so I gradually forgot. When I found this forum and saw Katee's original post which referred to 'Gentle Wave', I knew immediately that I wanted to try the BabyQ. I know this isn't strictly speaking a Gentle Wave device, but it is, I gather, the same technology. For me, with my skin problems (the same ones Dr McDaniel was treating), the BabyQ has been a boon. A patch of eczema started on my back two weeks ago and, while it hasn't completely gone with daily treatment, it certainly has abated and has not spread any further. From past experience I would now expect to be covered almost head-to-toe and I would be on oral steroids (nasty, nasty). I guess the point I'm making is that this sort of device was already in use for skin problems and the anti-aging (we hope) is a by-product: it is not an especially new treatment and it was in use for skin treatment quite a few years ago. What is new is that there is now a device available for home use, thankfully. |
_________________
58. Fair, sensitive and dry-ish skin with freckles. UK. |
|
|
|
|
Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:10 pm |
| Cesce wrote: |
| I just wanted to stick my oar in here and tell you all why I was quick to buy the BabyQ once I had heard about it (on this forum). A few years ago (maybe 4 or 5) I read in an English women's magazine about a Dr McDaniel. He was a dermatologist and had noticed that patients treated with LED light for dermatological problems had the additional benefit of reduced lines and better skin tone. He was quoted in that article as saying that he saw no reason why there should not be development for home use. His system at the time was called 'Gentle Wave'. |
Here is some info on Gentle Waves. I have met and been treated by Dr. McDaniel (schlerotherapy). He is doing research all the time in the anti-aging area.
http://www.lightbioscience.com/overview.html |
_________________
Early 40's, normal/dry, Oily T zone (summer) fine lines, hyperpigmentation |
|
|
|
|
Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:04 am |
Hi folks,
New here and been following with peaked interest the BQ and Quasar discussions. First off, I really have to commend James on going above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to customer service! Anyway, I searched this forum for info/reviews on an LED device I've seen for sale online for the same price as the BQ called the DPL light therapy system available for sale at a website called Light4beauty or something like that. I haven't found any reviews in this forum about it and wondering if anyone has heard of/tried it? I was wondering if anyone has experience with it and how it compares with the BQ and Quasar SP. It is stationary -- you apparently just sit with your face right in front of it for 9 minutes per day I think? Seems easier to me than using a wand. And it has quite a few more actual LED lights than the BQ and SP -- 154 Infrared at 880 nm's and 20 red at 660 nm's. The power output is 4 joules/cm2. I don't know if it uses a pulse or not or HOW is a pulsed light better than a stationary one. Although I did read in a dermatologic review of physician-quality Photo rejuvenation devices that a pulsed light was better. So James and all...what can you tell me about the DPL and how it compares? For me, it's between the DPL and the Quasar SP. THanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:56 am |
| wmnfolk wrote: |
Hi folks,
New here and been following with peaked interest the BQ and Quasar discussions. First off, I really have to commend James on going above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to customer service! Anyway, I searched this forum for info/reviews on an LED device I've seen for sale online for the same price as the BQ called the DPL light therapy system available for sale at a website called Light4beauty or something like that. I haven't found any reviews in this forum about it and wondering if anyone has heard of/tried it? I was wondering if anyone has experience with it and how it compares with the BQ and Quasar SP. It is stationary -- you apparently just sit with your face right in front of it for 9 minutes per day I think? Seems easier to me than using a wand. And it has quite a few more actual LED lights than the BQ and SP -- 154 Infrared at 880 nm's and 20 red at 660 nm's. The power output is 4 joules/cm2. I don't know if it uses a pulse or not or HOW is a pulsed light better than a stationary one. Although I did read in a dermatologic review of physician-quality Photo rejuvenation devices that a pulsed light was better. So James and all...what can you tell me about the DPL and how it compares? For me, it's between the DPL and the Quasar SP. THanks! |
Welcome to the community wmnfolk! I only have a few seconds to comment here.
**First, let me tell you that the Baby Quasar was never developed or designed with the intention of being a consumer device. It is actually a professionally designed and manufactured device (still to this day).
When the Quasar line was designed, the vision was this:
1. Offer a Light Therapy solution that is affordable, but does not sacrifice professional/medical grade, a professional feel, and is made of quality materials. We also had to figure out how to produce more power than what was offered back those many years ago to stay ahead of the curve and limit our customers from having to upgrade when we knew the curve of better circuitry and LEDs was coming soon.
2. We wanted to offer a more space saving, portable device. Professionals already had so much on their table tops (Microderm machines, product, etc.). So we had to figure out how to eliminate the box. That wasn't so hard (when not pulsating the light).
3. We wanted to utilize the pulsating settings that were found beneficial (here comes the controversy), instead of just the continuous wave of light, like the finer manufacturers. This was very hard, but was accomplished and all the circuitry, brainboard, etc. were built in the handled by a simple toggle switch on the back of the head, instead of turning a dial or hitting buttons on a box.
Mission accomplished. Quasar SP born.
One problem? Our device was great and was selling, but we listened to the feedback of "where is the little pen wand so I can do the nose and harder to reach areas?"
So the first inclination was to build a miniaturized version of the Quasar SP. A "baby" version if you will
We wanted it to be EXACTLY like the SP, but smaller. It would offer less power than that of our SP, but would be WAY more powerful than those touch up wands.
Originally, it sold for over $800.00 as a "touch" up wand because we wanted a competitive advantage over the "pen lights" other systems offered for the hard to reach places.
Well, it went o.k. But this still wasn't the solution. We wanted to SAVE space, which we were still doing, but now you need two Red/Infrared devices? Not our vision.
Then, the concentrating cone was developed with a rubber gasket attached to the removable Quasar SP head and there it was! Everything you get in a Professional/Medical grade manufactured Light Therapy solution in a wand that plugs directly into the wall, and came in a very industrial case for portability (if necessary) and storage.
Problem two? We have an "abandoned baby" Then the idea was born to figure out how to streamline our internal process from all aspects of the business, purchase more material, and get the price down to have the only Professional "consumer" device available on the market at a consumer price (I know that is views on price are relative).
We now had a "reborn Baby".
So, you are buying a professional device, which is why you see amazing results, exposure, and controversy over the Baby.
I believe that LightStim is the only consumer (made for consumer) device that is an affordable alternative. Someone did a half face comparison and found the Baby to produce results faster and I believe with slightly different results? The LightStim still works, just a takes a little while longer and possibly more frequent use.
The DPL is a great concept. I think they are really on to something there. I only speak highly of our quality competition like GentleWaves and Revitalight because, while I cannot speak for their customer service, they do offer great Light Therapy Devices. I will never bash or put down another company.
If you want a "comparison" and better understanding of the DPL, please feel free to give me a call on my cell phone or at the office today. (This does not incinuate anything about the DPL)
Let me explain POWER (JOULES).
I have posted this many times because I don't want consumers and professionals alike to be misguided.
The exact calculation you need to look for is Joules of Light, Per Centimeter Squared, Per Minute. You do not want anything missing.
Why?
Using your example, "4 Joules per centimeter squared". How long does it take to produce 4 Joules per centimeter squared?
This is for TheresaL
You can take a BMW or Mercede with LED tailights, stick your face to it and get a 4 joules of light to hit your face. Just get someone to put their foot on the brake. Eventually 4 joules of light will come out, but how long? Disclaimer: DO NOT TRY THIS! Just an analogy.
You will find other manufacturers who will tell you our device produces 30 Joules of Light per minute! Well, where is the centimeter squared that will bring that number way down?
Make Sense?
There are other questions that come to mind like "wave harmonics", specifically negative ones that will cancel out the waves (energy, power) hitting your skin depending on the design as well. It is hard to say that you can completely eliminate negative harmonics, but there are many who possibly never thought of that technilogical side.
I hope you all enjoyed the story of your device(s) and the rest!
I should have posted this as a night-time story for you. Maybe recorded it so you can play it as you go to sleep. I'm sure it would have bored my soon-to-be 5 year old to death and put her right to sleep. I'll try it out and see what happens.
Morning from the East Coast!
James Bressi
AdvanThera
P: 800.944.1523
C: 610.999.2668
E: jamesbressi@AdvanThera.com
On The Web:www.AdvanThera.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:14 am |
TheresaL, I keep up with this thread, and I just wanted to say your questions are great.
James is super helpful and appears perfectly cool with your questions.
I think we are very fortunate to have someone amongst us who is able to formulate what are the right questions to ask!
Please let's not ever worry about asking for more information and clarity, or to ever fall in to the trap of being over compliant for fear of rocking the boat.
Congrats to everyone for being so thoughtful and articulate. |
|
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 16, 2024 12:52 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
