Nase's Latest Rebuttal & Dr. Crouch's clarification
Nase's Latest Rebuttal
One of the reasons for Maria Cappolla's Forum post was to direct readers' attention to an update on Nase's web site. To counter allegations that he was really Maria, Nase quickly added a note claiming: "the statement that "its my writing style" is old, not analytical, scientific nor correct". (1) "Furthermore, when people read an entire book, a dozen journal articles, an entire rosacea web site and tens of thousands of posts, people naturally tend to mimic some of the styles of my writing and key phrases."
Perhaps that explains why these lines from Nase's latest update:
"As a professional in the field of Rosacea I must often turn the other cheek or take the high road and not respond to false allegations, contorted posts and information that is deceptively placed in a false light. One does this because he or she is in the professional lime light and tries his or her best to rise above this type of Internet gossip. This is especially true when it is false information constantly propagated by the same handful of people with an obvious agenda. It is, however, a time to set some important points straight for the record."(2)
are so close to these lines posted by one of Nase's keenest supporters:
"Living and working in the core of the Rosacea community, Rosacea professionals have to make a decision about their choices of friends and when it is appropriate to socialise due to the size of the community and other people observing professionals' behaviour. This often leads others to talk and eventually things get twisted and bitter. The professional then has to work much harder to repair the damage and put things straight." (January 21, 'Dr Geoffrey Nase banned!')
One problem in trying to quote from Nase's web site is that the water is constantly muddied when he keeps going back and rewriting text. The quotes above came from the first version. The version currently on his web site reads as follows:
(1) "the purposefully false statements that "its my writing style" is old, not analytical, scientific and has no merit".
(2) "As a Medical Physiologist and a professional in the field of Rosacea I must often interject when people, companies, rosacea forums and physicicans offer inaccurate information about rosacea causes and treatment with a clear agenda that goes against the good of the rosacea community. This is sometimes not a popular position. It would be much easier to just be a "Yes Man" to every new treatment. However, this is not how I was built to function..... especially when false allegations, contorted posts and information that is deceptively placed in a false light is presented. When does one stay quiet when they knowruthful information will stir up a bees nest? Well, sometimes you take that high road and not address mindless false allegations that can be typed in and sent into cyberspace within seconds. One does this because he or she is in the professional lime light and tries his or her best to rise above this type of Internet gossip. This is especially true when it is false information constantly propagated by the same handful of people with an obvious agenda. It is, however, a time to set some important points straight for the record."
The update brought more people into Nase's line of fire, mainly for having endorsed various kinds of Red Light Therapy (RLT) or Low Level Light therapy (LLLT). (The two are not quite the same, but are widely regarded as almost synonymous.) Most of those newly added to Nase's web site were either bemused or laughed it off back on the Forum, regarding his allegations as too silly to be worth rebutting, although one did point out:
"... if it were true red light was so deleterious bottom line is those of us who have been using it daily for years would have out of control conditions. Not even the Yag would be able to clean up the mess & I feel the progression of my condition has been stopped. I'm trying to repair years of damage but contrary to reports I have gotten better not worse. I still have flares- sometimes bad ones but as we know there is no cure & I'm infinately more functional now than 4 yrs ago."
(September 19, 2006, 'My journey to (steroid) rosacea. Gemini Tx. Pictorial.')
Nase continued to insist that RLT was dangerous, stressing that it "DOES have the ability to burn skin (as Dr. Crouch found out when he had to treat two red light therapy burn patients who came to me first)". Nase also insisted that the best-known users of this technology were not being helped by it, and that one of them, Peter Waters, had only ever pretended to have rosacea so he could sell lamps on commission! These two claims came back to haunt Nase a few days later.
Dr. Crouch clarifies his position (Part I)
Ever since January 2006, when Geoffrey Nase launched a savage attack on RLT / LLLT and their supporters, the Forum has been torn by endless, bitter disputes over whether or not there was any truth in Nase's claims that such devices, even the lowest-powered commercial lamps, were dangerous and that he had personally "received well over 110 to 125 reports of blister skin, 1st degree burns, and increased flushing" from them.
As we mentioned, in his latest update, Nase again emphasized that the treatment "DOES have the ability to burn skin (as Dr. Crouch found out when he had to treat two red light therapy burn patients who came to me first)". The only people who had ever been written-up on any of the rosacea boards as having been burnt by RLT were two people who had turned up at Dr Crouch's Swindon clinic a few days apart last January, but now Nase was admitting that he had sent them to Crouch.
Peter Waters spotted the discrepancy and immediately started a new Forum thread 'RLT - The Actual Facts - Nase Story versus Crouch Story': "Of course he is in Indiana USA and they are in South West England but yep they will contact him first because he is so famous. Did they e mail him at the same time, telephone or send smoke signals to the States from their terrible burns?"
Since Forum members were again perplexed and upset by the hints of collusion, on September 23, one of the Forum mods asked Dr Crouch if he had been able to find out anything more about these two patients and the home-made light units they claimed to have built. Crouch replied that yes, he had been in touch with the patients, and no, there had only been one unit that the two had shared. This single light unit had been built from incredibly high-powered components strengthened by lenses and was not remotely comparable with the Low Level devices used by rosaceans throughout the community.
Crouch's detailed explanation included these key points:
- "I am certain that I have never suggested that burns could result from Low Level Red Light Therapy or that I have ever seen more than the two patients I made people aware of."
- "I have seen only 2 patients with burns. ... both cases were linked to the use of the same improvised high power device. I have not seen any further cases since the two in January. I hope that if people use tried and tested low power devices, that I will never see another case."
That completely contradicted Nase's claims that Crouch had also seen other patients burnt by RLT therapy, patients so badly damaged that it was impossible to know how to treat them. "Others he is turning away because he does not know what to do with these cases."
If only Crouch had challenged Nase's bizarre assertions at the time, there would never have been any suspicions of conspiracy, and the community would have been spared eight months of divisive struggle, as users of RLT tried to establish the truth and to defend what they knew to be a safe and potentially beneficial treatment.
Dr. Crouch and the RLT supporters agreed to forgive and forget, close the topic and move on into a happier future, but it remains to be seen whether Nase will accept that this particular battle has been lost.
Dr. Crouch clarifies his position (Part II)
On September 23, Dr. Crouch wrote to Nasewatch asking to have two corrections made to the article titled 'Banned, banned, banned'. One related to the incident reported above, where we wrote:
"If the lamps were so dangerous, one would expect to see a wave of complaints on the internet, in the media, on consumer and health programmes, and yet no one had seen anything of the kind. No safety warnings have been issued, and neither Nase nor Crouch reported the incidents they knew of to the medical authorities who monitor such things."
Dr Crouch explained: "I did report this occurrence to The Medical Devices Agency however they told me that D.I.Y. devices made from self-assembled electrical components do not constitute a medical device that they can regulate."
The confusion probably arose from the wording of his Forum post at the time:
"I looked into whether I could report the LEDs to the Medical Devices Agency and guess what they said? As these home constructed devices are not CE marked Medical Devices, (they are one-off self-constructed energy sources using components not sold for that purpose as any commercially available system) ~ I therefore can't report them."
It is a fine line between reporting an incident and attempting to report it and being turned away, so we are happy to accept Dr Crouch's judgement on this point and have now made the correction.
The other objection was to our comment that:
"Both Crouch and Nase have written about their close friendship and their plans for future business collaboration, for example, this post Nase put up on the Forum in the same burns thread: "Crouch and I are good friends and we have discussed everthing that has happened in detail up front. He knows whats happening. We already have a UK party set up this summer when I travel out to Dr. Crouch to perform a laser study to help enhance results."
Dr Crouch wrote: "I am not aware that I have ever actually written about being a close friend of Geoffrey Nase or my plans for future business collaboration and I believe this statement to be factually incorrect." We are happy to accept his assurances on this matter also, and again, have made the requested correction.
We thank Dr Crouch for the pleasant way in which he approached us. We try our hardest to keep our site accurate, and are always happy to make corrections, where justified.