Acne.org Products
how many of you actually have read this study by Dr. Derry. I took the time to actually read this garbage. First of all he is a general practioner. A general practioner doing research on skin regeneration. Ok maybe he is using his phd background, whatever. Next he does not follow the scientific method, he uses language that a 19 yr old high school student would be using to conduct an at home research project. He never does a skin biopsy to see what is occuring, instead he uses a nikon camera to document everything.
Furthermore this study is not peer reviewed or peer dublicated, thats a big red flag. Try and find another study on iodine and skin regeneration, you won't. I even used all the journals available to me as a university student, and nothing reputable pops up.
This doctor also seems to have an obsession with iodione curing all kinds of things, including eliminating cancer.
Next he only used 4 scars or 4 patients, it wasn't clearly defined. Then he wants us to believe that for over three years, he was able to get these 4 people to apply iodine everyday, then cover the scar area with plastic for years and years. One person has a huge scar on their stomach, and is it really believable that this person applied iodine everyday then covered it with plastic around their stomach, and lived a normal life for several years. Ya whatever.
Next he goes into weird theories like hair-self amputation and the critical role it plays. He even at one point says hair is alive, no hair is dead. Then he claims regenerating material walks along the hair, and if the hair is moved it displays a barcode pattern similar to barcodes found at grocery stores. He also says no two pictures taken at 2 minute intervals look alike. So by this he is suggesting the rapid speed of regeneration. If regeneration is that fast, why is it taking years and years for your study doctor.
This is basically a load of junk published in a load of junk journal.
It is not peer reviewed, it was soley done by him and him alone, and it has not been peer duplicated.
There is no explanation for any of his conclusions. Except he just leaves everything open in the air.
Why doesn't he ever do a biopsy and analysis to see what is happening to the skin thats regenerating. everything is so vague.
basically this is a study done by a general practioner, with no more than a nikon camera at his disposal. It is so poorly done, that there is no reason for any peer duplication. Its a bunch of junk
For those of you who have faith in this, let me know in 5 years if your face looks better after walking around iodine stained and covered in plastic for several years, maybe you can cure your cancer at the same time with the iodine.
sanjose,Dont abuse the guy. I think its great a guy is willing to look outside the square and try some more natural ingredients. Its definitely better than most mainstream doctors who blindly just agree with the mainstream idea of laser this and laser that. Doctors need to be a bit more innovative and less brainless. I know if I was a doctor, id be testing things out all the time. I guess thats what differenciates true genius from a mindless bogan. I just wish hed broaden himself out a bit more and try other ingredients.
As for the actual method, I have no clue if the iodine works or not. I never used it consistently but have noticed hairs growing out of the areas i treated. This may have been the iodine or as a result of the peels or tca cross i used ages ago. Im not going to use the iodine again, as its too messy, causes too much redness, takes too long and may damage the thyroid. I think most people here realise that though and its a calculated risk. I'd definitely never turn anyone else away who has the guts to try it out.
If hair does lead to regeneration, then the hairs coming out of my scars will probably lead to the scars healing themselves. If not, nothing lost as im trying other methods. Again i admire you all for giving it a go and i wish you all the best ! I hope you see results.
I guess the reason I'm so passionate is because I want real results for me and others. I'm much older now and smarter. However, I remember being a young 18 yr old boy and so sad and depressed with my life b/c of scars, searching so hard for a cure. I don't want some kid or even adult, coming hear, reading all these wild things, and trying them out. Only to find out they don't work, or worse they damage their skin. Not everyone does self research, lots of people just trust the garbage they read on here.
Lately this site has turned up with so many wild things, such as spontaneous scarring, and taking fish oil causing spontaneous scars--this last theory concluded by a member here. I mean come on really?
There is already sooo much to read, we don't need more garbage.
sanjoseskin,
i understand what your saying and i find it very hard to believe aswell.
but why would this guy lie?
its harmless and easy to test out so thats what ive been doing. i honestly cant see it working, but the only way im going to find out is to test it myself.
ive been using lugols for over 2 months and at the moment its scabbed over and i have no idea how things look underneath.
any updates guys?
lol i dont think he said hes lying? its more being uncertain the method will do anything given the lack of testing from other professionsal + testing on indented type scarring.
ofcourse he is. if he thought he was telling the truth he wouldnt of come on here and said that he thought 'Its a bunch of junk'. how can you think something is 'a bunch of junk' yet still be true.
also some of what he said was wrong and his english wasnt perfect so maybe he misunderstood some of the paper.
personally, i am extremely sceptical. but there is a big difference in being sceptical and calling the guy a liar. sanjoseskin is far more than sceptical. being sceptical is saying "im not sure this will work". when you say "This is basically a load of junk published in a load of junk journal" your not just being sceptical your outright saying the guy is lieing, be it indirectly, it is still exactly what he is doing.
if sanjoseskin was just sceptical he wouldnt of wrote an essay trying to debunk everything the paper said. he definately wouldnt of done it in such a derogatory and insulting manner if he thought there was any truth in it.
he is outright calling the doctor a lier. all i said was that the doctor simply has no reason to lie at all. so there must be some truth in it. i dont know. i dont have a problem with what sanjoseskin said. i think he brings up some good points. i also think he got some things wrong. i dont like the manner in which he shared his views i thought they were insulting and derogatory.
like i said though, if he thought the docotr was telling the truth he wouldnt of wrote what he did. therefore if someone isnt telling the truth they are lieing.
so again, why would the doctor lie? what reason doe he have? if sanjoseskin is correct, why would the doctor of wrote all this? why would he have made it up? why would he have taken the time out of his own life to make up this 'junk' (as sanjoseskin calls it)? sanjoseskin doesnt even believe he carried out the experiment so why would he bother writing the paper?*
*Next he only used 4 scars or 4 patients, it wasn't clearly defined. Then he wants us to believe that for over three years, he was able to get these 4 people to apply iodine everyday, then cover the scar area with plastic for years and years. One person has a huge scar on their stomach, and is it really believable that this person applied iodine everyday then covered it with plastic around their stomach, and lived a normal life for several years. Ya whatever.
i dont know
how many of you actually have read this study by Dr. Derry. I took the time to actually read this garbage. First of all he is a general practioner. A general practioner doing research on skin regeneration. Ok maybe he is using his phd background, whatever. Next he does not follow the scientific method, he uses language that a 19 yr old high school student would be using to conduct an at home research project. He never does a skin biopsy to see what is occuring, instead he uses a nikon camera to document everything.
This is a case study. His paper says it is a case study and he explains the type of case it is.
He also explains in the paper that it would be extremely hard and impractical to get a microscopic look at the regeneration.
You have also failed to understand he is working to a budget, he has limited resources.
Furthermore this study is not peer reviewed or peer dublicated, thats a big red flag. Try and find another study on iodine and skin regeneration, you won't. I even used all the journals available to me as a university student, and nothing reputable pops up.
Peer reviewed? So you are appealing to authority here and completely ignoring this out of hand?
Also have you asked yourself why it might not be peer reviewed?
Does something have to be peer reviewed to be truthful?
By the same standard of rightfully questioning Derry. Do you ever question the people who 'peer review' and their motives?
Next he only used 4 scars or 4 patients, it wasn't clearly defined. Then he wants us to believe that for over three years, he was able to get these 4 people to apply iodine everyday, then cover the scar area with plastic for years and years. One person has a huge scar on their stomach, and is it really believable that this person applied iodine everyday then covered it with plastic around their stomach, and lived a normal life for several years. Ya whatever.
If you actually sat down to read the paper you would've seen the 4 scars were on the same person. (Note: I may be wrong but I do not make a massive claim to have thoroughly read the paper like you do)
Now if it turns out the four scars are on the same person, what does this say about your critique? It also says you are untruthful when you claim you have thoroughly read it.
Next he goes into weird theories like hair-self amputation and the critical role it plays. He even at one point says hair is alive, no hair is dead. Then he claims regenerating material walks along the hair, and if the hair is moved it displays a barcode pattern similar to barcodes found at grocery stores. He also says no two pictures taken at 2 minute intervals look alike. So by this he is suggesting the rapid speed of regeneration. If regeneration is that fast, why is it taking years and years for your study doctor.
He is using language to describe something new. Like an engineer/scientist would in order to expand and pass on knowledge.
This is basically a load of junk published in a load of junk journal.It is not peer reviewed, it was solely done by him and him alone, and it has not been peer duplicated.
Instead of righting it off, why dont you test it for yourself? And be a true sceptic? (Instead of the fallacious 'I disagree therefore I'm a sceptic' sceptic)
There is no explanation for any of his conclusions. Except he just leaves everything open in the air.
I'm sure the case is still ongoing.
Why doesn't he ever do a biopsy and analysis to see what is happening to the skin thats regenerating. everything is so vague.
Completely impractcal. A. He'll prefer to keep his skin regenerated. B. This is a case were he does not have the resources. C. He even explains in his case that to get a microscopic look at the regeneration would be impractical.
basically this is a study done by a general practioner, with no more than a nikon camera at his disposal. It is so poorly done, that there is no reason for any peer duplication. Its a bunch of junk
Again do you have to have a 'standard' pf authority in 'your' head to prove something? What a load of appeal to authority...
To me it if 'you' objectively proved something, and a authoritive professor wrote something saying you were wrong. I would believe you. Again something said by a standard of authority does not mean it is the truth.
For those of you who have faith in this, let me know in 5 years if your face looks better after walking around iodine stained and covered in plastic for several years, maybe you can cure your cancer at the same time with the iodine.
I'm personally testing it, I dont take his claims as authority, I dont take your claims as authority, and at the same time anyone elses claims as authority. But I'm a sceptic.
I am three months into my iodine/Lugol's trial. I notice definite changes in texture and some change to a deeper scar on one cheek. I am going to keep my fingers crossed and keep going. SO far this is the most improvement I have gotten from any other treatment (including CO2 laser, peels, microdermabrasion).
Take care.
C.
how many of you actually have read this study by Dr. Derry. I took the time to actually read this garbage. First of all he is a general practioner. A general practioner doing research on skin regeneration. Ok maybe he is using his phd background, whatever. Next he does not follow the scientific method, he uses language that a 19 yr old high school student would be using to conduct an at home research project. He never does a skin biopsy to see what is occuring, instead he uses a nikon camera to document everything.This is a case study. His paper says it is a case study and he explains the type of case it is.
He also explains in the paper that it would be extremely hard and impractical to get a microscopic look at the regeneration.
You have also failed to understand he is working to a budget, he has limited resources.
Furthermore this study is not peer reviewed or peer dublicated, thats a big red flag. Try and find another study regeneration, you won't. I even used all the journals available to me as a university student, and nothing reputable pops up.Peer reviewed? So you are appealing to authority here and completely ignoring this out of hand?
Also have you asked yourself why it might not be peer reviewed?
Does something have to be peer reviewed to be truthful?
By the same standard of rightfully questioning Derry. Do you ever question the people who 'peer review' and their motives?
Next he only used 4 scars or 4 patients, it wasn't clearly defined. Then he wants us to believe that for over three years, he was able to get these 4 people to apply iodine everyday, then cover the scar area with plastic for years and years. One person has a huge scar on their stomach, and is it really believable that this person applied iodine everyday then covered it with plastic around their stomach, and lived a normal life for several years. Ya whatever.If you actually sat down to read the paper you would've seen the 4 scars were on the same person. (Note: I may be wrong but I do not make a massive claim to have thoroughly read the paper like you do)
Now if it turns out the four scars are on the same person, what does this say about your critique? It also says you are untruthful when you claim you have thoroughly read it.
Next he goes into weird theories like hair-self amputation and the critical role it plays. He even at one point says hair is alive, no hair is dead. Then he claims regenerating material walks along the hair, and if the hair is moved it displays a barcode pattern similar to barcodes found at grocery stores. He also says no two pictures taken at 2 minute intervals look alike. So by this he is suggesting the rapid speed of regeneration. If regeneration is that fast, why is it taking years and years for your study doctor.
This is basically a load of junk published in a load of junk journal.It is not peer reviewed, it was solely done by him and him alone, and it has not been peer duplicated.
Instead of righting it off, why dont you test it for yourself? And be a true sceptic? (Instead of the fallacious 'I disagree therefore I'm a sceptic' sceptic)
There is no explanation for any of his conclusions. Except he just leaves everything open in the air.I'm sure the case is still ongoing.
Why doesn't he ever do a biopsy and analysis to see what is happening to the skin thats regenerating. everything is so vague.Completely impractcal. A. He'll prefer to keep his skin regenerated. B. This is a case were he does not have the resources. C. He even explains in his case that to get a microscopic look at the regeneration would be impractical.
basically this is a study done by a general practioner, with no more than a nikon camera at his disposal. It is so poorly done, that there is no reason for any peer duplication. Its a bunch of junkAgain do you have to have a 'standard' pf authority in 'your' head to prove something? What a load of appeal to authority...
To me it if 'you' objectively proved something, and a authoritive professor wrote something saying you were wrong. I would believe you. Again something said by a standard of authority does not mean it is the truth.
For those of you who have faith in this, let me know in 5 years if your face looks better after walking around iodine stained and covered in plastic for several years, maybe you can cure your cancer at the same time with the iodine.I'm personally testing it, I dont take his claims as authority, I dont take your claims as authority, and at the same time anyone elses claims as authority. But I'm a sceptic.
First off yes I am claiming that I did read the study, because I did. I read studies on a regular basis for school, and this was certainly poorly constructed.
Next, you say that doing a skin biopsy is impractical. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Let me just walk around like a dummy and make up weird conclusions about whats happening to the skin. My goodness, you gave 3 reasons as to why it is not practical:
"Completely impractcal. A. He'll prefer to keep his skin regenerated. B. This is a case were he does not have the resources. C. He even explains in his case that to get a microscopic look at the regeneration would be impractical."
so you say he prefers to keep his skin regenerated, so after 3 yrs he couldn't take 5 mins to do a punch biopsy? Plus if the skin is regenerating, it will just regerate the punch biopsy scar also.
B) does not have the resources? You mean he doesn't have a freaking light compound microscope. Or he can't find a dermatologist with a light compound microscope. Or he can't pay a few hundres bucks to a labratory to get a biopsy done with photos of the dermal layers?
c) microscopic look at regeneration is impractical. Wait a minute, so let me understand this. The skin is going through MASSIVE changes inorder to change from a scar to normal skin, yet those fundamental changes that are occuring at the different dermal layers are not visible. you must be kidding me.
All it takes is a light compound microscopic, something many dermatologists performing MOH's surgery have in their office to perform on-the-fly biopsys of skin tissue. I personally had skin cancer, also had MOH's surgery, and witnessed the doctor doing the biopsy right in front of me, he even let me look under the microscop at the different dermal layers and how deep my cancer had spread.
Your argument is flawed. However I am not here to argue with you.
Acne scars have changed my life, they have negatively impacted my character, my emotions, my being in every way possible. Yet at the same time I have grown to be very compassionate when it comes to people that are different, or disabled or whatever. So trust me, if anybody here wants a cure for acne scars, it is deffinately me.
I have been on this site I think since 2003, that is 7 yrs now. About four years prior to acne.org I was a member of another acne scar forum, which is now gone, and many of us veteran members moved here. I have been at this for 11 yrs, and it sucks, and i've had good days and bad. 11 years ago, we didn't have everyone performing treatments on themselves. No home tca-cross, no home peels, no home derma-rolling, home subcision, you get my point. 11 years ago we put our scars in the hands of doctor. Today its a new game, we perform stuff on ourselfs. Why do I bring this up? Because this is exactly why I am angry as this load of junk study. One day someone is going to post something crazy, like put gasonline on your scars and your skin will regenerate. Sure you and I are smart enough to know it's bull, but desperate scar patients out there will actually try it and get hurt.
Iodine is not gasoline, I know that, however I am in science, i'm trying my best to become a doctor, I read studies on a regular basis as part of my education, and In my opinion this study is just flawed. The excuse that a biopsy is not practical is the most absurd argument ever.
I may be totally wrong, and this doctor may be on to something, but innocent people who don't know any better shouldn't get hurt along the way because of a doctors desire for some type of recognition. If you do a small background check on this guy, he loves iodine. He even thinks it cures cancer through apaptosis(programmed cell death usually through bursting or release of hydrogen peroxide via lysosomes which are peroxide vessicles in the cell). so if iodine cures cancer, via apaptosis, then how the heck is it causing scar regeneration. Apaptosis of cells leads to tissue breakdown--thus more scars. I'm certain this doctor will soon come out saying iodine cures hiv. I'm joking, but really I just hope people don't get hurt one day beacuse of some crazy posting on this site.
I am three months into my iodine/Lugol's trial. I notice definite changes in texture and some change to a deeper scar on one cheek. I am going to keep my fingers crossed and keep going. SO far this is the most improvement I have gotten from any other treatment (including CO2 laser, peels, microdermabrasion).Take care.
C.
please within a month if it can inform if the skin keep changing to us in detail and a photo if it can
@ sanjoseskin:
I don't know what's your problem man. Stay out of this thread if you don't believe in it. That's all.
As someone mentioned here, you did not read the text correctly.
The scars on the pictures are from Derry himself. So, here is your explanation how some guy can do this for years. And in his newest paper he tell us that a friend of him is using it too.
Are you a student? Then go on studying and don't discredit someone who is not only a physician, he is a chemist too. And he received his doctor degree for a work in the chemical field.
You are so totally wrong man, I can't explain how wrong you are.
I don't know what papers you are reading but there are different of publications such as letters and reviews or other things.
I think you are frustrated because of your scars. That's okay, but don't act in the way you did.
And if you are sceptical then ask Dr Derry himself. Write him an email and he will respond to every question you have.
As an example. For my scars the 5% lugol's dilution is too much, so I will as an advise of Dr Derry cut the doses. As you can see he is not interested in destroying someones skin.
You have to think about your believe in authority. As a biologist I can tell you storys. Oh my god. Some Professors have no statistical background and then they are doing research which says nothing. But some day you will recognize this.
I wish you a good day.
@cartweeling monkey:
Why aren't you using a lugols dilution with lower levels of iodine. Then there would be not too much redness. I wrote Dr Derry an email concering this problem and every time he says that there should be no discomfort. So what's the problem of the guys here???
You used 7% lugols dilution which is realley too much. Use 2 or 3% and then look how it is doing.
Use it on one scar and if it regenerates then it's good and you can use it on the other scars with the knowledge that it will work.
I wish you all the best.
And some mind game. What will be more stress to your skin. A laser which burns of the skin or some iodine? I don't need an answer. There are no good papers for laser treatments of scars that I am aware of.
EDIT:
For all the guys here who don't believe in the iodine. I have recognized that while painting not only the scars with iodine only the scars responded to the iodine. The normal skin did not become red but the scars. I find this very interesting.
Sanjoseskin, before I begin, let me get my parameters set for my last post.
I was not debating as there is nothing to debate. Your critique was flawed IMO.
We are not arguing, do not make it looks like one side is winning.
I wouldn't want to argue with you anyway, as you have suffered enough pain with your scarring by the sounds of it.
(Though I do agree that we should not go over board with application on a wide surface area.)
I just pointed out flaws in your logic, which you didnat like, which is expected as we all get pissed off if someone picks holes in our argument. I pointed out logical flaws and untruths in what you stated; these untruths might suggest you are mendacious and Machiavellian but I was not arguing that. I also pointed out hypocritical standards you have were you question one authority but not the other. To me it is annoying when people blindly in a reflex point to authority.
Iall quickly go through your next response and Iall leave it at that. Whether you respond or not.
I cannot believe you do not understand this is a case study that is reinforcing a hypothesis for a thorough test at a later date and are putting it to the same standard ain your heada to clinical trials, when the two methods are different . One is designed to filter through new drugs, the other is designed to forward a hypothesis by highlighting an event perceived that has some cause and effect.
You do not understand that this is a acase study,a and he is not doing anything different to what other people with scientific minds do when they put forward a hypothesis.
(If there was no such thing as a thought out case hypothesis that highlights something from an earlier hypothesis, then how can the science, you study, progress to objective knowledge?)a
First off yes I am claiming that I did read the study, because I did. I read studies on a regular basis for school, and this was certainly poorly constructed.
I have just started using the 5% lugols on chicken pox scars from childhood. I use a q tip and a have noticed only the scars crust and turn red. The surrounding non scared skin is unchanged. I try to just get the scars but small parts of healthy skin are stained as well.
Ava
i have read in my textbooks that iodine is important for cell function and especially for protein synthesis. however, iodine is needed for hormone production (protein as well). specifically for the production of DHT. the hormone that causes acne. i am not sure how much iodine helps if applied topically. i will see if i can find journals on the subject at the medical library. ample information there.
my skin is now refusing to peel. its scabbed over and the skin is all dry and hard/tough.
it has been like this for over a month now, not sure whats going on.
ive found that when you first start using lugols it causes your skin to peel within a week or two. then after that no more peeling occurs just a constant hard/dry scab type of thing. at least these are my findings.
i stopped applying for a few days to see what would happen and its still the same. at this moment in time i dont think applying lugols will help as it seems to be just staying on the surface. the scab seems too tough to penetrate. the lugols seems to be evaporating quickly because of this.
hows everyone else going? how is it affecting your skin?
my skin is now refusing to peel. its scabbed over and the skin is all dry and hard/tough.it has been like this for over a month now, not sure whats going on.
ive found that when you first start using lugols it causes your skin to peel within a week or two. then after that no more peeling occurs just a constant hard/dry scab type of thing. at least these are my findings.
i stopped applying for a few days to see what would happen and its still the same. at this moment in time i dont think applying lugols will help as it seems to be just staying on the surface. the scab seems too tough to penetrate. the lugols seems to be evaporating quickly because of this.
hows everyone else going? how is it affecting your skin?
My skin peeled, turned red. As for scar improvement, very subjective though ive been only applying for a month plus.
I digress, as we all know scarring is the same mechanism were ever it scars, (i.e. the collagen fibrils do not have enough decorin, they accumilate excess collagen, they crosslink, which makes scar on a tissue)..
Back on to the matter in hand, anyway this cite below is also an excess fibrosis problem and its a cite that backs up Derry's case study.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Aug;80(8):583-5.
Physical treatment of Peyronie disease.
Culibrk MS, Culibrk B.
Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Medical Center, Subotica, Yugoslavia.
OBJECTIVE: Peyronie disease is a localized and progressive fibrosis. It is characterized by a plaque in the tunica albuginea, which leads to penile deformity, making sexual intercourse difficult, if not impossible. DESIGN: During a 4-yr period, we treated 35 patients, aged 30-62 yr, in different stages of this disease. We applied ultrasound therapy (0.5 W/cm; 10 min), infrared radiation, and iontophoresis with 8% potassium iodide (0.2 mA; 30 min). The patients were taught to administer therapy by themselves. The patients' diseases were classified into three stages on the basis of subjective symptoms and clinical findings. At the beginning of treatment, 20 patients' diseases were classified as being in the first stage, 13 patients' diseases in the second stage, and 2 patients' diseases in the third stage. RESULTS: By the end of treatment, 10 patients were cured, 17 patients' diseases were classified as being in the first stage, 8 patients' diseases were in the second stage, and there were no patients in the third stage. CONCLUSIONS: The method is simple, safe, painless, and inexpensive. Patients were taught to administer the therapy by themselves. There were no side effects. Functional improvement and the cessation of pain were noted by all the patients. The level of improvement depended on the disease duration, the length of therapy, and the stage of the disease.
PMID: 11475478 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
my skin is still quite dry but its not really scabby any more.
everything still looks exactly the same which is disappointing. i really thought there would be some improvement.
ill let the area heal up properly and then carry on applying the lugols.
if lugols works from the bottom up i should at least of seen a decrease in the depth of my scars (i would of thought).
width, length, depth appears to be exactly the same.
its early days yet though i suppose.
hi guys,
today I will restart the application with a lower dose of lugols like Dr Derry advised me to. I will use a 2.5% dosage. I hope that the redness will not be as bad as while using the 5% lugols.
Anyone here who has something new from their scars?
Anyone who emailed Doc Derry again?
NEO
@pepo:
How long did you use it?
Patience is the main factor here. Describe Dr Derry your problem. Tell him what you did.
I emailed Dr Derry and he did not see any scabs. Maybe your lugols dilution has a too high dosage.
@cartwheeling_monkey:
Who has ever rated it? I don't see anyone here rating it. Most people started some weeks or month ago. It needs time. And noone has done it till the end. It's nothing that can be done quickly. WHoever thinks so should not try it. Otherwise tell me what you will do against scars? For scarless healing? I don't know anything that can do this.
@cartwheeling:
And here is your problem. You are the sceptic person. Too sceptic. You have not tried it correctly so what are you telling here? For Dr Derry it works and nobody here has tried it for more than 6 month. Did you read the paper? I don't think so. Otherwise you would have recognized the fact that patience is a huge factor for the success. But I know most people use it for 3 days and then they say man it does not work. Really a cool thing.
Why are you writing in this thread if you don't believe in the success of this? Do write Derry an email and he will tell you what you are doing wrong. That's all what can be said.
I think At the end of this year we can tell if it works or not, not today. Nobody is using it for a long time. And I will repeat it patience is a huge factor.
NEO
@cartwheeling_monkey:
Get a life man. You are the person with the negative tone here, it's not me.
You want benefits quickly but this is not a method where you can get benefits quickly.
How often shall I repeat the thing: patience is a huge factor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's really boring to talk to you and I will not go on talking to you, because ...
"im not going to argue with u or dr derry" ....
Why shall go on talking to you if you have no arguments?? Please tell me this.
Nobody knows if this works or not. Maybe the future will show it. I can understand people
who have no time to wait, but you will have to wait, if it shall work. We are talking about real
scar regeneration and not "my scars look better".
It would be better if he would show pictures of his scars and how they are after the therapy.
The people want to see it before they believe in it. And that's okay. But again, if he is right than
you will have to be very patient.
If he is wrong other treatments will do better, where is the problem ?
"ive read his report and have almost finished a 5 year uni degree. im not stupid (even though my spelling is absolutely terrible tongue.gif) and i understand research papers and their nature. evidence is always the true test, not just theory. you cannot test one type of scarring and suggest it will work for all. this is just silly. if you look carefully no pitted scars were tested. when i emailed him, he wanted us to test it for him. its simply failed.
intellect pays, stupidity doesnt. anyhoo ive said what i need to in this thread. im here for me and ultimately will cure my scars. what u do is ur own business. best of luck to anyone who does iodine. "
