CoolSculpting Result

CoolSculpt[ing] Horrible Result..now NEED Ultrasonic Liposuction to Hopefully Fix, NO OTHER Option Male, 6 Ft3, 215lbs Fit

<img class="center" src="https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_400_400/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAZDAAAAJDlmNzUyZGQwLTc1ZjUtNDY0MS04YTFkLWYyYTQ3NDUyMzFmZA cialis online canada.jpg" alt="" width="336" height="280" data-loading-tracked="true" />

Coolsculpt[ing] by Zeltiq to help a small trouble spot, turned into a large protruding gross lump of firm fat! Made my “trouble area” worse I would say triple the size :{ Zeltiq Coolsculpt[ing] has RUINED my body, I never was even CLOSE to needing or opting for Liposuction, now it has been confirmed its the ONLY option to fix this, invasive surgery, something I did NOT ever want.

I have never written on a blog before… I am doing so in hopes others realize what can actually happen and so the information given pre treatment (the waiver and info from Zeltiq) is CLEAR with pictures. (its a VERY small thing you initial about this followed in same sentence by “any other unknown result can occur” VERY misleading you don’t even notice, and when your technician who you trust genuinely isn’t aware of it happening, you proceed VERY confident that your WORSE case scenario will be a bit of pain and maybe not much improvement.

When REALITY is it can be a VERY bad result, which happened to me and others on this site which sadly I found AFTER it was done :{

ThermiRF Thermi Aesthetics Temperature Controlled Radio Frequency

thermi-tight-nyc_crop3-1024x590

If you try to sell your device your buyer will need to pay $40,000-50,000 to use it. Why? see for yourself.

<a href="/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Assemble-Copier2 meilleur site pour acheter du cialis.pdf" target="_blank">Download here for more details

Dermatologist claims laser tattoo removal tool is fraud, brings class action vs Mass.-based maker

medium_Cynosurelogo

A Rockford area dermatology practice is suing a Massachusetts corporation, alleging the company sold a laser tattoo removal tool to the clinic and hundreds of other clinics, yet knew the product did not eliminate or remove tattoos.

Hartsough Dermatology, owned by dermatologist Nicole Hartsough, of Loves Park, filed a class action lawsuit June 26 in federal court in Chicago against precision surgical device manufacturer Cynosure Inc., of Westford, Mass., alleging negligent misrepresentation, fraud by omission and breach of contract, among other counts.

According to the lawsuit, Hartsough Dermatology purchased a PicoSure Picosecond Aesthetic Workstation from Cynosure in November 2013, based on information from Cynosure marketing materials, its website and sales representatives stating the workstation would remove and eliminate tattoos. The lawsuit claims more than 200 workstations have been sold to additional clinics in the U.S., including more than 50 sold to doctors and others in Illinois, since the product received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in 2012.

The complaint states Cynosure marketing materials represented the PicoSure as “the world’s first and only picosecond laser for tattoo removal,” and “even dark, stubborn blue and green inks, as well as previously-treated, recalcitrant tattoos can be removed or eliminated by using the PicoSure product.” The lawsuit includes a before-and-after photo from a Cynosure brochure that shows the complete elimination of a tattoo from a patient.

Hartsough Dermatology maintains the clinic purchased the laser removal tool and administered treatment as directed to numerous patients, but no tattoos were removed or eliminated.

Hartsough’s complaint says the doctor “had numerous questions and eventual concerns about the efficacy and safety of the product,” and posed those to Cynosure “on numerous occasions … over the telephone, in emails and in person.” But the company only continued to make “numerous false representations … regarding the PicoSure product’s ability to remove tattoos,” the complaint asserts.

Under the terms of its contract with Cynosure, Hartsough Dermatology was not able to return the product for a refund.

After receiving numerous complaints from Hartsough, Cynosure installed a software upgrade to the product, which Hartsough Dermatology claims did not solve the problem, but instead caused burns to some patients.

“The fact that Cynosure created and installed this ‘software update’ is an admission by Cynosure that the PicoSure product did not eliminate or remove tattoos,” the complaint states.

The complaint continues, saying a second software upgrade was promised by Cynosure, which to date has not occurred.

The lawsuit states Cynosure negligently and intentionally misrepresented the PicoSure product, committed fraud by omission and failed to warn consumers of its products pharmacie achat cialis.

“Defendant’s misrepresentations were such that reasonable consumers considered
them in deciding whether to purchase Defendant’s PicoSure product,” the lawsuit states. “At all relevant times, Plaintiff and the Class relied on these statements in purchasing the PicoSure product. Had Plaintiff and the Class known of the PicoSure product’s inability to remove or eliminate tattoos, they would not have purchased the PicoSure product, would have returned their PicoSure product for a refund, would have paid substantially less for it, or would have purchased a similarly functioning product for substantially less.”

Hartsough Dermatology has requested a jury trial and has asked the court to award damages for itself and the class, plus attorney fees and costs, as well as an order requiring Cynosure to stop the “unfair practices” described in the lawsuit.
The complaint does not specify the damage award sought, but does indicate the dispute involves an amount greater than $5 million.

Hartsough Dermatology is represented by attorneys Devon C. Bruce, Joseph A. Power Jr. and Jonathan M. Thomas, of Power, Rogers & Smith in Chicago, and Marc Gravino, John Holevas and Joel Huotari, of WilliamsMcCarthy LLP, of Rockford.

Sciton Letter

If you have, or are considering buying a Sciton, you are in deep trouble. In my opinion, they are worthless. The threats cited in this letter as mostly baseless and not true acheter cialis bon marche. Regardless, this will make it virtually impossible for anyone to attempt to resell a Sciton. The owner will be forced to pay Sciton’s inflated and unsustainable, service contract prices.

This is was why we formed the ACBA.  Download here for more information.

Deactivate – TheLaserTrader laser for sale postings

 

<a href="http://acba prix cialis en pharmacie france.expert/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/laser_logo1.gif">laser_logo1

Due to circumstances beyond our control we have been legally forced to remove any inference to a specific laser company from our website even though the information is part of the internet backbone and as such is free domain. Rather than do this for only them we have made a decision that as a form of protest we will remove all postings for every laser and IPL for the time being. In our experience the only ones who win in situations such as this are the attorneys. We appreciate your patronage through the 13 plus years we have provided our service to thousands of happy buyers and sellers hopefully providing a valuable solution to redeployment needs. Please feel free to call us at (866) 597-6895 for any additional assistance.

As an active seller on TheLaserTrader.com website we will be deactivating your listing immediately. There is nothing you need to do. We will take care of everything.

 

Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products

07mon3Web-superJumbo

 

American patent law should not be used to prevent consumers from reselling, altering or fixing technology products. A federal appeals court will soon hear a case that could clearly establish this principle.

Lexmark International v. Impression Products, which is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involves toner cartridges produced by Lexmark for use in its laser printers. The company is suing Impression Products, which buys used cartridges, refills them with toner and sells them to consumers. The refilled cartridges cost less than new ones sold by Lexmark.

Lexmark argues that Impression is infringing its patents, because Lexmark’s cartridges were sold to consumers under the condition that empty devices be returned to the company. Lexmark also asserts that the cartridges sold in foreign countries cannot be resold in the United States without its permission. The company bases this argument on a previous Federal Circuit ruling in a another patent case.

This case raises important questions about the reach of American patent law and how much control a manufacturer can exert after its products have been lawfully sold. Taken to their logical conclusion, Lexmark’s arguments would mean that producers could use patent law to dictate how things like computers, printers and other patented goods are used, changed or resold and place restrictions on international trade. That makes no sense, especially in a world where technology products and components are brought and sold numerous times, which is why the court should rule in favor of Impression.

If technology companies want to restrict how their products are used, they can lease their goods or sign contracts with business customers. Some manufacturers already use contracts to restrict reselling when they want to offer similar products at different prices in different countries. But using patent law to enforce restrictions is fraught with problems. There is no reason patent owners should be allowed to demand royalties from second or third owners of products who may be unaware of any restrictions.

Public-interest groups like Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies like Google, Intel and Dell have filed briefs in support of Impression, arguing that patent law should not be used to limit the resale of goods and restrict international trade.

Pharmaceutical and medical device companies have filed briefs supporting Lexmark, arguing that a ruling in favor of Impression would make it easier to import drugs into the United States from countries where their prices are lower. That concern is misplaced, because the Food and Drug Administration has the power to restrict drug imports, and federal lawalready prohibits the re-importation of medicines made in the United States by anybody other than the producer.

A 2013 Supreme Court decision also appears to support Impression’s position. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, a 6-to-3 majority said people should be able to import and resell textbooks that were first sold abroad.

To encourage innovation, the government gives inventors patents on their creations for a limited time. But patents should not give the manufacturer indefinite control over the product after it has been sold.

Infographic- Life Cycle of An Aesthetic Laser or RF Device

 

<img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-214" src="http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2.png" alt="Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2" width="1952" height="2700" srcset="http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2 acheter cialis prix.png 1952w, http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2-217x300.png 217w, http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2-745x1030.png 745w, http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2-1084x1500.png 1084w, http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2-510x705.png 510w, http://acba.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lasers-Lifecycle-Op-2-450x622.png 450w" sizes="(max-width: 1952px) 100vw, 1952px" />

Healthcare Investment Advisors are advocates for the local aesthetic practice owner. The below infographic is designed to demonstrate the benefit of buying a pre-owned laser or RF device. As a small business owner, investing in one of these devices is a major purchase that will define your service offerings and your profitability. Considering the advances in the refurbished market offering an initial investment of 50%- 75% of new, it offers much less debt and more free cash to the practice owner. See why below. Click the graphic to see the full size.

Plastic Surgery Skin Clinic Advertising Click Fraud

When you’re one of the numerous cosmetic medical practices, dermatology or plastic surgery clinics marketing and advertising on the web with Google or Yahoo pay-per-click, you shouldn’t be shocked to find that quite a few of the cash that you’re having to pay every month is sucked from your marketing account by fraud.

You do not think it is happening to the plastic surgery, laser clinic or cosmetic dermatology practice? Here’s a quote from the top dog of click fraud services vendor, ClickFacts:

“In extremely fraud susceptible areas such as class action lawsuits and medical, we have seen click fraud rates in the 30%-45% range. A lot of these are categories which see higher search phrase pricing in the Pay per clickmodel. Which ensures they are extremely delectable for fraud artists. If it is easy to bringin more cash with the dark side ın comparison to the light side , there are many people who may take advantage.”

The two predominant ways which your dermatology or plastic surgery clinic advertising and marketing budget has been exhausted through click fraud:

One, competitors that discover your marketing campaign then click it, draining your advertising and marketing dollars. Second, click fraudsters setup ‘affiliate’ sites are setup which run your ads where they are clicked on by bots or employees. These kind of sites are the most detrimental considering the fact that you happen to be coughing up for each click with no return. Click scams around skin clinics, med spas or laser clinics can be incredibly rewarding seeing that plastic surgery, laser clinics or cosmetic dermatology practices are becoming such a competitive market and the payment per click can be very high.

Regretably, to keep your advertising account safe you have very few tools. You can bet they’re not which Google’s not curious about your personal account, especially simply because Google is making money from click fraud when your ads are clicked on.

For starters, control your exposure to click fraud. Should your plastic surgery, laser clinic or cosmeticdermatology practice is running a PPC campaign, limit the most you commit daily. Use this element by restraining the max price. You possibly can even look for the trails of click fraud by analyzing the information you’ve got accessible to you. A number of clicks from the exact same IP address is a sign of fraud.

Nations such as Malaysia have become such a center for click ‘sweat-shops’ that clicks produced there tend to be totally discounted and Adwords or Adsense accounts are often refused.

Protect your dermatology or plastic surgery clinic by tracking your Pay per click account. It is easy to be sure that you’re the only one truly planning to.

If you are thinking about determining exactly what plastic surgeons and other medical doctors managing medspas and skin clinics think about the most recent Intense pulsed light (IPL) and cosmetic fractional skin offerings from Syneron, Sciton, Alma, Cutera, Solta, Palomar, Candela, Cynosure, Lumenis , as well as treatment options such as Thermage, Smartlipo, Botox and Dysport, liposuction and IPL laser hair removal, make sure to see all the cosmetic fractionated laser reviews of Medical Spa Or Plastic Surgeons Clinic MD, a community of medical doctors in aesthetic medicine.

Switch MD is a cosmetic laser clinic community of plastic surgeons, dermatologists, laser clinics and medspas with more than 5,000 physician members and hosts the most current physician discussion forums onlaser treatments and non-surgical cosmetic medical technologies and treatments.

Half of my Face Rotted Off! – Redding, CA~Say NO to Radiesse!

271318-7404

I am a cosmetic laser nurse and injected Radiesse, Restylane and Juvederm for many years. Last February the company sent a new injector trainer to show me and my staff the latest way to augment cheekbones to do the ‘liquid lift’. I chose to be injected first before my volunteer patients to see how it felt.

She blocked the blood flow to my left cheek entirely!!! The product is incredibly thick, and this is a risk factor. I looked in the mirror and said, “You’ve occluded my blood flow.” She shook it off and said, “Julie, you just know too much. Now relax and let me do the other side.” My husband is the physician in our practice. I wanted to run down the hall and show him but she just downplayed it and kept injecting me. By the time she was through with me and my hubby saw it, it was too late. The tissue was dying.

For 6 months I had pain and disfigurement as my left cheek rotted off and had to regrow. Now, nearly a year later, I am left with pitted skin like severe acne scars. I have lasered it 5 times and only reduced the redness. I have spent thousands of dollars flying around california for medical advice to keep it from scarring, laser treatments, medicines, etc. The company had some Florida doctor call me from his car phone to tell me what to do and what to take. He was a total jerk. I asked the company to please send me to a California doctor so I could see them in person. They wouldn’t. I was clearly on my own.

The company couldn’t give a crap. They have NEVER called to check on me. The representative sent me one short email that basically said I was in good hands with my husband. That was it acheter du cialis le moins cher. The nurse felt bad, and was super sweet. But even she has not checked up on me since it all went down. I think they advised her not to email me anymore for fear of lawsuit.

I wish there was a class action suit.They are getting away with horrible business practices.

Is ANY Cutera technology worth buying?

My physicians were underwhelmed with the Cutera Xeo cialis canada paypal.

We were using the Cutera Titan & ND Yag. The inexperienced physician in the location where we had it thought it worked well, but my more experienced physicians hated it and, in effect, wouldn’t use it.

The ‘single do everything platform’ is also something I generally don’t like since I can only have one treatment room going at a time. I guess that Cutera is trying to target individual physicians with a ‘this one device will do everything’ approach. While you might originally might think this is a good idea it’s hard to grow if you have to invest another $100k for each additional treatment room.

LH comments about Cutera:

"At this time, I have very little respect for Cutera. They have over promised and under delivered on many things (Titan, Genesis, etc). The only time they contact my office is when they want to sell me an upgrade. Their webinars are only geared to the new person getting into aesthetics. Their webinars are only made so they can sell you something. I have watched many webinars and have stopped because they are a waste of time.

I also have issues with a company that will sell you a brand new system and will not back it up if you sell it on the secondary market. They will not sell refurbished Titan heads to anyone other than the original owner. They will not train any non-Cutera laser techs. This is so they can charge more for repairs. They will not send parts to any non-Cutera laser techs. Therefore, Cutera has made my used laser worth much less than it should be.

Unless Cutera changes their ways, I will never purchase a Cutera laser again. I will also never purchase an upgrade for my current sysytem."

And Dermadoc says about Cutera:

"My frustration is two-fold: first, Cutera totally overhyped the Titan, despite a few (very few) providers who seem to be getting what they consider good results. Second, how could this coatrack be marketed without a more consistent technique being identified, along with consistent recommendations for patietn selection, expected results, etc. It was sold on a wing and a prayer and like LH, I will find it very hard to purchase anything from Cutera again."

I’d have to agree with LH. The only time I saw the Cutera rep was during sales calls. Cutera’s refusal to support their technology outside of the origional purchaser is a mistake and greatly lowers the value of their entire system. I can’t see that investing in a system with such a downside when trying to sell is such a good idea.

I’m curious as to everyone elses experience with Cutera technology or dealing with Cutera as a company. (I’m even interested in what the Cutera reps on this site might have to say.)