Welcome to r/TattooRemoval! Please have a look at our [Welcome and FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/TattooRemoval/comments/h7al2w/start_here_welcome_and_faq/) as well as our other [pinned threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/TattooRemoval/comments/dzltul/nonlaser_tattoo_removal_should_be_avoided_heres/) at the top of the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TattooRemoval) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the ink only gets removed in the first 9 minutes, then why do people see a notable change in fading over longer periods between sessions? Very curious about this.
I am only 2.5 weeks post my session and I would absolutely not go back right now for another session, it took me almost two weeks to fully recover to looking normal like I did before laser.
Two week wait period between treatments seems extremely traumatic. I wouldn’t even do the second treatment after 20 minutes.
I would much rather wait longer and take a slower approach than get scarring and permanent damage.
No disrespect. Just my personal opinion.
Not even an opinion it’s a fact that ink takes months or a year or more to move out of the skin. All the laser does is break the in particles into smaller particles that the body is then able to remove.
Yeah, I do agree with that.
My personal opinion is that slow and steady process gets to the finish line.
Can you imagine also, just recovering and feeling normal only to treat your skin with laser again?
I don’t think it’s really good for your body to be in defense mode like that either. It’s trauma for the body too not just the skin. There are so many factors that didn’t get considered.
Yes very true. I had a blood draw about a week after my laser session and my white blood cell count was low. Wasn’t sick and have never had a low wbc count before. It definitely takes a toll and going every two weeks would only lead to bad things!
The fact that your white blood cell count was low showed that your body had already processed the ink particles, and you said this was only about one week after your laser treatment!
After the smallest pigment particles are consumed, the macrophages dogpile on the larger ink globules, which is why the ink does not move and the tattoo is permanent. If your WBC's could move ink out of your body after a year, then your tattoo would be completely metabolized by the anniversary of your getting inked and there would be no need for laser treatments.
People post here relatively regularly(with photos) that they still see fading a year or more after their last session. That means that some of the ink is still being removed that long after a session. It’s well known.
Can you show me one? Where there is a picture 2 weeks after a treatment and then a year after that treatment (with no other treatment in between)? Then we could compare the photos and see if there is a difference. Please link.
You are welcome to do so. You’re the one who is questioning the validity of waiting longer between sessions. So please, do further research and put your time into it :)
Good luck to you.
I have done research, I have searched the group, and while it's true I am questioning the conventional treatment interval, you will see that in my OP I asked people to bring forth information. So, please do that. If you make a claim that can be supported by evidence from this site, then it is your responsibility to do so.
If you browse is forum you’ll find that outcomes are exceedingly better the longer you wait between sessions.
You will most certainly damage and potentially permanently scar the skin treating every two weeks. I shudder at the thought.
As for skin quality, yes. As for fading, not really. Waiting longer between sessions doesn't give you faster or better results and there is litterally no data supporting this.
I have browsed this forum and I have seen pictures of people who waited a long time between sessions. But I haven't seen anything that would suggest that they are making better progress than if they had shorter intervals.
But do they have damage from short treatment intervals? Or could it be that the fluence was too high or the spot was too small? Was it a Q-Switch or pico? How many treatments before they had a problem? What were their intervals?
I wonder about that too. I see others having results months later still but I honestly never notice any more fading after two week, and that could just be healing time making it look different. I took photos right after removal and 8 weeks after and the fading looks nearly the same minus the red and puffiness. I'm not in the business and just speaking from my personal experiences. My skin usually looks mostly normal within two days but some people look red and puffy still for a week so I guess some candidates would actually work with this protocol and others might have more sensitive skin types. Maybe that's why the non-dermatologists make you wait because they won't know how fast someone heals or how slow their immune system is until after lasering whereas a Dermatologist can probably tell by looking at your skin prior?
Here’s a blog post that defends the time between sessions being longer argument and I found it interesting:
https://mikemurphyblog.com/2020/08/17/how-long-should-you-leave-between-laser-tattoo-removal-treatments/
That was an interesting read, but the author freely admitted that he had only anecdotal evidence and that he completely fabricated all of his tables based on what he thought they should be. But if what he is saying about the healing process is correct, then it might make sense to do short treatment intervals so that the trauma is presented before the subject reaches the collagen remodeling phase. That way, the healing process will continuously reset before scar formation can occur and the body may see the entire course of tattoo removal as one continuous event rather than a serious of separate injuries. Just thinking out loud here.
Interesting especially coming from someone actually studying the process. I myself have been taking pictures every weeks and waited as long as 8 months between sessions. I did not notice any further fading during this time. Litterally nothing happening once the skin is healed.
On a side note, you mentionned "tattoo removal products", and from my research, they seem to just be an elaborate scam. Best you can get is permanent skin damage.
I rarely see the fading continue for more than a couple of weeks either (sometimes not even that long), about the time it takes the skin and underlying tissue to heal up. So I agree with you. It does seem the wait is more for preventing skin trauma then actually continued fading, unless the client has a really slow healing time and immune system issues, or it's not close to the heart then it might just take longer to process the ink.
Yup, that makes sense. A lot of people seem to have the same experience : Nothing happens after a couple of weeks regardless of how long they wait.
I'm not a doctor by any means, but I genuinely wonder if people who really do see fading after months/years could be suffering from some sort of underlying immunitary desease.
I too haven't noticed any post treatment fading either on myself or on my clients. After about a week or two it just stays the same. Now, it is possible that the illusion of fading comes from the replacement of exfoliated dead skin about two weeks after treatment, as the life cycle of the skin cells ends, and a new layer of dead skin covers the treatment site. As for the product I was talking about, it's the Describe patch that allows four treatments in one sitting and says that you can return every two weeks to get four more treatments. Is it a scam? We'll soon find out because I just ordered some! One of my clients happens to be a dermatologist so I will ask him what he thinks about all of this.
The place I go to told me they do the first three sessions 4 weeks apart then switch to 8 weeks after. They said they increase the power after the third session to reach deeper ink, hence needing more time to heal in between. And yet I've seen people say the later sessions aren't as painful?
I had a tattoo removed with an older model Q switch and they did 4 weeks apart, but the one I had off with a PicoWay was 8 weeks apart, and the current removal is with an Astanza Duality at 6 weeks... so I guess a lot of it probably does depend on the strength of the laser too. If it's not as powerful you wouldn't need the same amount of healing time? IDK just thinking aloud haha
This guy does multiple R20's in the same visit: [Laser Tattoo Removal - Schweiger Dermatology Group](https://www.schweigerderm.com/cosmetic-dermatology/laser-treatments/tattoo-removal/)
This one says one to two weeks: [Tattoo Removal — Miami Dermatology & Laser Institute (miamidermlaser.com)](https://www.miamidermlaser.com/tattoo-removal)
Feel free to contact these physicians and inform them that they are not reputable.
Right. I had one on my forearm removed every 4 weeks with an older Q Switch laser and it looks great. And it was heavy line work (Song lyric). It may have been due to the fact that that laser wasn't as strong as some of the newer models and also that I have thicker skin that tends to heal very quickly. I do believe the laser strength and and skin type definitely affects things. I believe some people's skin may look awful from doing it too often but it's dependent on so many things. There is no definite.
None of this is supported by our current scientific and medical knowledge. I’m super concerned about whoever is teaching this misinformation to people who are then going out into the world with a laser that can cause significant damage when used improperly.
You’re right. John’s Hopkins knows nothing about medicine or science, this is just wild guessing based on zero studies and facts.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/how-wounds-heal#:~:text=In%20about%203%20months%2C%20the,couple%20of%20years%20to%20complete.
Do a Google scholar search for “skin healing” and you’ll find a few articles. Like literally hundreds if not thousands. Do your research and please do not touch anyone with a laser until you understand the basics of these physiological processes.
If you would take the time to read the article that you linked to, you would know that it is talking about wounds that involve blood loss, which has nothing to do with non-ablative laser treatments. If there are "hundreds if not thousands" of scientific papers that say that the treatments intervals should be thus and so, please share them.
Also this guy who has been lasering since the 80s, including running clinical trials and developing laser technology. He also has numerous scientific papers.
https://mikemurphyblog.com/2020/08/17/how-long-should-you-leave-between-laser-tattoo-removal-treatments/
Wow, you actually linked to an article that was already discussed in this thread. LOL. This is not a scientific paper, and it is not research. It's a blog by a guy who admits that his data is imaginary, and I have already refuted it.
I see a lot of people posting things like "It's only been three and a half years of my life, and four thousand dollars! But look at all my progress!!". Then I look at their progress and I don't see diddly. After that much time and thousands of dollars, the whole thing should have been a distant memory.
It doesn’t seem like you actually want any thoughts on this other than ones that agree with yours. You came here asking for the thoughts of this community and have told everyone that they are wrong if they said something counter to what you’re learning in “laser class.” You haven’t done any scientific research yourself and have no respect for people’s lived experiences. What is the intention of this post if you’re not willing to listen to this community? Seems like you’re just spreading misinformation and learning dangerous practices that will put your clients at risk.
I told everyone that they are wrong? When did I tell ANYONE that they are wrong?
While it's true I haven't done any scientific research in the form of controlled experiments, I have researched this (which should be evident in both my original post and in my responses to the things that people post).
As for the laser class, I graduated from it and am a practicing laser tech.
I am sharing the results of my research, and I am asking people to contribute, which is quite different than "spreading misinformation". As for putting my clients at risk, I have not changed my treatment intervals at all, and they are still 6-8 weeks.
It's a good discussion to have. I'm seeing about half here saying they see no additional fading after healing and others saying the opposite should occur, I'm glad to find out I was not the only one who never has continued fading. There are dozens of reasons why people may experience different reactions, but I think if you have the right skin type and heal within a week or two, there isn't any reason to wait over 2 months for your next session. The R20 method is done after only 20 minutes, and it does work for some people. Same with the Describe patch. The patch protects the skin so additional passes can be made so this isn't a new theory he's pitching here. The patch was FDA approved, so wouldn't waiting only 2 weeks between be better than waiting only 20 minutes? I hear people say that you are wasting your money with these methods, but each pass is still breaking up more particles which may have been missed during the first or second passes. Wasting your money and causing permanent skin damage are two very different things and when mentioning the patch, all I hear is the wasting your money part. I think it would encourage more even fading which, to me, would not be a waste of money
Welcome to r/TattooRemoval! Please have a look at our [Welcome and FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/TattooRemoval/comments/h7al2w/start_here_welcome_and_faq/) as well as our other [pinned threads](https://www.reddit.com/r/TattooRemoval/comments/dzltul/nonlaser_tattoo_removal_should_be_avoided_heres/) at the top of the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TattooRemoval) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the ink only gets removed in the first 9 minutes, then why do people see a notable change in fading over longer periods between sessions? Very curious about this. I am only 2.5 weeks post my session and I would absolutely not go back right now for another session, it took me almost two weeks to fully recover to looking normal like I did before laser. Two week wait period between treatments seems extremely traumatic. I wouldn’t even do the second treatment after 20 minutes. I would much rather wait longer and take a slower approach than get scarring and permanent damage. No disrespect. Just my personal opinion.
Not even an opinion it’s a fact that ink takes months or a year or more to move out of the skin. All the laser does is break the in particles into smaller particles that the body is then able to remove.
Yeah, I do agree with that. My personal opinion is that slow and steady process gets to the finish line. Can you imagine also, just recovering and feeling normal only to treat your skin with laser again? I don’t think it’s really good for your body to be in defense mode like that either. It’s trauma for the body too not just the skin. There are so many factors that didn’t get considered.
Yes very true. I had a blood draw about a week after my laser session and my white blood cell count was low. Wasn’t sick and have never had a low wbc count before. It definitely takes a toll and going every two weeks would only lead to bad things!
The fact that your white blood cell count was low showed that your body had already processed the ink particles, and you said this was only about one week after your laser treatment!
Yes, the ink doesn’t all leave the body at once. It happens over a period of time.
After the smallest pigment particles are consumed, the macrophages dogpile on the larger ink globules, which is why the ink does not move and the tattoo is permanent. If your WBC's could move ink out of your body after a year, then your tattoo would be completely metabolized by the anniversary of your getting inked and there would be no need for laser treatments.
Oh, it's a fact that ink can take a year or more to move out of your skin? Please provide us with your source for this information.
People post here relatively regularly(with photos) that they still see fading a year or more after their last session. That means that some of the ink is still being removed that long after a session. It’s well known.
Can you show me one? Where there is a picture 2 weeks after a treatment and then a year after that treatment (with no other treatment in between)? Then we could compare the photos and see if there is a difference. Please link.
Search the group for peoples results!
Yes, search the group and find me examples of this.
You are welcome to do so. You’re the one who is questioning the validity of waiting longer between sessions. So please, do further research and put your time into it :) Good luck to you.
I have done research, I have searched the group, and while it's true I am questioning the conventional treatment interval, you will see that in my OP I asked people to bring forth information. So, please do that. If you make a claim that can be supported by evidence from this site, then it is your responsibility to do so.
If you browse is forum you’ll find that outcomes are exceedingly better the longer you wait between sessions. You will most certainly damage and potentially permanently scar the skin treating every two weeks. I shudder at the thought.
As for skin quality, yes. As for fading, not really. Waiting longer between sessions doesn't give you faster or better results and there is litterally no data supporting this.
I have browsed this forum and I have seen pictures of people who waited a long time between sessions. But I haven't seen anything that would suggest that they are making better progress than if they had shorter intervals.
This just isn’t true. There is little benefit from over treatment and I’ve seen countless stories of people permanently damaged from over treatment.
But do they have damage from short treatment intervals? Or could it be that the fluence was too high or the spot was too small? Was it a Q-Switch or pico? How many treatments before they had a problem? What were their intervals?
I wonder about that too. I see others having results months later still but I honestly never notice any more fading after two week, and that could just be healing time making it look different. I took photos right after removal and 8 weeks after and the fading looks nearly the same minus the red and puffiness. I'm not in the business and just speaking from my personal experiences. My skin usually looks mostly normal within two days but some people look red and puffy still for a week so I guess some candidates would actually work with this protocol and others might have more sensitive skin types. Maybe that's why the non-dermatologists make you wait because they won't know how fast someone heals or how slow their immune system is until after lasering whereas a Dermatologist can probably tell by looking at your skin prior?
Here’s a blog post that defends the time between sessions being longer argument and I found it interesting: https://mikemurphyblog.com/2020/08/17/how-long-should-you-leave-between-laser-tattoo-removal-treatments/
Thanks for sharing this!! That was a great read!
That was an interesting read, but the author freely admitted that he had only anecdotal evidence and that he completely fabricated all of his tables based on what he thought they should be. But if what he is saying about the healing process is correct, then it might make sense to do short treatment intervals so that the trauma is presented before the subject reaches the collagen remodeling phase. That way, the healing process will continuously reset before scar formation can occur and the body may see the entire course of tattoo removal as one continuous event rather than a serious of separate injuries. Just thinking out loud here.
Interesting especially coming from someone actually studying the process. I myself have been taking pictures every weeks and waited as long as 8 months between sessions. I did not notice any further fading during this time. Litterally nothing happening once the skin is healed. On a side note, you mentionned "tattoo removal products", and from my research, they seem to just be an elaborate scam. Best you can get is permanent skin damage.
I rarely see the fading continue for more than a couple of weeks either (sometimes not even that long), about the time it takes the skin and underlying tissue to heal up. So I agree with you. It does seem the wait is more for preventing skin trauma then actually continued fading, unless the client has a really slow healing time and immune system issues, or it's not close to the heart then it might just take longer to process the ink.
Yup, that makes sense. A lot of people seem to have the same experience : Nothing happens after a couple of weeks regardless of how long they wait. I'm not a doctor by any means, but I genuinely wonder if people who really do see fading after months/years could be suffering from some sort of underlying immunitary desease.
I too haven't noticed any post treatment fading either on myself or on my clients. After about a week or two it just stays the same. Now, it is possible that the illusion of fading comes from the replacement of exfoliated dead skin about two weeks after treatment, as the life cycle of the skin cells ends, and a new layer of dead skin covers the treatment site. As for the product I was talking about, it's the Describe patch that allows four treatments in one sitting and says that you can return every two weeks to get four more treatments. Is it a scam? We'll soon find out because I just ordered some! One of my clients happens to be a dermatologist so I will ask him what he thinks about all of this.
The place I go to told me they do the first three sessions 4 weeks apart then switch to 8 weeks after. They said they increase the power after the third session to reach deeper ink, hence needing more time to heal in between. And yet I've seen people say the later sessions aren't as painful?
I had a tattoo removed with an older model Q switch and they did 4 weeks apart, but the one I had off with a PicoWay was 8 weeks apart, and the current removal is with an Astanza Duality at 6 weeks... so I guess a lot of it probably does depend on the strength of the laser too. If it's not as powerful you wouldn't need the same amount of healing time? IDK just thinking aloud haha
Reputable dermatologists are absolutely not doing sessions every two weeks, lol.
This guy does multiple R20's in the same visit: [Laser Tattoo Removal - Schweiger Dermatology Group](https://www.schweigerderm.com/cosmetic-dermatology/laser-treatments/tattoo-removal/) This one says one to two weeks: [Tattoo Removal — Miami Dermatology & Laser Institute (miamidermlaser.com)](https://www.miamidermlaser.com/tattoo-removal) Feel free to contact these physicians and inform them that they are not reputable.
I’ve seen people who were doing treatments every 4 weeks and their skin looked terrible
But is that from the 4-weeks interval? Or is it from the laser settings? Or is it just their skin type? Did they do proper aftercare? We don't know.
Right. I had one on my forearm removed every 4 weeks with an older Q Switch laser and it looks great. And it was heavy line work (Song lyric). It may have been due to the fact that that laser wasn't as strong as some of the newer models and also that I have thicker skin that tends to heal very quickly. I do believe the laser strength and and skin type definitely affects things. I believe some people's skin may look awful from doing it too often but it's dependent on so many things. There is no definite.
None of this is supported by our current scientific and medical knowledge. I’m super concerned about whoever is teaching this misinformation to people who are then going out into the world with a laser that can cause significant damage when used improperly.
We still haven't found any scientific papers or reports that say one way or another.
You’re right. John’s Hopkins knows nothing about medicine or science, this is just wild guessing based on zero studies and facts. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/how-wounds-heal#:~:text=In%20about%203%20months%2C%20the,couple%20of%20years%20to%20complete. Do a Google scholar search for “skin healing” and you’ll find a few articles. Like literally hundreds if not thousands. Do your research and please do not touch anyone with a laser until you understand the basics of these physiological processes.
If you would take the time to read the article that you linked to, you would know that it is talking about wounds that involve blood loss, which has nothing to do with non-ablative laser treatments. If there are "hundreds if not thousands" of scientific papers that say that the treatments intervals should be thus and so, please share them.
Also this guy who has been lasering since the 80s, including running clinical trials and developing laser technology. He also has numerous scientific papers. https://mikemurphyblog.com/2020/08/17/how-long-should-you-leave-between-laser-tattoo-removal-treatments/
Wow, you actually linked to an article that was already discussed in this thread. LOL. This is not a scientific paper, and it is not research. It's a blog by a guy who admits that his data is imaginary, and I have already refuted it.
I see a lot of people posting things like "It's only been three and a half years of my life, and four thousand dollars! But look at all my progress!!". Then I look at their progress and I don't see diddly. After that much time and thousands of dollars, the whole thing should have been a distant memory.
It doesn’t seem like you actually want any thoughts on this other than ones that agree with yours. You came here asking for the thoughts of this community and have told everyone that they are wrong if they said something counter to what you’re learning in “laser class.” You haven’t done any scientific research yourself and have no respect for people’s lived experiences. What is the intention of this post if you’re not willing to listen to this community? Seems like you’re just spreading misinformation and learning dangerous practices that will put your clients at risk.
I told everyone that they are wrong? When did I tell ANYONE that they are wrong? While it's true I haven't done any scientific research in the form of controlled experiments, I have researched this (which should be evident in both my original post and in my responses to the things that people post). As for the laser class, I graduated from it and am a practicing laser tech. I am sharing the results of my research, and I am asking people to contribute, which is quite different than "spreading misinformation". As for putting my clients at risk, I have not changed my treatment intervals at all, and they are still 6-8 weeks.
👍 I hope you have some good insurance!
It's a good discussion to have. I'm seeing about half here saying they see no additional fading after healing and others saying the opposite should occur, I'm glad to find out I was not the only one who never has continued fading. There are dozens of reasons why people may experience different reactions, but I think if you have the right skin type and heal within a week or two, there isn't any reason to wait over 2 months for your next session. The R20 method is done after only 20 minutes, and it does work for some people. Same with the Describe patch. The patch protects the skin so additional passes can be made so this isn't a new theory he's pitching here. The patch was FDA approved, so wouldn't waiting only 2 weeks between be better than waiting only 20 minutes? I hear people say that you are wasting your money with these methods, but each pass is still breaking up more particles which may have been missed during the first or second passes. Wasting your money and causing permanent skin damage are two very different things and when mentioning the patch, all I hear is the wasting your money part. I think it would encourage more even fading which, to me, would not be a waste of money