Free shipping on all domestic orders over $39

iLift LaserLift BotAction Anti-Wrinkle Device

April 10, 2009 Reviewed by Marta 2 Comments
The iLift LaserLift BotAction Anti-Wrinkle Device, which sells for about $395, reminds me a lot of the Ion Infrared Beauty Stimulator. I haven't tried the former, but I did try the Beauty Stimulator and found it to be completely underwhelming. They are similar in that they both use two technologies: negative and positive ions and infra-red rays.

According to iLift (no relation to Apple), just the very touch of your hand on this device will release ions. The negative ions attack bacteria and the positive make the ingredients of LaserLift BotAction Serum penetrate more easily. Or at least that's what is supposed to happen.

The thing to remember about ions is that someone was very confused when they named then. All you need to remember is that, however, counter-intuitively, negative ions are good and positive ions are bad. Ions are clusters of mostly water molecules that are positively or negatively charged - and they always come in pairs with one of each. Negative air ionization can make things like dust particles in the air bond together, form larger particles and then fall out of the air. Bacteria-zapping applications crop up everywhere from air purifiers to sanitary pads (strange, but true).

Positive ions are the evil twins of the negatives. They worsen the symptoms of people with asthma and lurk in offices with sick building syndrome. I can't find any evidence that they help cosmetic products penetrate. On the contrary, tests (on mice, for example) suggest that positive ions cause stress.

Although iLift also has a setting that delivers infra-red light, I am inclined to regard this device as a waste of time. Particularly since it requires four consecutive 16-minute sessions (there is also a setting that delivers mico-vibrations). For the money, I would invest in a Baby Quasar and have done with it.
  • April 10, 2009

    by justine

    That doesn't surprise me. Here's a study done in '04 using a similar methodology in which they did find GentleWaves to be effective.
    However, there is no control group, so it's impossible to say whether the subjects actually improved because of the LED treatment or whether they all started doing something differently in their skin care regimes that also had an impact on their skin (Oh look! All the participants were all coached on the daily use of sunscreen SPF30 or above during the treatment program).

    This also makes the grading dubious. In other words, I would want to compare the false positives (the times when the graders thought there was an improvement when there really wasn't) to the real positives.

    Good experimental studies are hard to do, and the Baby Quasar has the additional problem of being a hand-held device, which would make controlling the application across the participants really hard.

    None of this means that it doesn't work though. Anecdotal evidence counts for a lot, and that is why TIA is such a marvelous find.

    I would be interested to read the article you are referring to Jessica. Do you have a ref?

  • April 10, 2009

    by jessica

    I just read an article today in a derm publication that GentleWaves isn't effective at all... they had a bunch of objective observers judge scrambled before-and-after pics. What a bummer. I'm also wondering why there are no before-and-afters of Baby Quasar users. Anyone have any to post?

Join the discussion! Leave a comment below.

My Comment

Add a comment...

-or- Cancel Comment
* Required Fields
truth in aging's five best

Truth In Aging's Five Best

The very best to choose from for your skin concerns.

Read More

truth in aging videos

Truth In Aging Videos

Helpful how-tos and reviews from Marta and friends.

Watch Now

meet our contributors

Meet Our Contributors

The TIA community consists of our trusted reviewers.

Meet Them

be inspired

Be Inspired

Inspiring thoughts and women who are aging gracefully.

Read More