Psuedoscience?

[Yeah_Right]

I guess this is the correct part of the forum for this post, but I am, lately, seeing infomercials for something called "Light Force Therapy". The claim is that infrared light relieves muscle pain and arthritis, for the full poop on this device here's the link:http://www.lightforcetherapy.com/technology.cfm

[epepke]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
I guess this is the correct part of the forum for this post, but I am, lately, seeing infomercials for something called "Light Force Therapy". The claim is that infrared light relieves muscle pain and arthritis, for the full poop on this device here's the link:http://www.lightforcetherapy.com/technology.cfm

Well, infrared light delivers heat which does relieve some pains.

However, I'd be worried about the skin cooking first. Hot pads work just fine. If you're really serious, there's diathermy.

[pupdog]

Since when do infomercials peddle sensible medical treatments or devices? Sounds like they just came up with an idea for a more profitable version of what should be a cheap treatment (heat).

[SteveGrenard]

This is also called pseudospelling.....

PS: I think these are way overpriced but are probably not a scam.

[Pyrrho]

Link to an FDA letter allowing marketing of the "Super Nova" device:

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001179.pdf

[Goshawk]

Well, although infrared heat lamps do deliver heat to muscles, this isn't an infrared heat lamp--this is just a fairly large LED display. I doubt whether a LED display delivers much heat, and I doubt whether "skin cooking" is a problem.

They even say that it's "low level infrared".

It's just a LED.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Well, although infrared heat lamps do deliver heat to muscles, this isn't an infrared heat lamp--this is just a fairly large LED display. I doubt whether a LED display delivers much heat, and I doubt whether "skin cooking" is a problem.

They even say that it's "low level infrared".

It's just a LED.

In that case, it's almost certainly useless.

[scribble]

It's worse than useless. It will promote BAD HEALTH.

I've seen people gain hundreds of pounds, become lethargic, and detached from reality all from using these horrible, evil devices. The government wants to promote this behavior, and that is why they are used in all television remote controls. It's MIND CONTROL people, I'm TELLING YOU!

BEWARE!

[Yeah_Right]

This is also called pseudospelling

Okay, well I am not the only bad speller on the internet certainly, but be that as it may, thanks for the input. That flashing led thing certainly didn't look as if it would provide sufficient heat to relieve pain. I usually use a considerably cheaper heating pad which actually works.

[Goshawk]

I love the Internet.

Buried in the middle of a whole web page of pseudo-science low-infrared therapy gibberish, I found this gem:

Power density is a key to laser energy. Power Density (PD), or light concentration is measured in watts per centimeter squared (W/cm2).

< snip >

In order to cut with lasers, it is necessary to increase the PD from 300 to 10,000 W/cm2. Lasers do not even have a warming affect unless they are operated above 5 W/cm2. Low-level lasers discussed here operate from 1 to 3 milliwatts. [bolding mine]
So in their need to reassure the customer that their low-level infrared light gadget won't cut them up, they end up telling them that it doesn't even get warm.

Hee. :D

Browsing the Web for those bathroom infrared heat lamps, I find that they're mostly in the 250 to 375 watts range.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
...for the full poop on this device...

I do believe you had it right the first time...

[teddygrahams]

I couldn't find that power density quote Goshawk... where did you see it ?

None of the LED frequencies they mentioned were in the heat range. They were all very near-infrared, or visible.

How much more light can get through a horse's hide, from 12 Watts of LEDs, than sunlight ? Zero, I think. How to avoid the harmful UV ? Window glass.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
I couldn't find that power density quote Goshawk... where did you see it ?

Dang, I forgot to include the link. My bad. :o

http://www.laserinformation.com/custom/facts.html

[tracer]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Link to an FDA letter allowing marketing of the "Super Nova" device:

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001179.pdf
Well, hey! If the "Super Nova" is legally equivalent to devices marketed in Interstate Commerce prior to May 28, 1976, then it must be good, right? ;)

[SteveGrenard]

(Note: The following is a press release issued by NASA, It is in the public domain).


http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2000/00-336.html

[There are follow-up and back-up links on this story at the above website. The introductory material is pasted herewith)


It discusses the use of Light Emitting Diode therapy effectiveness for some medical conditions and in so doing contradicts many or at least some of the assertions made above regarding the non-efficacy of LEDs for such purposes.
I came across it when perusing other "light" related sites for a newer thread.
Anyway, here it is FYI:

NASA Space Technology Shines Light on Healing

Release: 00-336 For Release December 18, 2000


Doctors at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee have discovered the healing power of light with the help of technology developed for NASA's Space Shuttle. Using powerful light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, originally designed for commercial plant growth research in space, scientists have found a way to help patients here on Earth.

Doctors are examining how this special lighting technology helps hard-to-heal wounds, such as diabetic skin ulcers, serious burns, and severe oral sores caused by chemotherapy and radiation. The project includes laboratory and human trials, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and funded by a NASA Small Business Innovation Research contract through the Technology Transfer Department at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL.

"So far, what we've seen in patients and what we've seen in laboratory cell cultures, all point to one conclusion;" said Dr. Harry Whelan, professor of pediatric neurology and director of hyperbaric medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The near-infrared light emitted by these LEDs seems to be perfect for increasing energy inside cells. This means whether you're on Earth in a hospital, working in a submarine under the sea or on your way to Mars inside a spaceship, the LEDs boost energy to the cells and accelerate healing." Physical Therapy. 72(7): 483-91, 1992 Jul. (60 ref)

Dr. Whelan's findings will be summarized in upcoming issues of Space Technology and Applications International Forum 2001 and in The Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine and Surgery. Other related peer-reviewed journals have published articles on Whelan's medical research with light emitting diodes.

Dr. Whelan's NASA-funded research has already seen remarkable results using the light-emitting diodes to promote healing of painful mouth ulcers caused by cancer therapies such as radiation and chemotherapy. The treatment is quick and painless.

The wound-healing device is a small, 3.5-inch by 4.5-inch (89-millimeter by 114-millimeter), portable flat array of LEDs, arranged in rows on the top of a small box. A nurse practitioner places the box of LEDs on the outside of the patient's cheek about one minute each day. The red light penetrates to the inside of the mouth, where it seems to promote wound healing and prevent further sores in the patient's mouth.
"Some children who probably would have had to be fed intravenously because of the severe sores in their mouths have been able to eat solid food," said Dr. David Margolis, an oncologist at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Margolis, whose pediatric cancer patients are participating in the study, explained that, "Preventing oral mucositis improves the patient's ability to eat and drink and also may reduce the risk of infections in patients with compromised immune systems."

Dr. Whelan's collaboration with NASA began when Ronald Ignatius, owner of Quantum Devices Inc. in Barneveld, WI, learned about Dr. Whelan's brain cancer surgery technique using drugs stimulated by laser lights. Laser-light surgical probes are costly and cumbersome in the operating room because they are heavy, with refrigerator-size optical, electrical and cooling systems.

Ignatius originally designed the lights for plant growth experiments through the Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and Robotics, a NASA commercial space center at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

"The LEDs needed to grow plants in space produced the same wavelengths of light the doctor needed to remove brain tumors," said Ignatius. "Plus, when we developed the LEDs for NASA, they had to be lightweight to fly aboard the shuttle and have small cooling systems. These traits make the LED surgery probes easier to use in the operating room and thousands of dollars cheaper than laser systems."

Quantum Devices altered the surgical probe to emit longer wavelengths of red light that stimulate a photodynamic drug called Benzoporphyrin Derivativea. Doctors at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin recently completed the first-ever surgery with the improved probe and medicine. The drug also has fewer side effects after surgery. The ongoing brain surgery study is described in a 1999 peer-reviewed journal article in Pediatric Neurosurgery.

"At NASA, we work with companies like Quantum Devices to take technologies developed for use in space and bring the benefits back home to Earth," said Helen Stinson of Marshall's Technology Transfer Department. "NASA is proud to support a program that helps children with brain cancer - and promises to help even greater numbers of people with technology to accelerate the healing process."

In the laboratory, Whelan and his team have shown that skin and muscle cells grown in cultures and exposed to the LED infrared light grow 150 to 200 percent faster than ground control cultures not stimulated by the light. Scientists are trying to learn how cells convert light into energy, and identify which wavelengths of light are most effective at stimulating growth in different kinds of cells.

To expand the wound healing study, Whelan - a commander and diving medical officer in the U.S. Navy reserve assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command (Naval Special Warfare Group TWO) - is working with doctors at Navy Special Warfare Command centers in Norfolk, VA, and San Diego, CA. They reported a 40 percent improvement in patients who had musculoskeletal training injuries treated with the light-emitting diodes.

A wound-healing device was placed on the USS Salt Lake City submarine, and doctors reported 50 percent faster healing of crewmember's lacerations when exposed to the LED light. Injuries treated with the LEDs healed in seven days, while untreated injuries took 14 days.

The LED research project will continue for the next 18 months, with doctors studying 100 patients at two major teaching affiliates of the Medical College of Wisconsin. Researchers will continue to examine the influence of LEDs on cells grown in the laboratory, and will explore the benefits that LEDs might provide to counteract possible cell damage caused by exposure to harmful radiation and weightlessness during long space missions.

NASA News, Marshall Space Flight Center News Release 00-336 (12-18-00) Contact: Jerry Berg, Media Relations Department (256) 544-0034 Email: jerry.berg@msfc.nasa.gov


http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/2000/00-336.html

[Goshawk]

The only update I can find is from 2003, and all it says is that research is ongoing.

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2003/03-199.html
A device using specialized light emitting diodes, based on NASA technology for plant growth in space, is continuing to show promise as a treatment to aid healing of bone marrow transplant patients. Use of the LED apparatus has advanced to the second phase of clinical trials in U.S. and foreign hospitals. Results from the first round of tests were highly encouraging, prompting researchers to expand the trials as they seek approval for the treatment as a standard of care for oral mucositis.
Also, they're only studying the capacity of LEDs to increase healing of mouth sores. That's a far cry from the OP's website, and others like it, who claim LEDs are good for basically everything that ails you.

[SteveGrenard]

Panaceas (cures all) are always a signal for caution. However did manage to find a few more references including mouse studies done by the NASA group (published in Apr 2003). The question certainly is this website capitalizing on mainstream medicine's evolving use of LEDS and whether or not their LED devices deliver the results claimed or are even the same as those used by the NASA and other groups.

Here's a few abstracts re this subject. The first is connected with the NASA study and was published in April, 2003.
I don't see oral lesions as being the only application involved here.


J Clin Laser Med Surg. 2003 Apr; 21(2): 67-74.


Effect of NASA light-emitting diode irradiation on molecular changes for wound healing in diabetic mice.

OBJECTIVE: edited for copyright violation.





[quote]Lasers Med Sci. 2003; 18(2): 95-9. Related Articles, Links


Increased fibroblast proliferation induced by light emitting diode and low power laser irradiation.

edited for copyright violation





[quote] Dermatol Surg. 2001 May; 27(5): 452-6.


Photodynamic therapy for Bowen's disease (squamous cell carcinoma in situ) of the digit.

edited for copyright violation......


------------------------------------------------
[quote]Neurosurgery. 1996 Mar; 38(3): 552-6; discussion 556-7.


Light-emitting diodes as a light source for intraoperative photodynamic therapy.

edited for copyright violation[b]
(NIH/NLM MedLine abstracts...there are more)

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>[b]Posted by
hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>This post has been reported. Having spent some time in reviewing the legal issues at stake here, I believe the law is, for the most part, clear that abstracts carry copyright protection. Therefore I have edited these posts, and will take additional required actions.
</font></td></tr></table>

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Panaceas (cures all)...

Steve,

Stop this game of brinksmanship. Immediately, sir. Those abstracts are copyrighted material. You know that. Stop cramming the JREF site with post after post consisting of 90% stolen intellectual property.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Steve,

Stop this game of brinksmanship. Immediately, sir. Those abstracts are copyrighted material. You know that. Stop cramming the JREF site with post after post consisting of 90% stolen intellectual property.
Fair use. No penalty. Wake me when someone really does break the rules.

edited to add: Amended. See my next post.

[Pyrrho]

Well, it has been pointed out to me that abstracts from PubMed may be protected by copyright in some cases. Reference here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/disclaimer.html


Copyright Status
Most of the information available from this site is within the public domain. Public domain information on the NCBI Web pages may be freely downloaded and reproduced. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work, NCBI be given appropriate acknowledgment.

This site also contains some material, such as abstracts, full text of journal articles and books, and the OMIM database, that is copyright protected. For such material, the submitting authors or other copyright holders retain rights for reproduction or redistribution. All persons reproducing or redistributing this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by the copyright holder. Such protected material, however, may be used under the terms of "fair use"; as defined in the copyright laws, which generally permit use for non-commercial educational purposes such as teaching, research, criticism, and news reporting.
I really do think that the posts of the abstracts by Steve Grenard does fall under "fair use", but it's not quite clear. Posting an abstract without added comments from the poster isn't exactly discussion, but they have been posted within the context of a discussion. In the interests of avoiding possible difficulties with the copyright holders of the materials, I request that abstracts from non-government sources be referred to by URL instead of quoting the text verbatim.

Text from government sources is not subject to copyright. While PubMed is operated by an arm of the government, they have made their restrictions clear, as shown above. Please respect individual copyright.

I am aware that Hal has issued a very clear warning about this. I am not taking any action other than to reiterate that warning.

[SteveGrenard]

In the example being dscussed, and there was a discussion; the thread started out with an assertion that a seller of LED devices for therapeutic purposes was a scam. There followed several posts by people who assumed authority status on the subject of LEDS, stating in fact, that they were not capable of producing any heat or other therpaeutic benefits. When I found the NASA funded research by the Wisconsin researchers using LEDS for wound healing, I was then told that this only involved mouth sores. The last published paper of these researchers, in abstract, was provided to prove that this was not the case: the mouse study involved diabetic ulcers. In addition, a search of MedLine found uses in treating a type of cutaneous cancer, in conjunction with a proprietary substance ... LEDS compared favorably with lasers in brain tumor research/treatment and so on. One poster, an alleged expert, took the original "scam" website to task for them describing LEDS in certain terms, (Power density is a key to laser energy. Power Density (PD), or light concentration is measured in watts per centimeter squared (W/cm2).... ridiculing them in fact for doing so.

One of the papers posted from a serious mainstream medical research institution used the same terminology
this poster derided. The best way I had of demonstrating this, in the presence of my own lack of expertise on LEDS, was to provide the abstract. If he had problems with it, then he could say so.

Although Hoyt feels that this is some kind of brinkmanship, it was in reality an effort to demonstrate and prove that LEDS have been and are being explored as important medical therapeutic devices; and, that un-researched, off the cuff remarks labeling a company (which I couldn't personally care less about) as perpetrating a scam needed to be explored. Unlike Hoyt I am not here for the points, but since he is, I would expect him to think that way.
We see it far too often: the skeptics
leaving their skepticism outside and jumping on the bandwagon of a few leaders who sometimes, not all the time, don't know what they are talking about. or havent questioned or reserarched a subject which they have pre-formed well defined opinions about.

In order to accomplish the above, I had the benefit of the National Library of Medicine's MedLine service which allows reproduction of citations and abstracts for non-profit purposes and precisely in discussions such as the above. If I tried to vindicate the use of LEDS for these purposes myself, in my own words, not only would I have been perpetrating my own little hoax (since until the other day I knew virtually nothing about this subject) I would have been ridiculed and derided myself for not knowing what I was talking about and the critics would have been correct.

But I can read and understand what I posted and I assume others doing likewise would benefit from this knowledge in light of the "authoritative" remarks desparaging this firm and its technology. And this leads to a bigger issue for this forum. Somebody found this commercial website, and a bunch of people chimed in it was legit and others that it wasn't. It should not be left at that. The facts regarding the existence and validity of this particular technology had to be explored and presented.

[Loki]

Steve,

Can I suggest that you try to modify your posting style? When you have material that you want to make available, simply link to the off site material, and provide a short quote of the *most* relevant point in that link. This would (a) ensure you always stay well away from any issues of 'fair use' and (b) would show that you yourself have read and understood what you're linking to.

As far as the LEDs are concerned - my initial reaction was that it sounded like a scam, but your links have indicated that there may in fact be some substance to the company's claims. Thanks for the info - I'd still like to see some trials conducted on the device before accepting some of the (marketing) claims from the web site :

"...a FDA cleared method of pain relief that will increase mobility and melt away your pain, in just minutes."

"...it can be used on just about any type of pain."

[Sundog]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Steve,

Stop this game of brinksmanship. Immediately, sir. Those abstracts are copyrighted material. You know that. Stop cramming the JREF site with post after post consisting of 90% stolen intellectual property.

Jesus Christ, will someone please make Logic Boy a moderator as he so desperately desires and get it over with? At this point, he can't possibly hurt anything. All the damage that is possible to inflict on the Forum has already happened.

"Immediately, sir". What a churlish, posturing clown. Why the management here lets this poser operate this forum as his own private spanking clinic is way, way beyond me.

Oh well... as if it matters.

[teddygrahams]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The question certainly is this website capitalizing on mainstream medicine's evolving use of LEDS and whether or not their LED devices deliver the results claimed or are even the same as those used by the NASA and other groups.

That is not a question, it is a certainty.

NASA runs some experiments on plants using LEDs type A, therefore Horses can be cured using LEDs type B. And since horses can be cured, so can people. And sunlight, which contains all the wavelengths of type A and B are capable of producing, does not have the same effect.

And I, semi-authoritatively can tell you that 880nM-emitting LEDs do not output heat except for normal resistive losses. They output Light ! The heat they produce is no more healing than the heat produced by any electrical device, because it it is the same as from any electrical device.


Steve, do you have any references citing "pulsing" LEDs, that require them to pulse at a specific frequency or the body will "block" the healing ? Where did that come from ?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by teddygrahams


That is not a question, it is a certainty.

It may well be.

NASA runs some experiments on plants using LEDs type A, therefore Horses can be cured using LEDs type B. And since horses can be cured, so can people. And sunlight, which contains all the wavelengths of type A and B are capable of producing, does not have the same effect.

Clearly NASA has funded experiments in this area that go far beyond plants and horses; other researchers have done human trials which are cited above

And I, semi-authoritatively can tell you that 880nM-emitting LEDs do not output heat except for normal resistive losses. They output Light ! The heat they produce is no more healing than the heat produced by any electrical device, because it it is the same as from any electrical device.

From all the above papers it would seem they are working with LEDS in the 600-640 nm range. If it is not heat that is responsible for the effects observed that it may be something else. Positing kinetic energy and heat was what the original site mentioned.

Steve, do you have any references citing "pulsing" LEDs, that require them to pulse at a specific frequency or the body will "block" the healing ? Where did that come from ?

Excuse me but I never mentioned pulsed LEDS or any blocking effect so I obviously don't know where it came from. The above authors, on the other hand, have experimented with different wave lengths and frequencies.

also: LEDS apparently can produce heat:



When an electron and hole recombine, they have to give up energy equal to (actually slightly greater than since they’re moving and thus have kinetic energy as well as potential) the band gap energy. Of course energy is dissipated in the diode- you know from your circuits course that the battery is delivering power equal to current times voltage (IUf). This energy must be dissipated by the diode, either in the form of heat or by emitting photons. Photon emission was shown in figure 4 of the Direct and Indirect Band Gap handout. For a diode made with indirect band gap semiconductor, recombination always results in mostly heat. Thus to get photons we make a diode using a direct band gap material. Unfortunately defects always exist, that allow the carriers to recombine by emitting heat, so we lose photon conversion efficiency even using direct gap material. excerpted from:

http://www.ee.udel.edu/~goossen/eleg240/handout/17.htm


Since I went to lengths to explain that I am not even a semi-authority on semi-conductors of the diode kind, I will not debate you regarding this subject but I am sure your input is appreciated. As the medical applications in the above cited (easy to read and to compare in one place) study abstracts indicate, light emitting diodes evidently release energy which is responsible for their effects. If someone told us forty years ago (or maybe yesterday) that even high intensity conventional light can make jaundice (bilirubin levels) disappear in newborn babies, many probably would scoff as well.

[teddygrahams]

This deserves full quoting, as you totally missed every one of my points.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


It may well be.



Clearly NASA has funded experiments in this area that go far beyond plants and horses; other researchers have done human trials which are cited above



From all the above papers it would seem they are working with LEDS in the 600-640 nm range. If it is not heat that is responsible for the effects observed that it may be something else. Positing kinetic energy and heat was what the original site mentioned.


You may as well say that if it's not the LEDs that are responsible for the effects, then it may be something else. 600-640nm is NOT INFRARED. It is red light. Not even close to infrared. Same color as the brake lights on cars.


Excuse me but I never mentioned pulsed LEDS or any blocking effect so I obviously don't know where it came from. The above authors, on the other hand, have experimented with different wave lengths and frequencies.


I didn't say that you did. I asked if you knew of any. Wavelengths and frequencies are reciprocals of each other. The website mentioned in the original post sells a device that pulses the light output to cure different diseases. here is a quote from that site, referring to the Super Nova product:


There are six specific user-controlled settings plus six target Sweep cycles that rotate through a short range of frequencies. The Super Nova also has a Sweep setting that cycles through all frequencies as well as a timer for the EPS Treatment.

Sweep settings are important because every individual is unique in their physical condition. One person may receive maximum benefit from one setting while another person may receive maximum benefit from another


Now how do they know that ?




also: LEDS apparently can produce heat:

Did I not say that in my post ? I said LEDs produce heat identical to any electrical device. There is nothing special about that heat because it comes from an LED. A resistor will produce heat of the exact same wavelength (and frequency) as will a rock that's been lying in the sun.


Since I went to lengths to explain that I am not even a semi-authority on semi-conductors of the diode kind, I will not debate you regarding this subject but I am sure your input is appreciated. As the medical applications in the above cited (easy to read and to compare in one place) study abstracts indicate, light emitting diodes evidently release energy which is responsible for their effects.

What kind of magical energy do they emit ? Light. Same light as you get from a lightbulb, narrower in spectrum. Much less heat. Much less efficient than from a fluorescent bulb.



If someone told us forty years ago (or maybe yesterday) that even high intensity conventional light can make jaundice (bilirubin levels) disappear in newborn babies, many probably would scoff as well.

From googling on jaundice, it appears blue/uv light is the treatment, not "high intensity conventional light." You can get UV from halogen lights, fluorescent lights, even LEDs (it would take a lot to equal the output from 1 fluorescent bulb), but not "conventional" lights.


I can't help but mention that the studies you cite are way different from the intended use of the devices in question.

One was was "in vitro". OK, if you have a wound, cutting it out and putting it under LEDs may accelerate the healing of the part you cut out.

One mention green LEDs. Not red, or infrared. It said green was the best. In vitro again.

Another mentioned, I believe, some operation removing scar tissue. Then the LEDs were used. Was it double blind ?

Another involved phototherapy in canines, substituting LEDs for lasers. A photosensitive chemical was used. Does the photosensitive chemical come with the "Super Nova", and where do you inject it ?

Not one study involved the use of LEDs as healing devices on people.

I would like to see the letter sent to the FDA that resulted in the reply letter.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
From googling on jaundice, it appears blue/uv light is the treatment, not "high intensity conventional light." You can get UV from halogen lights, fluorescent lights, even LEDs (it would take a lot to equal the output from 1 fluorescent bulb), but not "conventional" lights.


Of course, good old sunlight can be used to treat jaundice. They don't come more conventional than that.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Well, it has been pointed out to me that abstracts from PubMed may be protected by copyright in some cases. Reference here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/disclaimer.html


I really do think that the posts of the abstracts by Steve Grenard does fall under "fair use", but it's not quite clear. Posting an abstract without added comments from the poster isn't exactly discussion, but they have been posted within the context of a discussion. In the interests of avoiding possible difficulties with the copyright holders of the materials, I request that abstracts from non-government sources be referred to by URL instead of quoting the text verbatim.

Text from government sources is not subject to copyright. While PubMed is operated by an arm of the government, they have made their restrictions clear, as shown above. Please respect individual copyright.

I am aware that Hal has issued a very clear warning about this. I am not taking any action other than to reiterate that warning.

Hang on a minute.

I thought the rule was that things could not be posted in their entirety, regardless of copyright. It seems to me Hal has said this many times. Personally, I think that you guys need to put your heads together to make this stuff a bit more realistic. I personally don't give a hoot, except that 1000 words posted with zero commentary is pretty damn tedious, regardless of copyright considerations.

[CFLarsen]

Ed,

I agree. Simply reposting complete material without comment is abusing bandwidth, and, as I see it, a violation of forum rules.

Loki,

The problem with your point (b) is, that Steve posts things he knows nothing about. He posts them to appear knowledgable, but when someone calls him on it, he usually has to back down and admit that he is ignorant of the issue.

Steve,

Since the material could be in the public domain, it is up to you to find out if it is. You cannot just post something and then let others do the work for you. Nobody is fooled by your actions here, you know damn well that you try to get JREF into trouble with this.

Pyrrho,

I would like the moderators to clearly state that it is the responsibility of the poster to ensure that the material is in the public domain. If there is doubt, I suggest that the material is removed until it is cleared up by the poster. If a poster posts repeatedly without checking copyright, I also suggest suspension.

We need clear rules, and we need them to be enforced.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If someone told us forty years ago (or maybe yesterday) that even high intensity conventional light can make jaundice (bilirubin levels) disappear in newborn babies, many probably would scoff as well. The hell with this.

Phototherapy for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia has been in common use for ages. It works just the same way as leaving a piece of cloth out in the sunlight will fade the dye. Bilirubin has aromatic bonds in it which give it its yellow colour and which (like the aromatic bonds in many dyes) are (say it again) broken down by sunlight.

If "many" would scoff, then that's just their ignorance.

What this has to do with the quack claims of the web site under discussion escapes me completely. Unless its the old analogy that because you can get electricity from water (by hydro-electric methods), then obviously any claim that you can just pour water into your car's petrol tank and drive away deserves serious consideration.

Rolfe.

[Goshawk]

Just wanted to say, "Go Teddygrahams!" :D

I'm listening, even if everyone else prefers to participate in the "oh no, Steve may or may not have violated another copyright!" hijack...

[Pyrrho]

I've already posted my opinion on the copyright business. I am not in a position to establish new rules here. I think the current rule is easy enough to understand.

Steve has posted the abstracts in the context of a discussion, even if he has not posted comments with those abstracts. In my opinion, it is fair use. Had he posted the texts as if they were his own words, I would have decided differently.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Rolfe

The hell with this.

Uh? Is that how you feel this life saving treatment for newborn babies should be characterized?



Phototherapy for neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia has been in common use for ages. It works just the same way as leaving a piece of cloth out in the sunlight will fade the dye. Bilirubin has aromatic bonds in it which give it its yellow colour and which (like the aromatic bonds in many dyes) are (say it again) broken down by sunlight.


Yes, I pointed out that its been around more than 40 years. But its not quite as simple as sunglight fading the colours on a piece of cloth. Phototherapy causes photo-isomerization of the bilirubin (which yes, is a pigment) into its non-toxic constituents or isomers. After they are broken down they diffuse into the blood, and are transported to the liver. Here they are filtered out of the blood and excreted, with bile, into the bowel. Next step: greenish poop.


If "many" would scoff, then that's just their ignorance.


I have actually been told that this is something paranormal, been scoffed at by skeptics .... who even suggested I apply for the $1 million Challenge.

Yes Rolfe, they are idiots. We agree on that.

Imagine a certain nameless skeptic (well many of them are nameless because they use screen names) telling me I should apply to Randi and tell him I can cure jaundice in babies by shining a light on them. He said if I could do it I would win the million. Wow!


:dr:





What this has to do with the quack claims of the web site under discussion escapes me completely.

Nothing other than to demonstrate that generic light therapy has genuine applications. On the other hand the abstracts I posted which are the subject of so much consternation by Hoyt, Larsen, Ed ....well, the usual clique or cabal, but which are only 4 out of a few dozen, all demonstrate that LED light therapy compares favorably and works as effectively as coherent (laser) light therapy in some applications and according to the NASA funded (not NASA employed) researchers may have a number of new applications all related to wound healing .... involving ulcerous wounds and sores or even cancerous lesions of variious types.


Unless its the old analogy that because you can get electricity from water (by hydro-electric methods), then obviously any claim that you can just pour water into your car's petrol tank and drive away deserves serious consideration.

So ignore the specific references related to LEDS. Geez, this is proof it was benificial to post the abstracts instead of the links ...which have a way of getting buried around here. Should I repost them again in the same thread, or find some others? Nah. Don't want Larsen and Hoyt to become completely apoplectic over this.

This allegedly quack website is based on claims made for LEDS. Like it or not, (yes as pointed out by Teddy Grahams, with and without variation) are supported by ongoing mainstream medical research. Their claims, like it or not, have been accepted by the FDA.

Certain people are concerned about non-existent copyright violations but not about making accusations against businesses which they have not investigated which could materially hurt their business.

While I am no expert on this field I made a cursory investigation of the use of LEDs and have determined that they have the capabilities claimed by the website in question. You can start picking on this by saying one application uses them in conj with photosenzitizing agents, and another uses green LEDs instead of red ones... but this is all grist for the mill to support unsupported accusations.

[Loki]

Steve,

...and have determined that they have the capabilities claimed by the website in question.
Hmmm ... perhaps I've missed something?

You've posted links that suggest LEDs have some specific (and perhaps quite limited) medical uses. The site, on the other hand, is claiming generic pain relief (not healing, just relief), for almost any kind of pain, in minutes. I fail to see that you've "determined that they [LEDS] have the capabilites claimed". Or am I overlooking something here?

[SteveGrenard]

What do you think causes pain? Injury and inflammation accompanying same.

I'll be selective and post only a teeny part of this abstract:

Effect of NASA light-emitting diode irradiation on wound healing.

Whelan HT, Smits RL Jr, Buchman EV, Whelan NT, Turner SG, Margolis DA, Cevenini V, Stinson H, Ignatius R, Martin T, Cwiklinski J, Philippi AF, Graf WR, Hodgson B, Gould L, Kane M, Chen G, Caviness J.

Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53226, USA.


[snipped; from MedLine]


LED produced improvement of greater than 40% in musculoskeletal training injuries in Navy SEAL team members, and decreased wound healing time in crew members aboard a U.S. Naval submarine. LED produced a 47% reduction in pain of children suffering from oral mucositis. CONCLUSION: We believe that the use of NASA LED for light therapy alone, and in conjunction with hyperbaric oxygen, will greatly enhance the natural wound healing process, and more quickly return the patient to a preinjury/illness level of activity. This work is supported and managed through the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center-SBIR Program.

[SteveGrenard]

:dr:


hmm just noticed the baby at the keyboard has yellow jaundice

[Rolfe]

Rolfe: The hell with this.

Steve: Uh? Is that how you feel this life saving treatment for newborn babies should be characterized?

No, but it's how I sometimes feel that your arguments should be characterised.Imagine a certain nameless skeptic (well many of them are nameless because they use screen names) telling me I should apply to Randi and tell him I can cure jaundice in babies by shining a light on them. He said if I could do it I would win the million. Wow! "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic."

Fortunately, however, the technology involved here is not that advanced. No matter how "magical" an ability might seem to the uninformed, the point is, is there really something going on here which can only be explained by paranormal means? Obviously, no.

However, just because one thing which might be mistaken for magic by the casual observer can be easily explained as perfectly natural, doesn't mean that something or anything else with no connection to the first situation has or is likely to have a rational explanation.

No, I didn't mention your references to LEDs. That was exactly my point. If you can produce evidence which is actually relevant to the claim under discussion that there might be something in it, go right ahead.

But please don't post examples (like the phototherapy one) which have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged properties of LEDs.

Rolfe.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is also called pseudospelling.....

PS: I think these are way overpriced but are probably not a scam.

It could be worse, Steve. He could be a plagiarist like you.

[hal bidlack]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>This thread has been reported for various copyright problems.

This is a tad touchy. While normally abstracts could certainly be considered available for fair use, the website in question does seem to suggest they hold a different view. I believe that legally, one can not make their own copyright rules, so I believe fair use is valid. However, I am tired of this ongoing battle between a couple of folks that just don't get along.

Steve, I must *again* ask that you be more careful in posting. The volume of your cuts and pastes is a regular problem. I strongly request that you summarize the basic points you wish to make, and then provide the citation link for your readers to follow. And I further ask that we all back away from watching particular folks for any possible problem with their posts and then instantly reporting them. This is not directed at anyone in particular, as quite a number of folks seem to want to keep Steve in their crosshairs.

So, bottom line, Steve: more you, less quotes, others: relax a tad.

hal

</font></td></tr></table>

[CFLarsen]

Hal,

Is it not up to the poster to determine whether the material is in the public domain or not?

If there is any doubt that the material is not in the public domain, then we would do better to remove it, until the poster has documented that it is.

As always, the onus is on the claimant.

And you bet I keep Steve in my "crosshair". Don't forget his campaign to silence JREF, as well as his many other "antics".

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


It could be worse, Steve. He could be a plagiarist like you.

Actually it could even be even more worse than that. He could actually give us a link that worked that backs up (and I am still waiting) his assertion, allegation or claim that the website owners, in a newspaper article (what newspaper, where's the link?), says purple light enables people to recall memories.
I wonder why they would do this when the website is marketing red LEDs anyway.

I still don't know if this is b.s. hyperbole, pure and simple and dismissable or something he really read. So much for links.....

I regret that I find it necessary to back up, prove under fair use policies, everything that I say here. I am sure the owner of this website is not happy about posts that say he is scamming the public when in fact there is evidence that his claims are true no matter how hard certain people try to fail to consider them.

[hal bidlack]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><fontface="Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by
hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=1>OK, here's my decision on abstracts. They are copyrighted. They can not be posted in full. Steve has been repeatedly warned about copyright problems, and I now feel I have been pushed to the point that I must take action.

Steve Grenard is suspended from the forum for three days due to repeated copyright abuse. He will have his password returned to him on 25 Jan.

hal
</font></td></tr></table>

[cbish]

Steve

I think you're a little confused. I wasn't part of this thread. You're thinking of the other light thread.

For some reason, my attempts to cite a website have failed. However, the addresses are there in the other thread. Our local paper is www.theunion.com (I'm not going to try to make a link until I'm sure I can do it correctly). The article was two weeks ago so I don't know if it's still up. However, I do invite you to go to the www.lightyearsahead.net website and skim through some of the articles. I tried to link the one that spoke of colored light and repressed memories. Go to 'What We Offer' and towards the bottom is a series of articles. Look at the first one. It was in pdf format so perhaps that's why it didn't work.

[cbish]

I don't want to side track this thread but I finally got those links to work on the other one.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870284721#post1870284721

[Rolfe]

Hey, can we talk about him while he's out?

I just want to know why he has to jump in to defend practically every woo-woo claim anyone cites, even though he knows nothing about it, and may never even have heard of it five minutes previously.

He's not that daft, his amusing posts about the preposterous "ghost photos" made my evening, but we've had this now with homoeopathy, therapeutic touch, and now these silly LEDs.

Homoeopathy was defended vigorously, on the grounds that pharmacological properties have been found for many substances at the nmol/l level. It took about 20 pages to explain to Steve that this concentration is as far above homoeopathy as pea soup is above mineral water.

Therapeutic touch was defended on the grounds that Emily Rosa had done her experiment wrong, first that there was no therapy involved, and second that there was no touching involved. Again, many electrons died in the effort to persuade Steve that there is no touching as such in "therapeutic touch". (And that an experiment designed to determine if the practitioners could in fact detect the energy fields they claimed to manipulate was indeed a valid way to investigate these claims.)

Now the LEDs. They have the BS meters ringing off the hook in the rest of us, but Steve has to find some way to justify their claims. Oh look, other sorts of light do have some (perfectly reasonable, predictable and explicable) effects. Therefore the woo-woo LED stuff must be valid.

Is there a name for this syndrome, or do we have to invent one?

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Is there a name for this syndrome, or do we have to invent one?

Rolfe.

Its in DSM IV, Axis II, under Obfuscacia obtusus

[CFLarsen]

Steve Grenard is back.

[casebro]

So, my read of the FDA letter is that, since light emitting devices were sold pre-76, then they can sell light emitting devices today. FDA said nothing about usefulness. Sorta like the law has a loophole that allows old quackery, but not new quackery- typical ex-post-facto requirements.

Did any of the links discuss power levels, compared to sunshine? I noticed that most of the studies quoted here were done in contained environments- outer space or submarines, places where natural sunlight was not an option. I sure notice that I feel better after sunning my self, even with a slight sun burn...

[T'ai Chi]

*bump* for everyone to catch up on 2004 news

[CFLarsen]

*bump* for everyone to catch up on 2004 news
Unsolved issues.

You have a problem with that?

[Rolfe]

Oh look, Bill turned his sig line off. Is his location still correct?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Unsolved issues.

You have a problem with that?Perhaps next time someone who you have unanswered questions for returns, you could just PM T'ai with a list of threads and he could go around bumping them for you... ;)

[LW]

Perhaps next time someone who you have unanswered questions for returns, you could just PM T'ai with a list of threads and he could go around bumping them for you... ;)

And of course, the simplest way for them to resolve these issues would be to write: "I have said everything I want on this subject". Since those are the Magic Words that allow anyone to bail out from a discussion, at least according to Larsen.