lightrelief.com

[Ducky]

Any truth to the claim that red LED lights can manage pain?

Sounds like it's on the same level as the inset fuel stabalizer and the magnet therapy jusnk...


www.lightrelief.com

It astonishes me the crap that gets sold at 3am on cable tv...

[geni]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Any truth to the claim that red LED lights can manage pain?


Not accouding to pubmed.

[Rolfe]

Oh, we had a thread on this before. I seem to remember arguing with some woo who declared that phototherapy has legitimate medical uses (specifically, the treatment of jaundiced infants), therefore it shouldn't be dismissed as woo.

It is in fact total and complete woo.

Rolfe.

Edited to add: It was this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33692). This one is relevant too (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33998). I note that Steve Grenard was the one arguing for the woo viewpoint on both occasions.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh, we had a thread on this before. I seem to remember arguing with some woo who declared that phototherapy has legitimate medical uses (specifically, the treatment of jaundiced infants), therefore it shouldn't be dismissed as woo.

It is in fact total and complete woo.

Rolfe.

Edited to add: It was this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33692). This one is relevant too (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33998). I note that Steve Grenard was the one arguing for the woo viewpoint on both occasions.

Thanks! I shall read up now...;)

[prewitt81]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54352

Here's my conversation with a CS Rep for Light Relief.

[Barbrae]

well, I don't know about its uses for pain relief (although since the applicator does heat up and heat does relief certian types of pain that could be argued it does help some pain - no more than a heating pad perhaps) but I do know that Doctors are now charging thousands of dollars for facial treat,ments with LED therapy - if light therapy is woo - the docs are making big bucks off of it.
http://www.topdocs.com/display_procedure.php?id=led

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Barbrae
well, I don't know about its uses for pain relief (although since the applicator does heat up and heat does relief certian types of pain that could be argued it does help some pain - no more than a heating pad perhaps) but I do know that Doctors are now charging thousands of dollars for facial treat,ments with LED therapy - if light therapy is woo - the docs are making big bucks off of it.
http://www.topdocs.com/display_procedure.php?id=led

This does look like it needs to reside in the Woo room of the Big Brother credibility house.
I know next to nothing about LED therapy, but from a medical perspective I seriously doubt the claims.
I would also point out that what seems to be proposed here is quite different from Photodynamic therapy, which is well validated.
In this, photosensitisers are given to the patient which is taken up into the area of abnormality you wish to tackle (pesoriasis, skin cancers/lesions), then red laser light shone on the lesion.
I suspect many might confuse the two.
Woos typical work on the pseudo/semi-scientific fringes though - take something that people may be familiar with that does work, tinker around a bit and hey presto - a new treatment emerges that can be "sold" on the back of the one that does work but which has no evidence base, no predictability in effect and no repeatability - failing all counts of scientific methodology.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Barbrae
well, I don't know about its uses for pain relief (although since the applicator does heat up and heat does relief certian types of pain that could be argued it does help some pain - no more than a heating pad perhaps) but I do know that Doctors are now charging thousands of dollars for facial treat,ments with LED therapy - if light therapy is woo - the docs are making big bucks off of it.
http://www.topdocs.com/display_procedure.php?id=led
*whacks woo 'doctors' with an ethics inquiry.*

[Ducky]

Originally posted by prewitt81
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54352

Here's my conversation with a CS Rep for Light Relief.

Now THAT's a fun read :D

Sounds like they just give all their reps text files and non-answers. Wonder if it was an outsourced rep (one that probably answers questions about a wide range of different products.)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
*whacks woo 'doctors' with an ethics inquiry.*

Agreed! What's the odds those pictures are "doctored?"

Bad pun, but still...:D

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
*whacks woo 'doctors' with an ethics inquiry.*

it's not "woo" doctors, LED light facial therapy is common practice among plastic surgeons and dermatologists. Many of these offices offer this treatment.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Barbrae
it's not "woo" doctors, LED light facial therapy is common practice among plastic surgeons and dermatologists. Many of these offices offer this treatment.
Even if they're primarily evidence-based medicine, using an unproven treatment like that is too much woo-dipping for my tastes. I have a very low tolerance for such things unless they're doing properly controlled studies.

[Rolfe]

The difficulty is that there are some areas where light is genuinely therapeutic. Treating neonatal jaundice for one. Light therapy for SAD is another. And I believe there are some very high-tech applications where certain photosensitive substances are administered topically or by mouth or injection, then activated (in the skin I think) by shining a particular light on the area in question.

One therefore has to evaluate each particular example to see how legitimate it is. I see that the site Barb linked to does mention what I think is a legitimate aplication.One of the original applications for LEDs was PhotoDynamic Therapy (PDT), using photo-activated creams (Levulan®) for the treatment of actinic keratosis and pre-cancerous lesions.But when you read on about what these guys are actually offering, in my opnion it's woo and these pictures are in some way "rose-coloured". Subject to fuller and better evidence of course.

I'm also very suspicious by about the way the whole site is hedged around with copyright notices. When I tried to copy that sentence to quote here, I got a copyright violation pop-up! Never encountered that before, anywhere. And if they have any double-blind, properly scientific publications on the method, they're not exactly going out of their way to draw attention to them.

Sadly, having a medical degree is no guarantee that someone won't succumb to the quick and easy buck of quackery.

Rolfe.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Sadly, having a medical degree is no guarantee that someone won't succumb to the quick and easy buck of quackery.

Rolfe.
...The quick and easy path... That way leads to the Dark Side.

[Barbrae]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rolfe

Sadly, having a medical degree is no guarantee that someone won't succumb to the quick and easy buck of quackery.

Rolfe. [/QUOTE

but it's not justr "someone" but rather most doctors in the specialty of dermatology or plastic surgery centers. This treatment is standard - not just offered by a few "woo" folks.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Barbrae
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rolfe

Sadly, having a medical degree is no guarantee that someone won't succumb to the quick and easy buck of quackery.

Rolfe. [/QUOTE

but it's not justr "someone" but rather most doctors in the specialty of dermatology or plastic surgery centers. This treatment is standard - not just offered by a few "woo" folks.

I was under the impression that was a laser procedure, not a bunch of LEDs...

Am I off in that opinion?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I was under the impression that was a laser procedure, not a bunch of LEDs...

Am I off in that opinion?

both are available. laser has downtime and can be painful but no negative effects from led.

[Donks]

Barbrae, do you have anything other than an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity, rolled into one?

[CaveDave]

When I worked at a local hospital, we had to repair special fluorescent fixtures used in the neonatal unit to treat hyperbilirubinemia in some infants (don't expect me to know exactly what this is). These were special lamps emitting mostly in the blue to UV region, and they weren't woo. Toward the other end of the spectrum, infrared lamps provide superficial warmth that can be theraputic. Further on, photon wavelengths near the centimeter region and longer can provide deep heating (see also: diathermy). Some other positive effects, such as vitamin D production, are produced by exposure to various photon wavebands.

Bottom line: while theraputic benefits can be expected for some conditions by exposure to photonic energy, I'd bet that if it's sold as a cure-all, it's almost certainly bogus.

Dave

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Donks
Barbrae, do you have anything other than an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity, rolled into one?


I Think at this point someone else's word is best for the situation:

"This new learning amazes me, Sir Gallahad. Explain to me again how Sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquake..."


:D

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Barbrae
it's not "woo" doctors, LED light facial therapy is common practice among plastic surgeons and dermatologists. Many of these offices offer this treatment.
Conditionally accepted, but do you assert that these cheap (50 USD - 300 USD) units have anything in common (power, wavelength, accuracy, etc) as the professional models that are probably certified for safety and efficacy by regulattory agencies in order to be sold? Would you trust a physician to treat you with these devices and expect acceptable results?

Dave

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Sadly, having a medical degree is no guarantee that someone won't succumb to the quick and easy buck of quackery.
As a case in point, consider Dr. Linus Pauling. Well, maybe he wasn't chasing the money, but still I think he went over the edge.

My father was a dermatologist, and was one of the researchers (20 some-odd years ago, maybe 30, I forget) in a study wherin a drug was given prior to whole body exposure to near-UV (in a light cabinet) to treat psoriosis (sp?). The patient had to avoid sunlight for days afterwards to prevent severe burning.

Dave

Edited to improve historical time estimate, and clarify position in study of my father.

[CaveDave]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I was under the impression that was a laser procedure, not a bunch of LEDs...

Am I off in that opinion?
I'm not sure, but there are leds that are far too intense to look at directly. They can be more intense than consumer approved lasers, but not as focusable.

Dave

Edited for missing word.

[CaveDave]

Aside from any other possible effects, there may be an effect due to the rubbing of the contraption on the affected areas, or the type of placebo-effect where the subject feels better because something is actively being DONE to help them. Sure is more comforting (to some) than being told that only time will relieve the injury.

Dave

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Donks
Barbrae, do you have anything other than an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity, rolled into one?

Hello?? I am not making any claims about it OTHER than it is used by doctors - that's it. I am not saying it works, I have no clue. I am simply pointing out to those who posted "LED light therapy is WOO" that if it is, it is woo that is used by the medical profession.

Look - it was asserted that not only is this particular lightrelief device woo but that LED therapy is woo and that doesn't seem to be the case. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HMW/is_4_7/ai_n6018722

Before making the assertation of it being woo - did anyone even bother to check out it's applications or if any studies had been done?

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I Think at this point someone else's word is best for the situation:

"This new learning amazes me, Sir Gallahad. Explain to me again how Sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquake..."


:D

WHy? Because I am pointing out this LED therapy is commonly used in medical practice for facial rejuvination?


If you don't like my word because it differs from the opinions stated here anb simply refuse to hear it - that is not a skeptical or scientific approach.

Just answer this. Have I said anything about LED shown to be untrue? Have I made any claims about it other than its wide use among the allopathic profession? If you don't believe me then do a goodle search for LED facial therapy and see the many ads for plastic surgeons and dermatologist offices that pop up and read them.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Hello?? I am not making any claims about it OTHER than it is used by doctors - that's it. I am not saying it works, I have no clue. I am simply pointing out to those who posted "LED light therapy is WOO" that if it is, it is woo that is used by the medical profession.

Hello?? I am not making any claims about it either OTHER than to ask you if you have anything other than fallacies - that's it. I'm not saying it's woo, I have no clue. I am simply pointing out to you that posing it "is common practice among plastic surgeons and dermatologists" is an appeal to popularity and an appeal to authority, all rolled into one.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Donks
Hello?? I am not making any claims about it either OTHER than to ask you if you have anything other than fallacies - that's it. I'm not saying it's woo, I have no clue. I am simply pointing out to you that posing it "is common practice among plastic surgeons and dermatologists" is an appeal to popularity and an appeal to authority, all rolled into one.
Uh, it's only and apeal if I am using it to back up a claim - other than that it is simply stating a fact, can you not tell the difference. If I said LED therapy is effective and my proof is that it is used by many doctors then it would be an appeal to authority and populaity BUT that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that it is a common medical practice - that's it, no claim.

[Barbrae]

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002355.html
http://www.dermavista.com/03_Cold_Light/3_NASA.html

[Donks]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Uh, it's only and apeal if I am using it to back up a claim - other than that it is simply stating a fact, can you not tell the difference. If I said LED therapy is effective and my proof is that it is used by many doctors then it would be an appeal to authority and populaity BUT that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that it is a common medical practice - that's it, no claim.
Maybe it's just me, but it sure seemed like you were dancing around making a claim, intentionally avoiding stating a claim openly as to avoid being questioned.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Donks
Maybe it's just me, but it sure seemed like you were dancing around making a claim, intentionally avoiding stating a claim openly as to avoid being questioned.

it is just you.

I have actually done reseacrh into this topic awhile back because I have an interest in connective tissue disorders and while looking into these I came accross a study that showed LED therapy increasing collegen production yet being contraindicated in individuals with connective tissue disorders. This is also how i came accross all the info on it being used for facial treatments by medical practitioners. At the time it was not approved for pain therapy by the FDA but I believe that has since changed. After some studying I came to the conclusion that the research into LED light therapy is intriguing and shows promise but at the time was inconclusive, hence NO CLAIM from me other than perhaps the simple dismissal of lED therapy as woo is immature at this point. I didn't want to get into a big discussion about it, just simply wanted to point out that it is used by allopaths.

There just seems to be this easy dismissal of things that seem woo here without even looking to it.

http://www.rehabpub.com/features/1022004/2.asp
Pain Control
The evidence that low power light modulates pain dates back to the early 1970s, when Friedrich Plog of Canada first reported pain relief in patients treated with low power light. But during this period the mood was neither right nor were minds ready to accept the idea that a technology that was being developed for destructive purposes—one that can cut, vaporize, and otherwise destroy tissue—could have beneficial medical effects. Thus, like Mester’s findings, Plog’s results were met with skepticism, particularly in the United States, where until the early part of 2002, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) repeatedly declined to endorse low power light devices for patient care.

Works by other groups in Russia, Austria, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, and, more recently, Argentina, Israel, Brazil, Northern Ireland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and, of late, the United States, have produced a preponderance of evidence supporting the original findings of Plog by showing that appropriate doses and wavelengths of low power light promote pain relief.40-54 More recent reports include studies that indicate that 77% to 91% of patients respond positively to light therapy when treated thrice weekly over a period of 4 to 5 weeks.42-45 Not surprisingly, CTS is one of the first conditions for which the FDA granted approval of low power light therapy.

In addition to the mechanism detailed above, reports indicate that light therapy can modulate pain through its direct effect on peripheral nerves as evidenced by measurements of nerve conduction velocity and somatosensory evoked potential.43-55 Other reports indicate that light therapy modulates the levels of prostaglandin in inflammatory conditions, such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and soft tissue trauma.56,57 Furthermore, works from the laboratories of Drs Shimon Rochkind of Tel-Aviv, Israel, and Juanita Anders of Bethesda, Md, indicate that specific energy fluences of light promote nerve regeneration, including regeneration of the spinal cord—a part of the central nervous system once considered inert to healing.58-59 The combination of these and other mechanisms perhaps accounts for the overall promotion of recovery from inflammatory conditions such as CTS43-45 and arthritis.48,49,56,57

Clinical Considerations
Light technology has come a long way since the innovative development of lasers more than 40 years ago. Other monochromatic light sources with narrow spectra and the same therapeutic value as lasers—if not better in some cases—are now available. These include light emitting diodes (LEDs) and superluminous diodes (SLDs). As the name suggests, SLDs are generally brighter than LEDs; they are increasingly becoming the light source of choice for manufacturers and researchers alike. The light source does not have to be a laser in order to have a therapeutic effect. It just has to be light of the right wavelength. Lasers, LEDs, SLDs, and other monochromatic light sources produce the same beneficial effects. Simply stated, light is light. The dose and wavelengths are critical. At present, it is believed that appropriate doses of 600 to 1,000 nm light promote tissue repair and modulate pain.

Indications and Contraindications
Indications: The FDA has approved light therapy for the treatment of head and neck pain, as well as pain associated with CTS. In addition to these conditions, the literature indicates that light therapy may be beneficial in three general areas:


Inflammatory conditions (eg, bursitis, tendonitis, arthritis, etc).
Wound care and tissue repair (eg, diabetic ulcers, venous ulcers, bedsores, mouth ulcer, fractures, tendon ruptures, ligamentous tear, torn cartilage, etc).
Pain control (eg, low back pain, neck pain, and pain associated with inflammatory conditions—carpal tunnel syndrome, arthritis, tennis elbow, golfer’s elbow, post-herpetic neuralgia, etc).

edited to add that I see the FDA has approved light therapy for pain.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Any truth to the claim that red LED lights can manage pain?


.
apparently the FDA thinks so.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Barbrae
WHy? Because I am pointing out this LED therapy is commonly used in medical practice for facial rejuvination?


If you don't like my word because it differs from the opinions stated here anb simply refuse to hear it - that is not a skeptical or scientific approach.

Just answer this. Have I said anything about LED shown to be untrue? Have I made any claims about it other than its wide use among the allopathic profession? If you don't believe me then do a goodle search for LED facial therapy and see the many ads for plastic surgeons and dermatologist offices that pop up and read them.


I am utterly flabbergasted someone could NOT have a sense of humor about a quote taken from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

Lighten up a little.;)

[Anti_Hypeman]

You can get a used light bright for less that the shipping cost of that thing.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Anti_Hypeman
You can get a used light bright for less that the shipping cost of that thing.

True, and it probably has the same effect, though at least with the light brite you can make neat patterns~!