THOR Photobiomodulation Therapy Products & Training

In the BMJ Last Saturday Anita Jain wrote “Gold jewellery, cars or an exotic foreign holiday, these are among the luxury gifts listed in a parliamentary committee report as being used by pharmaceutical companies to coax doctors into prescribing their drugs”. She goes on to describe the “3C strategy” employed by drug companies. “convince if possible, confuse if necessary, and corrupt if nothing else works”. Many (she says) will say an emphatic no to luxury gifts, but what about discounts, conference fees, hotels and flights?

Since we have been working with more doctors these days (rather than therapists) I am being approached with requests for hotel and flight costs and I confess I have conceded.

Why does this happen?
a) Because this is the world they live in (i.e. it is normal to have industry pay)
b) Academic and educational budgets are tight and industry has more money than it knows what to do with (they think).

So what should I do ?

I have conceded and paid out a few times, but not with any enthusiasm as we are not yet making $ billions in profits, but my conscience wrestles with it. I do not want to be guilty of behaving like bad pharma but then again I want our product to be accepted by mainstream medicine, so what should I do?

Comment below

At first glance this cellulite paper looks like a well designed study, but if you are familiar with LLLT parameters then you may notice something odd about them:
6 treatments (3 x week for 2 weeks) this is probably a good treatment interval
8 x 10 inches (516 cm2) that is a very large area
5 x 17mW Green 532nm this is a poor penetrating wavelength
Combined power of 102mW that is a tiny amount of power for such a large area
Irradiance 0.2mW/cm2 that is less than sunshine on a clear day
15 mins twice (two side of the body) that is a long treatment time
Fluence (dose) 0.18J/cm2 per side that is not enough to do anything

Continue reading →

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Kansas (BCBS) have updated their assessment of LLLT and it is still considered “experimental” despite referencing the “strong evidence” conclusions in systematic reviews published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and International Society for the Study of Pain (IASP). Then there is The Lancet Systematic Review on Neck pain and the MASCC “recommendation” statements, also brushed aside by BCBS.

How can this be when: Continue reading →