The Bottom Line – Your phototherapy is not the same as mine

Lilach wrote to me this morning (if you are a regular at LLLT conferences you will know her) and in the dialogue she referred to the “phototherapy community”. I had just downloaded 121 LLLT and other phototherapy papers for this monthly literature watch blog. I had to wade through 99 papers that were not LLLT in order to arrive at 22 that were. Many of those were phototherapy and I thought I should bring them to your attention:

Phototherapy for Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia
Phototherapy for Psoriasis and vitiligo (and many other skin problems)
Phototherapy for Seasonal Effective Disorder or depression
Phototherapy for Vitamin D deficiency
Phototherapy for jet lag and sleep disorders

and to a greater or lesser degree these are already somewhat accepted in mainstream medicine.

Why is it that, and why is LLLT not yet accepted ?

send me a short comment back below.

One word answers are acceptable.

About James Carroll

Founder and CEO at THOR Photomedicine Ltd. About THOR
This entry was posted in Rants. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Bottom Line – Your phototherapy is not the same as mine

  1. Lilach says:

    Phsyicians think that there is not enough clinical evidence. Also, although the practitioners are making great progress and accumulating experience, getting the right “dose” of light therapy is still very individual. Nevertheless, LLLT is on right track and is even being partially reimbursed in some countries.

  2. Ron Riegel DVM says:

    Always appreciate your efforts in this newsletter. Wish I had time to attend another of your lectures. Will you be at ASLMS? I have a conflict with a speaking engagement but might attend the first day or two.

  3. Jan Tunér says:

    Not accepted because of
    – sins of the 90ies
    – too much poor research
    – “too good to be true”
    – cannot be patented – so poor funding
    Solution: old age retirement of some doctors
    The Cochrane style of evaluating LLLT is misleading. A recent similar analysis from SBU – Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment found that there was no evidence whatsoever that endodontics had any effect! The problem was similar to LLLT: small studies, great variation of parameters, low quality of methods etc. Of course endodontic works, everybody knows. But “pardoned” on other merits than LLLT.

Comments are closed.