วีดีโอ

Thank you for uploding and sharing this amazing science.

1:52 min: Traumatic Brain Injury costs 0.5% of GDP.

It would be interesting to see if there are good effects from cheap face mask(anti-wrinkle) 600-800nm PBM devices on the brain, due to these small blood vessels in the skin. Possibly even just from the sun, afaik sunscreen should reflect back the harmful low wavelength light and allow the higher wavelengths to penetrate. Multiple Sclerosis for example correlates with living in places further from the equator with less sunlight. I missed the reason for why the boy was staying in a dark room? but this could be a reason for such a large effect from the light therapy.

enzime oxidised by light

First and foremost, thank you sincerely for generously sharing your knowledge free of charge. Could you please comment on whether it is safe to use photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy on children with infantile cerebral palsy, even without a specific goal but simply aiming to enhance their overall condition? In cases where any improvement, no matter how small, is greatly appreciated, your insight would be invaluable. If it is indeed safe, could you kindly recommend what equipment could be used at home and outline a safe protocol to follow? Thank you in advance for your help!

Fantastic as always, Hamblin

Pulse will help the free radicals to dissipate.

🧠🫡🧠

From a lay person's perspective this is very exciting to watch. I am so grateful to be able to access this ground- breaking research. I have one suggestion, please obtain a better mic, the high frequency of the presenter's voice was not clear. Nevertheless it was an excellent presentation. Thank you!

fyi the television doesn't let me see the description of the video, only the title, so I was pretty surprised when I figured out that this video is 3 years old, although uploaded only 9 months ago. I suppose that this could be a function of my roku stick, but I'm sure I'm not the only one? Please consider putting dates in the titles of videos if you can!

Very technical

Thank you for sharing Doctor - now that the trial is completed, how are the results?

LOL at everybody at the end panel 40:35 they look like they just realized the field they're in is comparable to predicting weather

I don’t like the intra cranial therapy

20:00

I would not focus on targets. I would focus on phenotipic assays and be very accurate at measuring the fluencies delivered. I would be more concerned with finding what works and let the biology to be resolved afterwards.

Thank you! This was very interesting! A combination of red light therapy and EMS.

Was this work published yet?

60 вт+5

Моя дочь купила мне свет не знаю

Hi there, Physiotherapist and Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioner (Acupuncturist) from Australia. Loved the video, just thought I'd add some quick commentary about the Acupuncture points on the hand. It's not black and white in TCM saying this point treats this organ. Some of the PC points mentioned will "clear heat from the heart and harmonise the spirit" - A Manual of Acupuncture (Peter Deadman) i.e. relates to psycho-emotional disturbances which in TCM can relate to the 'heart organ system' however in western terms can be thought of as the mind (housed in the brain). Interesting HeartMath Institute describe the heart as having is own 'brain' consisting of hundreds of thousands of neurons which communicates afferent and efferently with the brain via the vagus nerve. The same can be said of the other points on the hand, their uses are a bit more complex (I'm always learning more myself). Even the forearm where you mentioned doesn't have acupuncture points will have the meridians passing through. One day we'll bring it all together but we're incredibly complex creatures 😅 Thanks again!

I am writing with the purpose of requesting the publication of the study on wound healing mentioned at minute 30 of the video. This study is of great interest to my professional practice as a dentist, especially in the field of photobiomodulation and wound treatment.

that is absolutely fascinating, thank you 👍

Thank you, sir!

Ofcourse travels the light trough bone in but in extreemly low densitys. Never heart of biophotons? your skull is made out of living cells to! The outside cell picks up a photon. Absorb, sent to the next cell, and so on. The biophotons trafel trough whole the body. You can shine red light on your big toe, and it wil travel to your brain! Makes no diffrence!!

What about the power of the Neuronic Neuradiant 1070 that Dr. Marvin Berman developed????? Seems like he sold it off to a newly formed company now making this device.....

28:20 min mark: There is no first-line direct treatment for TBI; most treatments are ancillary, which explains why the VA is so wary of supporting photobiomodulation research.

4:20 min mark: Dr. Naessar's photobiomodulation study at the Boston VA had a problem recruiting veterans. I know why: no one at the VA tells veterans this stuff.

Fascinating stuff. Just to ask: what happens to long nerves, say, in your limbs, when the contiguous skin is irradiated? Is there a change in firing rate by routine EMG measurement? Also, I assume various frequencies of light have been tried? Possibly at a normalized total energy deposited?

Does Massachussetts General use PBM in treating Parkinson's? I couldn't find any reference to PBM in their material on their PD treatment; they don't treat Alzheimer's, seemingly, since it wasn't on the list of treated conditions. The link to Mass General was the only link provided in the notes for this video. BTW, I enjoyed the presentation very much, and I was surprised to find that PBM is so widely accepted as treatment for brain disorders. At least so it seemed, from all the serious scientists involved in this confab. I'd love for more info on Mass General's program on PBM, and whatever other developments this group could point us to. One burning question I didn't find the answer to: what PBM device do they use in this clinic? There are several, includingThe Vielight and the Neuronic models,; the Vielight was referred to by one of the speakers, but I don't think it was a Mass G doc.

Hindsight; people, turn off your camera during Q&A if you’re walking around!😊

How were the researchers able to distinguish between light absorbed by the skin on the surface of the skull versus penetrating the skull to the surface of the brain in order to determine if the results shown were from epidermal versus direct cortical stimulation by the fNIRs sources?

Maybe it triggers the synthesis of intracellular melatonin and that changes genetic expression and a downstream of beneficial effects

Great information thank you. I'd noticed using my red light panel at close proximity to try and improve my heart health that it had another effect on my gut also. I've noticed for a long time that it seems to be implicated in heart health.

Wow

Impressive results! Actually jaw dropping

I’m seeing all these red light hats on Amazon designed for hair growth. Would these be effective for Parkinson’s?

Two issues not answered: with 660 and 850 light, the literature focuses on cytox. What is chromophore for 1064 light? Can brain issues be treated with PBM applied to arms, back, or neck rather than via an expensive helmet or ball cap used to treat the scalp?

One more confounding element to studies with very low light levels -- the spectra of ambient room light and exposure to natural sunlight, essentially as noise (really "DC offset") added to the low power levels used in those studies.

If there are truly multiple parallel effects involved (ATP, NO, ROS's, cellular hormesis, bloodflow, stem cells, mitochondria carrying effects systemically, and so on), then over the space of parameter variation, there is likely varying levels of optimal vs. sub-optimal (vs negative) responses from each of the physiological system components that may be responding in parallel. This may be one reason why it's not so simple to pin down an optimal setting of parameters. (I'm now contradicting an earlier post here, ha, about how simple the response surface may be). This reminds me of the early days in speech recognition (70's & 80's), where any number of completely different types of algorithms could achieve roughly the same level of performance -- each algorithm having particular strengths and weaknesses, in light of an extremely difficult problem. PBM could very well be in the same phase of development of the science and engineering at this point in time.

Because of the unknown (at present) mechanism involved in systemic (remote) effects (increased blood flow, free mitochondria in the blood as carriers, stem cells, etc.), it would still be useful to have the response surface shape for remote effects. More funding is needed for important work like this!

During my mispent youth, I did spend way too much time involved in curve fitting and interpolation. So far it seems we really don't have a sufficient number of datapoints in any study I've seen, in order to truly characterize the shape of this curve -- even for just one cell type, or application. It shouldn't be that hard to do this, in vitro, for an important set of cell types. Once a higher resolution curve is obtained (for a given target organ cell type), it's relatively easy (given that this curve is probably fairly smooth, with a single peak), to iteratively figure out where the peak response would be by "sampling" this curve in a given application, in order to home in on the peak in the power vs. time surface. I should have mentioned this is obviously a 3D plot, with a response surface over the two dimensions of power / cm^2 and time of application.

With respect to devices which are clusters of LED's, as the ensemble of LED's will have variation over emitted power, wavelength, and beam properties, (over time, as the LED's pn junctions rise in temperature over time, and the typical plastic lenses cannot also be identical), I would also propose a measure of overall variation in power output, and possibly wavelength within a defined ROI representing the primary portion of the area of the device's output, at the target distance. This would combine the effect of the overlapping beam pattern of the cluster of LED's, with the individual variation of each LED in terms of these parameters. If you look at datasheets for LED's from reputable semiconductor companies, it's common to see parameter variation spec'd in the neighborhood of +/- 5% to +/- 10%, depending on the parameter, and also the "bin" that the individual LED falls into (they can be sorted based on testing by the manufacturer). So a relatively simple spec of peak-to-peak (or better yet, rms, or mad) variation over the defined ROI at the target tissue distance, for both power and wavelength, would give a pretty good picture of how uniform the photon flux from the device was. With diffusion within tissues, this may turn out to be academic, except for applications like wound healing, which may be much more sensitive to incident power levels on delicate cells during the healing process, for example. One other thing specs like this would do would be to indicate the quality of the device, in terms of the uniformity of the parameters over the set of LED's used in each device. This would help both scientists and end users assess the quality of devices relative to the set of devices under consideration.

for sure this is an impeccable channel, I have never watched a video that was not wonderful. So thank you and I wish you blessed.

Amazing work everyone!

After being so verbose in my last comment, I would like to ask: How likely is some of the effects of PBM due to the activation of either local stem cells or stems cells in the blood being activated?

I am just a lay person, but I have been following research on photobiomodulation for about ten years off and on. I have Dr. Michael Hamblin 's book The Handbook of LLLT and have listened to many of his interviews over the years. I recently discovered a talk, Dr. Juanita Anderson gave at Shepards University about 5 years ago. You may be the 3rd person I have heard to give information I trust. Some of the nonsense doctors are spewing about PBM is just so blatantly wrong. I actually disputed one doctor's claim that his device got deeper into the tissue (joints specifically) due to pulsing only to have my comment deleted (Maybe because I referenced both Hamlin and Anderson in my comment?). I have read research papers that even I can tell were not set up properly. I do not have the equipment to test the accuracy of the led panel I bought. It is marketed as 660nm and 850nm (30 of each), 219mw/cm2 @ the surface of the leds, 160mw/cm2 @ 6" distance. I bought the device to treat a 98 year old man in my care. In the hospital, he developed a pressure wound on his coccyx. It went from stage one in the emergency room (he had suffered a stroke in the brain stem, the area affecting speech and swallowing) to a stage 4 in geriatrics. Despite being under the care of a wound nurse for months, it had only worsened until he developed a bone infection. At one point, I had tears in my eyes looking at the wound while the dressing was being changed. I ordered the light and began treating him with it from about 3" away for one or two times per day, with the permission of the family and the hospital nursing staff. Within two weeks, it began to heal and continued to do so until he passed. I took pictures to document the progress, and the nurses agreed with my assessment (it was obvious). When I brought the light home with me, I began treating my senior cat with it 10 minutes once per day. She is in second stage renal failure and was throwing up 2 or 3 times a day. After a week or so with the PBMT, it was reduced to 2 or 3 times a week. After 6 months, she may throw up once in a month. I have yet to do follow-up blood work at the vet. I also used the same panel for another senior in her late 90's for ulcers on her legs and back pain (her back had been injured in a fall some years before). She said it helped a lot. She did not ask for painkillers when I treated her and also slept better afterward. Once she had pain in her breast for a good while and was moaning. I asked her if she wanted me to get the light. Halfway through the treatment, she said the pain was gone and blessed me. I was only seeing her 2-3 times a week. Again, I used (the very scientific), 10 minutes per area treatments. Foŕ myself, I have been suffering bone loss above front top tooth, causing it to become loose. I bought one of those dental mouth openers and am attempting to improve this by treating it alternatley between the wavelengths for 5 minutes. In one of the human studies I was looking at 810nm made the bone grow faster than 660nm, but there were areas(small) of unmineralized bone. I also bought (a compleately unscientific) high powered? 630nm mini-flashlight, which I have been using from the back of the tooth in question. I have also been using it around a bottom molar at the back of my mouth where I had been feeling some sensitivity. The sensitivity is gone. (The dentist could not detect anything wrong with the molar either with physical examination or xray.)

As a retired biophysics PhD I am appalled at the state of PBM research. Do journals, and speaker showed several highly respected ones in his list, no longer have quality peer review processes? I expect devices for sale on Amazon to sometimes be shoddy, but had hoped the science was better. Does no one do an action spectrum? Shouldn't an intensity VS action curve be done every time ? If one got a device with say 850 light, what is the range of wavelengths actually being delivered? If cytochrome oxidase is involved, how can light in the 1000nm range be active?

Has anybody looked at what happen to cellular membrane potentials while being irradiating? There was some work from Prof Pancho Benzanilla University of Chicago and Prof Paul Stoddart from Swinburn University of technology with PBM, patch clamp and Neurons in vitro.

Bottom line is pbm is helpful regardless of all the scientific numbers and that's what matters 😊