Hello James,
My apologies for this tardy response, but you are
aware of my time-based pressures. They are obscene for one of my years. I
have chosen to answer you with a copy to the list......as some others may have
an interest also.
First, let me clarify that we have conducted no
formal studies ourselves. However, we have conducted several anecdotal-type
evaluations,,,,,,especially on horses. The laser pointers we have used are 5
MW in power. Our laboratory instruments are HeNe type, and are 10 mw and 25 mw
respectively. We have several LED arrays. Some are 13, some 25, and some 50
elements in size.
Do be advised, I AM NOT a pundit in matters relating to either
LEDT or LLLT. This being the case, do understand I have no position....or
verifiable proof.....that one methodology is superior to the other. People
seem to become somewhat polarized on the merits of one----or the other, as
being superior.
Useful studies are not very numerous, but I will list several
we found of pertinence, both for comparing the effectivity of LEDs versus
LLLTs..........and for the general information furnished:
1. Gupta, et al. Journal of Dermatological Treatment
(1997) This study relates to the use of non-coherent light (LEDs) for
addressing damage on superficial structures (e.g. skin, epithelial tissues and
very shallow muscle tissue insults). The results, using 660 nm incoherent
light, were very positive on slow-healing wounds.
2. Several studies, of which I do not have access here at
home, have been conducted which seem to confirm that LLLT is markely superior
to LEDT for relieving chronic, deep-seated, pain through raising the ACTH and
endorphin levels-----where LEDT gives little.....or no response.
3. Some researchers have reported positive results using a
combination of LLLT and LEDT. e.g. Laser Therapy, 1998, Vol. 10, No.3. For
pain and wound healing.
4. LLLT arrays have demonstrated their superiority in
addressing severe, non-healing ulcers, among diabetics. Journal of British
Podiatric Medicine, 1991, Oct.., 186-189.
5. Another study of possible consequence is: Jilliane
James. Primary Care. Care Vol. 410. 1997; pages 18-20. Topic. Use of
Laser Therapy on Non-healing Wounds.
6. The most pronounced claim, to date, favoring LLLT over
LEDT seems to be that made by Tina Karu (1998: The Science of Low-Power Laser
Therapy), wherein she states, "the coherence of light is of no importance in
low-power laser clinical effects" and "the primary difference between lasers
and LEDs is that the laser"s coherent beam produces "speckles" of relatively
high power density which can cause local heating of inhomogeneous tissues".
I have a couple more general comments, before I end this
extended epistle.
The general view among our more knowledgeable staff is that LED arrays are very
effective for open wounds and large-area amorphous swellings (e.g. impact
trauma, near-surface hematomas). Additionally, LEDs give measureable relief in
cases of tightened lean-muscle tissues. These conditions prevail for large
domestic mammals (e.g. horses and cows), as well as human volunteers. Although
large LED arrays (>100 bulbs) will trigger IR detectors on the opposite side
of the human hand.....demonstrating considerable power of penetration----they
do not seem to yield the degree of pain- relief or the rapid, beneficial,
deep-tissue and nerve response modifications-----as do 10 mw, and greater, LLLT
devices.
I hope these observations are of value to you.
Sincerely, Brooks.
James Osbourne, Holmes wrote:
> Hi Brooks,
>
> Thanks for another great homemade therapy device.
>
> Do you have handy references for the types of conditions and protocols with
> which this device has been demonstrated to be effective?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BROOKS BRADLEY <liat...@flash.net>
> To: silver-list@eskimo.com <silver-list@eskimo.com>
> Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:48 PM
> Subject: CS>OT:CORRECTION... ECONOMICAL VARIATION FOR LLLT RESEARCHES
>
> >My attention has just been called to a transmission error in my earlier
> >post. The pointer arrangement should resemble the dots on the face of
> >dice----for the number five. My email program shifted the dots. My
> >apologies. Brooks Bradley.
> >
> >
> > To all interested list members.
> > Since I am, already, at my computer to comment on a
> >post by James Holmes, I will take the occasion to relate an item which
> >may be of some interest.
> > The college-age son of one of our staff researchers came
> >up with an effective---if not cosmetically attractive---unit for use by
> >persons with limiited funds and/or technical expertise. He constructed
> >an effective Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) unit by combining five (5)
> >laser pointers in a very simple arrangement.
> > The pointers were purchased from the local Harbor
> >Freight outlet, for a cost of $6.50 ea., plus tax. The configuration is
> >as follows: (1) the physical arrangement provides for the "natural"
> >arrangement for five similar bodies in an idealized "space utilizing"
> >configuration. e.g. _ _
> > _
> > _ _
> > (2) the operating switches (momentary, normally-open)
> >require some form of constant-pressure to stay activated. This is
> >addressed by using several twists from a rubber band which contacts all
> >of the four outside switches, simultaneously.
> > (3) the center pointer's on/off switch must be taped down
> >prior to arrranging the four outer units. (4) arrange the four outer
> >units in such a manner as to have their ON/OFF switch on a line directly
> >toward the center of the assembly (this provides the maximum contact
> >with the restraining rubber band. (5) assemble the pointers in a
> >manner which causes the lower, sloping sections to be parallel to each
> >other. This furnishes the closest allowable focus of the beams. (6)
> >using tape, or preferably, a properly-sized rubber band, restrain them
> >in the desired configuration. (7) next, apply the rubber band you have
> >chosen to close the Power Switches of the four outside pointers. Some
> >of you more adept-types may chose to use the same rubber band to both
> >hold the assembly together----and to operate the power switches, of the
> >outside pointers. Since the four outside pointers will be in a
> >divergent configuration toward the top of the assembly, some may desire
> >to mechanically stabilize it. This may be done through using short
> >lengths of "popcicle sticks", thin styrofoam inserts, etc., plus a weak
> >rubber band around the top of the assembly.
> > Although this explanation may be overly cumbersome, the
> >unit itself, is exceptionally simple to assemble.....and to use. The
> >power is low enough that the bulbs may be placed in direct contact with
> >the outer skin (at least this has been our experience), We have
> >employed this unit for continuous periods up to 15 minutes in a single
> >location, without any, detectable, adverse reactions beyond slight skin
> >reddening.
> > We have found this low-power unit to be quite effective for
> >applications within its power range. The chief advantage of the LLLT
> >over the LED units is that of penetrating power of the coherent light
> >beam. We have found no advantage for LLLT in conditions involving
> >superficial (outer cutaneous) insults----- among the experimental
> >populations.
> > Sincerely, Brooks Bradley..
> > P.S. Please do remember NEVER POINT ANY LASER DIRECTLY INTO ANYONE'S
> >EYE/EYES To do so can cause PERMANENT/IRREPARABLE damage to the centra
> >fovea.....plus other retinal damage.
> >
> >
> >--
> >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver.
> >
> >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to:
> >silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com
> >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line.
> >
> >To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com
> >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
> >List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
> >
> >
