There is good evidence that red-light therapy, at least when used with a professional-strength machine in a physician's office, is useful for various purposes in dermatology. There is some evidence that it is useful for various purposes in ophthalmology, especially in children and adolescents, and for management of pain from certain sources. (Citations on request.) There is no evidence that it is useful for treating any ailments discussed in this forum. Anyone who disagrees, feel free to correct me with a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal.
Why a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal? Because lots of "wellness" companies hawk their products either with "studies" that they conducted themselves - I wonder what they found? - or even just by "testimonials" from users who (a) are unfamiliar with the placebo effect or (2) may not even exist. Moreover, there are plenty of non-peer-reviewed "journals" that exist just to provide a place to publish stuff, frequently for a fee. Hence the gold standard: peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Accept nothing less.
There is good evidence that red-light therapy, at least when used with a professional-strength machine in a physician's office, is useful for various purposes in dermatology. There is some evidence that it is useful for various purposes in ophthalmology, especially in children and adolescents, and for management of pain from certain sources. (Citations on request.) There is no evidence that it is useful for treating any ailments discussed in this forum. Anyone who disagrees, feel free to correct me with a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal.
Why a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal? Because lots of "wellness" companies hawk their products either with "studies" that they conducted themselves - I wonder what they found? - or even just by "testimonials" from users who (a) are unfamiliar with the placebo effect or (2) may not even exist. Moreover, there are plenty of non-peer-reviewed "journals" that exist just to provide a place to publish stuff, frequently for a fee. Hence the gold standard: peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Accept nothing less.
There is good evidence that red-light therapy, at least when used with a professional-strength machine in a physician's office, is useful for various purposes in dermatology. There is some evidence that it is useful for various purposes in ophthalmology, especially in children and adolescents, and for management of pain from certain sources. (Citations on request.) There is no evidence that it is useful for treating any ailments discussed in this forum. Anyone who disagrees, feel free to correct me with a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal.
Why a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal? Because lots of "wellness" companies hawk their products either with "studies" that they conducted themselves - I wonder what they found? - or even just by "testimonials" from users who (a) are unfamiliar with the placebo effect or (2) may not even exist. Moreover, there are plenty of non-peer-reviewed "journals" that exist just to provide a place to publish stuff, frequently for a fee. Hence the gold standard: peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Accept nothing less.
The forum: Blood Cancers and Disorders. The proposition: “There is no evidence that it [red-light therapy] is useful for treating any ailments discussed in this forum.” The request: “a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal”. The responses:
https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/what-is-red-light-therapy.h00-159701490.html Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it does not say that RLT treats the cancer/disorder, but rather that Anderson is using it to treat the dermatological and pain-management side effects of the real cancer treatments – which I noted in my post.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/photoimmunotherapy-video Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it simply states “Photoimmunotherapy is in clinical trials in patients with inoperable tumors”. That just means it’s being studied, moreover as against inoperable tumors. “Inoperable tumors”? “Blood Cancers and Disorders”?
https://www.cancercenter.com/treatment-options/photodynamic-therapy Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it notes that it is only used “At or near the surface of the skin, On or near the surface of a membrane on the inside of a body cavity (like the bladder) [and] In an orifice (like inside the throat or bladder)”. Do any of those sound like blood cancers and similar disorders? And I would still be interested in seeing such a study that proves its usefulness even for those cancers. If effective, it is no doubt attractive because it is significantly less harmful than the alternative – radiation. But that’s still an “if”.
https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2014/10/tuning-light-to-kill-deep-cancer-tumors/ Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Title: “Tuning light to kill deep cancer tumors”. “Deep cancer tumors”? Not “Blood Cancers and Disorders”? Two other observations: the article describes the process as follows: “In photodynamic therapy, also known as PDT, the patient is given a non-toxic light-sensitive drug, which is absorbed by all the body’s cells, including the cancerous ones. Red laser lights specifically tuned to the drug molecules are then selectively turned on the tumor area.” Does that sound like something you can do at home with stuff you buy online? Second, this article was written eleven years ago. There is not much since.
So: still looking for that peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal showing that red-light therapy is effective in treating “blood cancers and disorders”.
Notice I said soak up some sun -- not get a sun-burn!
I recall going to a conference where the Mayo Doctor (sorry I don't recall his name), pointed out that melanoma is virtually non-existent in tropic cultures. But is very prominent in cultures that get sun burn (Think Spring Break in Florida or Winter vacation in the Bahamas).
Farmers who are out in the sun most of the day have the same near-zero risk of skin cancers. Same for kids who are outside regularly.
Soaking up the sun also increases the body's natural Vitamin D3 production (a strong antioxidant).
So many reasons not to go out and sit in the sun without protection but my grandmother’s advice remains my standard. She pointed out how the Sun damages skin and with age makes it look like leather. She grew up in the country on a ranch and would never go out to “soak up the sun” and she had beautiful, unwrinkled skin until she passed.
Then there is the discussion we could have of the ozone layer that was different years ago than it is now.
Depending on where you live (I’m in AZ) just walking to and from your car and taking the garbage to the curb, etc., throughout the year is enough exposure to the sun.
However, here’s the reason that is now even more pertinent: there is a warning that when taking Hydroxyurea you should avoid unnecessary exposure to sunlight and protect yourself with sunscreen, protective clothing, etc.
I am not sure about CLL but I had 12 severe mouth lesions last week . My dentist used red light. Within 3 days there were all gone.
I have severe allergies to multiple foods and some meds cause the mouth lesions. They hurt sooo bad. My lidacain for mouth wasn't helping. The redlight worked! I was really surprised. I am sold. So now I am looking into finding a reasonable priced redlight unit.
Thank you for your post. I am a firm believer in Red Light Therapy because it healed plantar fasciitis in my left heel after almost a year of pain, injection and doctor visits. I read about it in The Energy Blueprint and ordered the Red Rush model from Red Therapy and received a $100 discount using the code Energy Blueprint. I walk at least 3 miles every day first thing in the morning and have for years- it is my meditation and helps my degenerative disc in lower back so I was devastated when the plantar fasciitis became so painful I could no longer take my walks. Within a week of red light therapy I was back on the road and I would say within 3 weeks it was completely healed although I do use it occasionally to this day along with other parts of my body. I point the bottom of my feet to the machine 4-6” away for 10 minutes 5 days a week. Truly amazing and I am so thankful I found it. It comes with a hook you place on the wall to hang it, which you can raise or lower depending on whether you sit or stand. Or you can order it with a stand. If anyone is interested, I can post a picture. Thank you @kobe2026 for the great explanation. I am now using it for MGUS, hair loss (71 years old) degenerative disc and osteoporosis although I haven’t been as faithful lately as we are in the process of moving. I still use it 20 minutes per day focused on my feet, back and scalp. There are many great Redlight devices out there so I am not promoting the brand I chose but it sure works for me.
@6370
I use it for overall health and reducing inflammation (using it on all parts of body) and hope that it will benefit MGUS. My last blood test showed improvement in M-spike and IGG. My IGG is now in the normal range and M-spike decreased to levels 3 years ago. But can’t say for sure it was the red light since I have read on this forum that others have had their numbers go up and down. It’s the first time my labs have improved though!
I spend a fair bit of time studying the science of light therapy, I feel the need to speak up. There are ove 7,000 studies on light therapy, the majority of them on red light, with infrared being a second close. Light therapy is done with both lasers and LEDs. The concept of LEDs being too weak was debunked years ago. That led to an explosion in the consumer light therapy market.
The reason LEDs work as well as lasers is that by the time the photons reach the body, there's no biological difference between an LED photon and a laser photon.
The columnar aspect of the laser light falls out of the equation when the laser light hits the skin, because the skin is much more reflective than had been assumed.
When you do light therapy with a low powered laser or LEDs, it's called cold laser, low level light therapy, or low level laser therapy. The keyword used in science is photobiomodulation, i.e. using light to change the biology. Red light therapy usually includes infrared light, and most consumer devices are a combination of red and infrared. Red is good for skin, pain, arthritis, and hair growth.
Infrared has a deeper reach into the body than red. Infrared is good for pain, arthritis, inflammation, healing poorly healed fractures, and brain modulation. Blue is especially helpful in reducing the symptoms of acne. Presumably because it's close to the UV wavelengths, it has the ability to kill the P. acnes bacteria in a completely non-invasive manner and with no side effects. That is granted that the person wears goggles, as blue light can hurt the eyes and definitely blocks the production of melatonin.
810 nm and 1070 nm are approximately the "strongest" wavelengths in that they have the deepest reach into the body. Most sucessful brain studies are performed with 810 nm and 1070 nm. The most exciting work in red light therapy is using 810 nm or 1070 nm along with a 10 Hz or 40 Hz pulse. Subjects with dementia, traumatic brain injury and Parkinson's show significant gains when treated within these parameters.
The infrared wavelengths have the deepest penetration into the brain. The frequency pulse entrains the brain waves to 10 hz or 40 Hz, corresonding to alpha (rest) and gamma (alert). The most popular use of red light therapy is anti-aging devices such as light domes and face masks. These usually offer red and infrared light, and can also be found with blue and yellow light. Blue combined with red is the best combination for acne symptoms.
The blue kills the bacteria and the red (ironically) reduces redness. Each on its own can reduce bumps and lesions. Red and infrared can reduce scars. Yellow also has a red-reducing effect. Red and infrared combined are the best lights for producing collagen and elastin, thereby reducing wrinkles.
The biggest challenge for the red light buyer is dosing.
Successful treatment requires that the wavelength and energy quantity (fluence) fit within a therapeutic window. Marketing and non-medical people being in charge of writing product descriptions allows the market to get very confusing for the buyer.
Vendors fight to outdo one another to the point that now every light on Amazon supposedly has 100 mW/cm2 irradiance when holding the device on the skin. Some claim 200 mW. The consumer has no way to know if these values are accurate.
This is a huge challenge that the industry has to fix, because the wrong dose of the right wavelength doesn't produce healthy change. When the mitochondria absorb the right amount of photons, the body kicks off an ATP production cycle using the photon energy absorbed.
Yep. We're like plants.
Light received changes drastically with distance and time. If the customer uses the wrong distance or the wrong treatment time per session, he or she will fail to see gains.
The healing starts when the absorbed wavelength reaches critical mass. Healing continues as photons come in. When the bag is full, healing stops. If the light continues to shine on the same spot, healing reverses as if the therapy had not been done.
So it's essential for consumers to use quality vendors who actually test their lights with proper equipment. I hope this clears up some misunderstandings about red light therapy. I'm a bit obsessed with the subject, so please feel free to ask me questions. Thanks fo reading. PEACE
Red light therapy has been especially helpful in relieving my neck pain, as it penetrates deeply into the tissues. In contrast, blue light targets the skin’s surface, where it effectively eliminates viruses and bacteria, and has also been very beneficial for managing my psoriasis.
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/photoimmunotherapy-video
https://www.cancercenter.com/treatment-options/photodynamic-therapy
https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2014/10/tuning-light-to-kill-deep-cancer-tumors/
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reactionhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9278815/
The forum: Blood Cancers and Disorders. The proposition: “There is no evidence that it [red-light therapy] is useful for treating any ailments discussed in this forum.” The request: “a citation to a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal”. The responses:
https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/what-is-red-light-therapy.h00-159701490.html Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it does not say that RLT treats the cancer/disorder, but rather that Anderson is using it to treat the dermatological and pain-management side effects of the real cancer treatments – which I noted in my post.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/photoimmunotherapy-video Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it simply states “Photoimmunotherapy is in clinical trials in patients with inoperable tumors”. That just means it’s being studied, moreover as against inoperable tumors. “Inoperable tumors”? “Blood Cancers and Disorders”?
https://www.cancercenter.com/treatment-options/photodynamic-therapy Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Even so, it notes that it is only used “At or near the surface of the skin, On or near the surface of a membrane on the inside of a body cavity (like the bladder) [and] In an orifice (like inside the throat or bladder)”. Do any of those sound like blood cancers and similar disorders? And I would still be interested in seeing such a study that proves its usefulness even for those cancers. If effective, it is no doubt attractive because it is significantly less harmful than the alternative – radiation. But that’s still an “if”.
https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2014/10/tuning-light-to-kill-deep-cancer-tumors/ Not a study, let alone one that is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Title: “Tuning light to kill deep cancer tumors”. “Deep cancer tumors”? Not “Blood Cancers and Disorders”? Two other observations: the article describes the process as follows: “In photodynamic therapy, also known as PDT, the patient is given a non-toxic light-sensitive drug, which is absorbed by all the body’s cells, including the cancerous ones. Red laser lights specifically tuned to the drug molecules are then selectively turned on the tumor area.” Does that sound like something you can do at home with stuff you buy online? Second, this article was written eleven years ago. There is not much since.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9278815/ An actual study, albeit one published in a questionable journal (see https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/29/frontiers-retract-122-articles-links-thousands-other-publishers-journals-to-unethical-network/). A study dealing with melanoma – not blood cancers or disorders – and, perhaps more importantly, in vitro. While in vitro studies are frequently useful in indicating promising areas for further research, they are hardly the equivalent of in vivo.
So: still looking for that peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal showing that red-light therapy is effective in treating “blood cancers and disorders”.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsSo many reasons not to go out and sit in the sun without protection but my grandmother’s advice remains my standard. She pointed out how the Sun damages skin and with age makes it look like leather. She grew up in the country on a ranch and would never go out to “soak up the sun” and she had beautiful, unwrinkled skin until she passed.
Then there is the discussion we could have of the ozone layer that was different years ago than it is now.
Depending on where you live (I’m in AZ) just walking to and from your car and taking the garbage to the curb, etc., throughout the year is enough exposure to the sun.
However, here’s the reason that is now even more pertinent: there is a warning that when taking Hydroxyurea you should avoid unnecessary exposure to sunlight and protect yourself with sunscreen, protective clothing, etc.
I am not sure about CLL but I had 12 severe mouth lesions last week . My dentist used red light. Within 3 days there were all gone.
I have severe allergies to multiple foods and some meds cause the mouth lesions. They hurt sooo bad. My lidacain for mouth wasn't helping. The redlight worked! I was really surprised. I am sold. So now I am looking into finding a reasonable priced redlight unit.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
6 ReactionsThank you for your post it was very interesting. How do you use it for MGUS and have you seen positive results?
@6370
I use it for overall health and reducing inflammation (using it on all parts of body) and hope that it will benefit MGUS. My last blood test showed improvement in M-spike and IGG. My IGG is now in the normal range and M-spike decreased to levels 3 years ago. But can’t say for sure it was the red light since I have read on this forum that others have had their numbers go up and down. It’s the first time my labs have improved though!
Red light therapy has been especially helpful in relieving my neck pain, as it penetrates deeply into the tissues. In contrast, blue light targets the skin’s surface, where it effectively eliminates viruses and bacteria, and has also been very beneficial for managing my psoriasis.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction