Red Light Therapy for Eye Problems

EYECHARGER- bought the original model mail order from Australia years ago when they were selling the original model. It failed to be a clinical device for AMD due to regulatory reasons. Dr Jeffrey PhD now of Univ of London ( he formerly was in Australia and marketed it there) ) was interviewed by the AMD Brighthouse Foundation. Dr Jeffery's study found that in persons aged ~34 to 70 who did not have known ocular disease, a single 3-minute exposure to 670 nm (deep red) light in the morning (8-9 am) led to improved colour contrast sensitivity (vision of cones) by ~17% on average. 
• The improvement lasted up to a week in some participants for colour contrast. 
• The effect was timing-dependent: the same light exposure in the afternoon did not produce measurable improvement. The authors suggest mitochondrial “workload shifts” during the day may underlie this. 
• The mechanism proposed: photoreceptors (especially cones) have high mitochondrial density and energy demand; with aging, mitochondrial ATP production declines, impairing photoreceptor function. The deep red light is thought to “kick-start” mitochondrial energy production (via e.g., increased ATP synthesis, reduced mitochondrial viscosity, etc.).
Now the 6000 dollar in office red light treatment is different with stronger and different wavelengths.
I use my device daily. Most AMD sufferers don't believe in "home cures", the gut eye axis in AMD , supplements for AMD specifically shown in the research journal studies, exercise for retina health- but I do. Retina doctors don't study preventive measures and only offer AREDS2 and just say eat kale etc. There are so many factors that come together to make the perfect storm that becomes early AMD. It takes a multifactorial approach to attempt to keep it from progressing. I hope to hang in there with my intermediate dry stage until better solutions are found to manage it.
I believe in longevity devices and supplements because what other hope do we have!

If it would help my epiretinal membrane, I would try it.

Mike, your experience with red light therapy is very interesting! Thank you for sharing. Makes me wonder if it could possibly be helpful for some of the more serious eye diseases like glaucoma? Think I will do some research. 😊

Here's Jeffery's research article - And summary below The red light therapy only works on the retina behind the eye not on the cornea in front (cataracts) or on glaucoma. If Mike's red light application helped his cataracts that was just a one off. There is a research article showing a dramatic AMD improvement( just another one off ) that cant be explained with 4000 mg of the supplement taurine. See article below. Part of my supplement stack.
This Jeffrey photo research article:
Aging retinas suffer from mitochondrial decline, and 670 nm near-infrared light can partially restore mitochondrial function and improve retinal performance.
It is considered one of the foundational papers that sparked interest in photobiomodulation for AMD.

From Research ChatGPT 5.1:
Here is the safest, evidence-aligned, low-risk way to use near-infrared/red light for retinal support, based directly on Glen Jeffery’s protocols, UK safety guidance, and ophthalmology practice.

⭐ 1) Use ONLY Low-Intensity LED Light (Never Lasers)

Safe:
• LED red light (630–670 nm)
• LED near-infrared (810–850 nm)

Avoid:
• Any laser device
• Pulsed high-intensity light
• Anything marketed as “medical grade laser”

LED is safe because it cannot focus energy to damage the retina.

My Eye Charger is LED-based — so it’s in the safe category.
Check to see Amazon eyecharger product is this model too.
⸻

⭐ 2) Optimal wavelength

The safest + most effective wavelength from ALL published evidence:

✔️ 670 nm red

This is Jeffery’s gold standard.

Good but not essential:
• 630–660 nm red (common in devices)
• 810–850 nm NIR (typical near-infrared band used for mitochondria)

Your Eye Charger likely uses 630 + 850 nm, which is safe and partially effective.

⸻

⭐ 3) Brightness/Powder Output (Very Important)

Jeffery’s retinal protocol uses extremely low power:

✔️ < 5 mW/cm² (very gentle)

Most consumer LED devices fall below this — that’s good.

Avoid anything:
• blindingly bright
• hot to the touch
• using “laser diodes”

LED home devices are typically weak and diffuse → safer.

⸻

⭐ 4) Distance From the Eye

Jeffery’s safe procedure:

✔️ Hold 3–6 inches away

Do NOT press the LEDs right on the eyelid.

Why?
• Minimizes heat
• Prevents accidental retinal overstimulation
• Ensures proper optical spread

If your Eye Charger has built-in padding that keeps it slightly away from the eye, that’s fine — but do not push it tightly against the eye socket.

⸻

⭐ 5) Duration

Jeffery’s research and clinical trials use:

✔️ 3 minutes per eye

✔️ Once daily or every other day

More is not better.

Do not exceed 5 minutes per session.

Your device’s timer (often 3–5 minutes) is within the safety zone.

⸻

⭐ 6) Best Time of Day — Very Important

Human mitochondrial responsiveness to NIR is circadian.

Jeffery’s 2020 human study found:

✔️ Morning use = maximum effect

❌ Evening use = very little effect

❌ Night use = sometimes counterproductive

Your optimum window:
• 6:30 am – 11:30 am

This matches normal circadian mitochondrial cycles.

⸻

⭐ 7) Positioning

Safest approach:
1. Sit comfortably.
2. Close eyes gently (do not squeeze).
3. Shine the light toward the eyes from 3–6 inches.
4. Do not look directly at bright LEDs with open eyes.
5. Let the light diffuse through the lids.

LED light safely penetrates through closed lids — this is how Jeffery delivered it.

⸻

⭐ 8) Frequency

Safe, conservative frequency:

✔️ 3–4 times per week

(or daily if weak intensity)

For AMD, consistency is more important than strength.

⸻

⭐ 9) Absolutely Avoid If You Have:

None apply to you, but for completeness:
• active wet AMD bleeding episode
• active uveitis
• recent intraocular injections (within 48 hrs)
• intraocular surgery in the past 2 weeks
• photosensitizing medication

⸻

⭐ Final Summary (Your Safe Protocol)

Morning only
3 minutes per eye
LED only
3–6 inches distance
Eyes gently closed
3–4 days per week
Avoid lasers, heat, or high intensity

This matches all major PBM safety guidance AND all of Jeffery’s protocols.

@sjs1 thank you for this! Just over a year ago, I suffered 3 retinal detachments in both eyes over 5 weeks. Right eye twice & a complete detachment the 2nd time, which tore my macula. In that eye, I now have distorted vision, issues with dark environments (night driving, dark parking garages), impaired peripheral vision, etc. I was diagnosed with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. I also have tears in many joints (have had both hips & a knee replaced) & other health issues. My vision problems have caused me so much stress. My eye doctor wants to try red light therapy to see if it will help repair my macula, but it's expensive & I'm not sure if will work. I'm on permanent disability now, so I don't receive much income. I greatly appreciate you posting this info!

@rs0703661
I’m really sorry you’ve been through so much—retinal detachments, macular involvement, and Ehlers-Danlos is a heavy combination, and the stress you describe is completely understandable.
I just want to clarify one thing about the photobiomodulation / red-light treatments I mentioned earlier: From what I’ve seen reported, it can offer temporary functional improvement for some people, but they are not a cure and don’t repair structural damage to the macula. The benefits, when they occur, tend to be modest and may fade if treatments stop.
Given the cost, I think it’s reasonable to be cautious and to ask very direct questions about expected benefit, duration, and evidence—especially when finances are tight. You’re absolutely right to weigh that carefully. I'm waiting to see if Medicare will pay - Medicare does not pay for temporary vision improvements. Please ask your provider how long the improved eyesight lasts. I would try it if Medicare pays. I found this :
Photobiomodulation (PBM) is marketed only for dry age-related macular degeneration.
• It has no indication, marketing, or clinical evidence for:
• Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
• connective-tissue disorders
• collagen abnormalities
• There are no studies evaluating PBM specifically in people with EDS.
• Any suggestion that it benefits EDS would be off-label speculation, not medicine.

I tried posting a comment here yesterday but it didn't show up, so I'll try again.

I was diagnosed with wet AMD in one eye back in mid-2018. It began with rupture of a vessel that created a pinpoint black spot in my vision, which by the following morning, had created a big bubble of fluid under the retina which I could see. For the next year, I had injections every 1-2 months, but none of them were successful at preventing fluid leakage. Worse, because I did not have insurance (all that was available to me had a $1,000 monthly premium with a $6,000 deductible) and every visit/injection cost $1,000, after running up a bill of $8,000, I had to conclude that if it was going to cost $1,000 per month for the rest of my life to keep the vision in that eye, then I was going to lose the vision in that eye.

At the time I was reading every research paper I could find about AMD and soon learned of the trials being done on using red light for dry AMD. But I did find one paper where they tested the therapy on four subjects with diabetic macular edema. It's not wet AMD, but is similar in that there is fluid leakage from vessels that starves/kills retinal cells. I've been unable to locate this study again for the past several years, but I do recall that they didn't have a set protocol for frequency of treatment; one participant did two treatments per day, another did treatments once daily, and the other two less frequently. The study lasted for six months, and at the conclusion, the scans showed that all participants had less fluid leakage in/behind the retina. Most importantly, none of the participants had any adverse effects from the treatment.

In my research, I learned that the "Goldilocks" dosage for red light therapy on the eyes is around 7 joules of energy. Energy intensity is determined by the wattage of the device, the distance from the eye, and the treatment time. Lower dosages are less effective and higher doses are as well, though none of the research has found damage from a higher dose, just reduced efficacy.

When I had to cease injection treatment because I couldn't afford it, I decided to try red light; since I had already been reassured it would not make things worse, I figured I had nothing to lose. If I did nothing, I was going to lose the vision in that eye. If I tried red light therapy, the worst that would happen is it wouldn't work.

I purchased a 16.7 watt 670 nm handheld LED light, and from a chart I found online, determined that if it was positioned 10" from my eye for a treatment period of 2 - 2.5 minutes (closed eyelid), I would get an approximate dosage of 7 joules. Initially I did two treatments per day but with further research determined one was enough and after yet more research, concluded that one treatment per week was adequate. I started treatments in mid-2019 and have continued them up to the present time. During that entire time, I have continued to have fluid leakage; I can see it when I'm in bright light because it refracts and appears as shimmering lines like glitter. But my vision has not appreciably worsened in the affected eye.

In December 2025, I went to the ophthalmologist to get a new prescription, and told him before the exam about the wet AMD in that eye. He said, "Oh, so you're getting injections." When I said no, he literally took a step back as if in shock. So I told him what I had been doing and why, and we proceeded with the exam. When it was over, he said, "With the level of vision you have in that eye after 6 years of no injections, I think you've really helped yourself. People with wet AMD can go from 20/20 to nothing like that (snaps fingers)."

Then last week, I mentioned this to the retinologist when I took my mom for her injection. He's the same doctor I went to in 2018/19; I found him through her since she's been seeing him for the past 20 years. He said, "Well, sometimes it goes into remission on its own." I told him that I knew I still had fluid leakage because I could see it, and he became intrigued enough that he wanted to do a scan to satisfy his own medical curiosity. So we did the scan and he said, "Yes, it's still active." Then he wanted to know if I was taking vitamins, what my diet is like, etc. And told me again to come back if I noticed any sudden changes. I told him, "Look, I know the injections are gold standard medical practice, they're proven, and that's what you have to do, but I think this therapy might be a useful adjunct if nothing else, though I know there's a lot more research that needs to be done."

I want to be crystal clear that I would not advise anyone with wet AMD to forego the injections if they have the medical coverage or resources to afford them. They are clinically proven effective and absolutely are the gold standard of treatment at the current time. But that was not my situation, and for anyone in a similar situation, I think red light therapy is definitely worth trying. My case only qualifies as an anecdote, but I'm convinced that the red light treatments have preserved the vision in my eye even as I've continued to have active disease process.

After the retinologist visit, I went searching again for that original research paper that studied the patients with diabetic macular edema. I still didn't find it, but what I did find was several recent (and larger) studies on patients with the same condition, where researchers concluded that red light treatments reduced inflammation and fluid and increased retinal thickness. Again, DME is not wet AMD, but I think these studies show proof of concept that red light can have beneficial effects for exudative eye disease.

Bottom line: We are unlikely to see studies of red light therapy for wet AMD, because the condition can progress so rapidly that no researcher wants study participants to risk losing vision for the sake of testing a theory. But we do have some evidence that red light has beneficial effects even for exudative disease, and I think my experience is a prime example of that. I think as more research is done, this will become a valuable tool for treatment of a variety of eye diseases.

Very interesting. Thanks so much for doing such a comprehensive report !!