10 Myths Busted in 10 Years of the Red Light Therapy Trend: What Have We Learned?

10 Myths Busted in 10 Years of the Red Light Therapy Trend: What Have We Learned?

This year, 2026, marks the 10 year anniversary of the Red Light Therapy trend!

What made 2016 such a special year for Red Light Therapy? That was the year Joovv was founded. According to their first trademark registration, it was first used in January of 2016. 

For better or worse, we can thank Joovv for popularizing the modern LED Red/NIR Light Therapy panel. And a big part of that was through their aggressive affiliate marketing funnel.

Not long after, every biohacking influencer was suddenly sharing their expertise in Red Light Therapy. And it was just a coincidence that they were sharing their knowledge in conjunction with an affiliate code. 

They started publishing books and blogs with obvious clickbait titles like "Everything You Need To Know", "The Complete Guide", and "The Ultimate Guide" to share their newfound expertise on Red Light Therapy. 

Thus, it comes as no surprise that the original brands and influencers got a lot of their "science" wrong as they made for the gold rush of early Red Light Therapy marketing. 

Once a profitable marketing narrative was formed, then most other brands copied it and influencers parroted it. 

The sheer, unquestioned repetition of these myths forced the consumer to assume that this was settled science. It would be literally unbelievable if all of the top brands and influencers were conspiring to perpetuate the same pseudoscience, false advertising, and false narratives...

Those going against these profitable narratives were severely punished. Since that would not only affect their sales, but perhaps more importantly, their egos.

Damage Control vs Learning:

The top RLT Influencers now humbly admit that getting things wrong is a normal part of the scientific learning process. As they project onto you, assuming that anything in Photobiomdulation is settled science falls into the Dunning Kruger fallacy. [3] 

It was unfair of us to have such unrealistic expectations of an influencer's knowledge, experience, credibility, or originality on this topic. Despite having limited knowledge about it themselves, their hubris allowed them to hastily cobble together authoritative books and blogs to capitalize on a new trend. Which is peak Dunning-Kruger.

So, what exactly did these humble influencers get wrong? They can't seem to bring themselves to say. [3]

Instead, they spend a substantial amount of time distracting the audience with a contrived controversy over heating.[3] Despite being repeatedly told by leading researchers that their strawman arguments were rubbish, semantic, and a non-issue.[3] Clearly the topic was not the issue, but the way Ari Whitten constructed his questioning to get such firm responses. 

When presented contradictory evidence, Ari attacked the study presented by Dr. Arany until they found a satisfactory interpretation that fit their ideology.[3] But notice, as will become the pattern throughout this list, the influencer never offered their own studies or research to support their initial claims or line of questioning.

Ari Whitten has an impressive talent for being able to "prove" things without a single shred of evidence. But he totally cares about the truth, just trust his word on that.[3] And if he didn't do independent research for a topic that he is so passionate about, we have to wonder if he did any of his own research for this book. 

In fact, this influencer never cites who exactly is the perpetrator claiming that "true" Photobiomdulation has absolutely zero heat.[3] Ari Whitten was literally quoting someone, but didn't provide a citation. 

I wonder who the Ari was talking about? Where exactly was that claim made? Was that claim ever made so firmly completely lacking context or nuance, or did Ari Whitten transform it into a strawman argument? Hopefully Ari Whitten wasn't just making things up again to create confusion that hides his previous lies, he definitely cares about the truth. He told us so. It is rather suspicious that Ari Whitten wouldn't provide a reference for people to check this important narrative that he pretends to be attacking. 

Ari Whitten makes a lot of hoopla around some nameless Rabble-Rouser. As usual, by not citing their sources, the Ari exerts absolute control over the narrative, and denies you the opportunity to learn the opposing viewpoint. Ari Whitten doesn't want you to realize he is maliciously attacking someone that he blatantly plagiarized, and is now doing a smear campaign against them too.

And just think. Even if this Rabble-Rouser was wrong about just one thing, shouldn't they be extended the forgiveness that Ari Whitten expects for scamming this entire industry with dangerous pseudoscience in his 2018 book? Which error was worse? Who has a better track record of conveying the truth? No wonder why Ari Whitten needed to contrive a strawman controversy as a distraction and sooth his ego by exerting dominance over his adversary. 

There are obviously much bigger problems in the industry to address, but Ari Whitten can't cope with taking accountability for them. That is why they put so much focus on attacking topics that are already confirmed to be a non-issue. 

Corrections vs Cover-Up:

A real scientist may have promptly issued a Correction, Addendum, or Retraction to correct the mistakes in their books or blogs. In contrast, influencers conveniently admit their previous book had mistakes at the opportune time when they are marketing a new book to sell. Which only vaguely addresses the mistakes in the first book.

And yes, that the new book will also have mistakes. But you will have to wait 5-10 years to buy book number 3 to get those corrections. [3] If you don't want to wait or pay, make sure to follow GembaRed for the latest science. 

The Dark Night:

As such, it has always been GembaRed's job to close the scientific loop. We must learn from these myths so that the industry can advance from them. 

It has been a thankless job. Our content was initially ridiculed as merely contrarian marketing against the mainstream. Yet, years later, many brands and their influencers can be found copying our original analysis and conclusions as their own. Quite shamelessly, in fact.

These influencers can only shyly admit they they got anything wrong in the first place. Certainly, their egos forbid them from giving proper credit to GembaRed for schooling them. 

So, to celebrate our successful myth busting with our meticulously evidence-based blogs, we will recap some of our most important revelations throughout the years.

1. Popular LED Panels are not Clinical Grade

The origins of this 10-year wave of popular LED Panels came by retrofitting Plant Grow Lights with wavelengths for humans. It seems the top RLT Influencer volunteered their audience to be the first human experiments to try this new type of light therapy device. [3]

As we told you in the introduction, these panels were claimed to be "invented" in 2016. Which was asserted by a patent application. Meaning nothing like them could had been clinically studied before, as novelty (being new) is a requirement for a patent.

Which contradicts the influencer's claim that they were the first to retrofit grow lights for Red Light Therapy. As it would have been entered into the public domain and blocked that patent approval. 

Most "Red Light Therapy" studies have been conducted with lasers. The origins of Photobiomodulation traces back to Low Level Laser Therapy with Cold Lasers. 

While these LED Panels are an effective biohack to utilize Photobiomodulation cheaply, telling the truth about their origins would not have made a good marketing angle.

Thus, the first books and blogs had the task of convincing the industry that these modified grow light panels were the best way to deliver clinical, medical grade Red Light Therapy. And even attack preexisting devices that had actually been clinically studied as being inferior.  

Being aware of this gap in the science should help encourage more studies into these devices. If we are made ignorant into thinking they have already been clinically studied, then no one would be demanding for more science. Which is sorely needed to answer basic questions about their usage. 

To this day, many influencers and consumers have become so delusional that they imagine the studies and dosages they are reading about have used "panels". Where actual studies that used these types of panels have been extremely rare. 

It is important for us to start with this myth, as many of the subsequent myths trickled down from this first deception. As the definition of the "best" Red Light Therapy was dependent on the design of these panels, and not independently evidence-based. 

Blogs that debunked this myth:

 

2. Solar Power Meters Inflate Intensity Measurements

Solar Power Meters were initially utilized to measure the intensity of these new LED Panels. It was likely the grow light manufacturers that provided these measurements to the resellers, since obviously no credible PBM expert would have used them in the first place. 

As the name implies, these were not properly calibrated to measure Red and NIR wavelengths, but for broad-spectrum sunlight. The sensitivity of the diode used in these meters is much higher in the Red-NIR range, leading to inflated measurements over 2x of reality. 

And yes, this was not only used by many of the top manufacturers, but solar power meter measurements were published into the first books and blogs into the topic. So while the influencers will try to blame-shift to the naughty manufacturers for false advertising, they were just following what the self-proclaimed "experts" had promoted. 

To this day these incorrect measurements have caused massive confusion around appropriate intensities, dosing, penetration, and effectiveness. Leading to many safety issues as well as people are trying to tolerate excessive intensities based on false measurements. 

Most top manufacturer's still prioritize advertising the Solar Power Meter measurements. If you are lucky. more accurate measurements from Spectroradiometers or 3rd Party Testing are found later on the product description or hidden in ancillary website pages. 

Just like the 1st myth, many subsequent claims around high intensity were built up around these false measurements. We need to peel away the layers of these deceptions to even get to something that is worth scientific debate. 

Blogs that debunked this myth;

 

3. 100mW/cm^2 was a Fabricated Intensity

Influencers initially claimed that >100mW/cm^2 was the best intensity for Red Light Therapy. Lower intensities were claimed to be ineffective, lack penetration, or take too long of exposure time for a therapeutic effect.

However, this was based on the Solar Power Meter measurements.

No one ever made an evidence-based case for this claim. Clearly, no one even checked if 100mW/cm^2 was even safe for these LED Panels, let alone if it was effective. Nowadays, most influencers can barely justify using over 40mW/cm^2 with evidence.

So, when brands were claiming to emit 100mW/cm^2 and their influencers shilled that was the bare minimum intensity required for effectiveness, in reality they were promoting less than 50mW/cm^2.

Regardless of the truth, if a brand wasn't advertising >100mW/cm^2 on their product description, then "educated" book-reading consumers were instructed by influencers to not buy it.

To this day, many consumers still have to believe this claim to be absolute:

Needing the "highest intensity" was a mark of exclusivity. You cannot build hype around Dr. Hamblin's recommendation of just 10-20mW/cm^2 for these types of panels. Since that would make red light therapy too safe and accessible for everyone, which the influencers obviously don't want to happen. 

Despite knowing these measurements were incorrect since at least 2019, brands and influencers coordinated diligently to cover it up. It is because of GembaRed persistently exposing it that some brands and influencers are pretending to clean up the industry now in 2026.  

It also became a self-fulfilling prophesy. Despite knowing their own science was fake, manufacturers continued to increase intensity with subsequent generations. Yet, they were chasing fabricated science based on erroneous measurements.

Blogs that Busted This Myth:

 

4. The Skin Contact Method Technique Doesn't Exist

The science education on Red Light Therapy is on a "need-to-know" basis. If influencers don't have a product to sell around a particular piece of science, then you don't need to know about it. 

Many of these myths were caused by ignorance, omissions, or blind-spot bias. Not from direct claims. 

As the top brands and influencers were "educating" the market with their glorified shopping guides back in 2018, they conveniently forgot to mention the most abundant application technique used in clinical studies: the Skin Contact Method. 

As the name implies, the light therapy device is lightly pressed into the skin during treatment. This was employed to reduce skin reflection losses and enhance penetration by compressing the tissue.

Merely mentioning this technique would have been a distraction from their narratives to sell their LED panels used at a distance (i.e. 6 inches away). 

Or, more likely, it was omitted because the influencers had minimal prior experience with Photobiomdulation, so they suffered from blind-spot bias as they were rushing to cherry-pick the science for their books and blogs.

Certainly, influencers wouldn't waste their time doing independent research on a topic without financial motivation, which is why they studied our blogs to paraphrase this major aspect of the science. 

*Safety Note: Never use a device intended for distance treatment with skin contact; unless you have approval from your doctor, the manufacturer, or are willing to accept on the risks of overheating your skin* - It seems this person wasn't protected by the "ouch" response, so much for that narrative. [3]

Blogs that Busted This Myth:

 

5. Six Inches away is the Best Distance:

Let us say you choose to use your device at a distance anyway despite the evidence. By now, we have already established that being evidence-based has been out the window for the past 10 years. And we are only halfway through this list. 

Is 6 inches away the best distance? At least for the commercial LED Panels that dominate the market?

According to many comments on the internet, they strongly believe so:

Somehow, this 6 inches mark became such a repeated standard that the average consumer had to assume there was something magical about being 6 inches away from a device. 

Like most of these myths, they could easily be busted by asking for clear, direct, relevant peer-reviewed published evidence to back it up:

  • Show me the research or studies that proves that 6 inches away is the best distance?
  • Show me a review article that came to the conclusion that 6 inches away was the most clinically studied distance?
  • Please, I beg you, just show me one study that specifically used 6 inches as the distance. 

The origin was likely that 6 inches away was just a convenient measurement point for the first generation of LED Panels. Since that was the best tradeoff of avoiding nnEMF of being too close and getting an adequate intensity for not being too far away. That is it. 

However, while 6 inches away worked for the 1st generation panels, it is becoming increasingly outdated as modern panels are much more powerful with narrower beam angle lenses. So being even further away is prudent with many of the latest generation panels.

In fact, due to the optics of where the beams overlap, sometimes being 12 inches away is just as strong or slightly stronger than 6 inches away. There was also some fear that distance causes exponential intensity loss following the Inverse Square Law, which we broke down in a blog the intensity does not drop off so rapidly with LED Panels as they are an array of light sources, not a single light source. 

In reality, we shouldn't be talking about arbitrary distances. A more precise way of dosing would be to define a target intensity (mW/cm^2) that you want exposure to, and finding the corresponding distance from your particular device. 

For example, if your target intensity was 50mW/cm^2. For a weaker device, you may need to be closer. For a stronger device, you would be further away. We need to standardize intensity exposure, not distances. 

Also, the real red flag is the "standard" distance would not be in inches. It would have been in the Metric (SI) system, like in Centimeters (cm). Since that is system of units used in scientific research, even for most studies conducted in the USA. 

Blogs that Busted this Myth:

6. Fluence (J/cm^2) is not the only dosing factor

The Fluence is the Energy (Joules, J) delivered per unit area (square centimeter, cm^2). Creating the familiar Joules Per Centimeter Squared (J/cm^2) that has become the most common standard metric for dosing. 

The Law of Reciprocity is a physical law originally used in Photochemistry. It roughly states that regardless of the intensity and exposure time, the same results are gotten entirely based on the energy delivered. 

For Example:

  • 45mW/cm^2 for 10 minutes
  • 90mW/cm^2 for 5 minutes

Both of these equal 27 J/cm^2. According to this interpretation of the Law of Reciprocity, the effects of both scenarios are exactly the same.

Thus, the most popular dosing theory was pushed by influencers since it helped make the false intensity measurements look good. Obviously, if you can save time and be assured of getting the same benefits, then consumers would pay for the higher intensity. 

For complex biological systems, this law has been repeatedly proven to be an improper model for dosing. The intensity (mW/cm^2) and exposure time (sec, min) are often more important considerations than the J/cm^2 alone.

This quote from a 2016 article explains the problem well. A simple photochemical reaction may follow the Law of Reciprocity, but a complex series of photobiological reactions will not follow it consistently:

"Although it can be assumed that this law is valid for photochemical reactions within a certain dose range, photobiological responses of cells and tissue usually involve a sequence of interacting biological reactions making a linear dose-time relationship less likely." [1]

The J/cm^2 numbers can often guide us into an appropriate range, but cannot be the only consideration for dosing. 

Additionally, Dr. Hamblin often recommends the Total Joules may be more important than just the J/cm^2. For example, 27 J/cm^2 from a tiny laser point is obviously very different than 27 J/cm^2 from a full-body panel. 

Most dosing standards were based on lasers. A typical cold laser is 100mW (milliWatts) (not divided by area). Most modern full-body panels emit over 100 W (Watts) of radiant output. So, we could easily have a difference in energy of over 1000x (one thousand times higher) if we try using the same J/cm^2 for dosing.

Yet again, influencers don't want to reconcile these differences (assuming they could even comprehend this concept and not just parrot what they steal from our blogs).

The obvious conclusion of the Total Energy assessment would be to recommend lower intensities (mW/cm^2) and lower fluences (J/cm^2). Which is exactly the methodology Dr. Hamblin uses when he recommends 10-20mW/cm^2 for full-body red light therapy. 

Blogs that Busted this Myth:

 

7. Intensity only Marginally Affects Penetration Depth (if at all)

Penetration depth is primarily dependent on wavelength. As light passes into the skin, it gets scattered and absorbed by the molecules in the skin at an exponential rate depending on their optical properties. Regardless of having a high intensity or low intensity, they all get squashed to negligible levels by the exponential function. 

This was articulated well by a leading researcher, expert in dosimetry, and owner of Thor Photomedicine, James Carroll, in an interview:

"To get to a deep target, that is centimeters deep. And really, you aren't going to get beyond an inch of penetration. No matter what you say."

...

"But really, 30 millimeters is about the limit. You can measure light at 4 or 5 centimeters, people have done it, but it is extremely low levels. And you think, if you turn up the power by 100%, you know, if I double the power do I get double the depth? And the answer is absolutely not, you don't. 

You get double the intensity, so you get double the intensity on the surface. Let's imagine you are 3 centimeters deep. Lets imagine, it's like, 0.1% of what was on the surface, something like that. Then 0.1% of one watt per centimeter squared, well, you will have 0.1% of double the power at 3 centimeters deep. But it is still, double almost nothing.

So people mistake doubling power for doubling penetration, it doesn't. You double the intensity at the surface, it does give you double the intensity at 3 centimeters deep. But it is double almost nothing, you haven't really gained anything."

[Youtube][2]

So, if you have a device at 45mW/cm^2 versus 95mW/cm^2, the differences in effective penetration depth would be marginal. Beyond 30 millimeters deep (3 centimeters), the exponential losses have already squashed both initial numbers down to negligible levels. 

Prior to hearing that quote, my own independent analysis came up with the next same conclusion. Below is the example we used in a previous blog:

The Law of Reciprocity also holds true for this scenario. Both intensities would get exactly the same penetration depth as long as you equalize the Energy.

Remember, influencers have insist that the Law of Reciprocity is their preferred dosing theory, but they often betray that theory when they imply that high intensities are essential for deep penetration. In other words, they now claim that the higher intensity is more effective than low intensity, even at the same fluence (J/cm^2). 

To use the same example as above::

  • 45mW/cm^2 for 10 minutes
  • 90mW/cm^2 for 5 minutes

Both of these equal 27 J/cm^2 (on the surface of the skin), and would have the exact same amount of energy reaching the same depths (assuming using equivalent devices and wavelengths). So, if you cannot afford a high intensity device, or don't want to risk a burn from excessive intensity, you can be reassured that you get the same penetration depth based on wavelength and fluence (J/cm^2), not intensity. 

Here is an example we created earlier:

To combat exponential photon losses, we would need exponentially higher intensities to increase the "effective" penetration depth. But such high intensities would create heating and burn risks. They would be best administered in a targeted laser with pulsing, scanning, and/or active cooling of the skin for safety. 

Bonus myth busted: This also means that moving closer to an LED Panel does not significantly increase penetration depth. So recommendations for 6-12 inches away for deep tissue and 18-48 inches away for superficial treatments is more of a placebo recommendation. In other words, we don't need to create exclusive intensity ranges for Superficial vs Deep Tissue treatments, as the depth is primarily determined by Wavelength (nm) and Fluence (J/cm^2). 

Although, perhaps the heat at close range helps with some deep tissue issues like pain or muscle relaxation. Not because of the deeper photon penetration, however. 

Blog that Busted this Myth:

 

8. 660+850nm are (probably) not the best wavelengths

The 660nm and 850nm wavelengths are no doubt an effective combination. Their initial usage was more likely due to commercial availability of those LEDs, and not necessarily chosen based on any rigorous scientific analysis. The 660nm Red was already being mass produced for the grow light industry, and the 850nm was already being mass produced for the security camera industry. 

But again, the "need-to-know" marketing hid that the preexisting published research clearly preferred wavelengths like 810nm or 830nm. As those were closer to an ideal "window" for skin penetration and closer to a CCO absorption peak.

And in the science, the 633nm wavelength was quite popular as it was available to many clinicians as the He-Ne Laser. So that become one of the most clinically studied Red wavelengths. 

This is all a good thing, since now the consumer has more options of wavelengths to choose from to see what works best for them.

In the future we will learn much more about wavelengths. There is a small probability that 660nm and 850nm turn out to be the best wavelengths when more science arrives. A broken clock is correct twice a day, after all. 

Blogs that Busted this Myth:

 

9. Wavelengths Have Similar Benefits, the effects depend more on Dosing:

An observation among many top researchers is that a wide range of wavelengths (600nm-1100nm) can deliver similar results. Adjustments to the "dosage" can be made to accommodate for differences in penetration depths, photonic energy, and biostimulation. 

It is often oversimplified that specific wavelengths are required for individual effects. Which can lead to marketing that consumers need to purchase more devices to cover the Fear-Of-Missing-Out (FOMO) for a lack of certain benefits. 

It is correctly claimed that there is a general preference that Near-Infrared is used for deep tissue treatments, and the Red wavelengths are recommended for superficial treatments. While this is true, it is not exclusive.

However, there are many examples in the literature where Red is used for deep tissue treatments, and NIR is used for superficial treatments. And it often seems the combination can deliver superior results, regardless of the target depth. 

In the same interview with James Carroll, he states this:

"The therapeutic window is quite broad, and you can achieve the same effect with different wavelengths, within a certain range and similar intensities."

[Youtube][2]

Instead of producing charts that list the individual wavelengths and their benefits, we created this Venn Diagram several years ago. The overlapping benefits in the middle far outweigh the differences.  

We have seen a suspicious adherence to claiming that wavelengths produce all of the benefits for Photobiomodulation. As long as your device contains the proper wavelengths, then you can be assured that it will target the claimed indication. 

This seemed to be a way to cover up the fact that the recommended devices, dosing, and application techniques are not supported by the science. So, if they can anchor all of their medical claims to just wavelength, then they can distract you from the gaps in dosing science.

Blogs that Busted this Myth:

 

10. Continuous Coverage is Not Required:

Our latest myth was the easiest to bust. Desperate influencers cannot rely on the above myths anymore, so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to create new exclusive marketing gimmicks to shill for their preferred brands. 

Now they are claiming that you need uniform coverage over the entire treatment area for best results. Gaps between the lights will leave areas of the skin untouched by light, and not receive proper treatment or benefits. 

However, uniform coverage devices are not as well studied. and may lead to oversaturation, overdosing, and overheating if not properly designed. So to properly use uniform coverage, generally, the intensity would need to be reduced.

For spotty coverage, the intensity for each spot could be higher, and intentional gaps between beams allow the skin to thermoregulate without being oversaturated with energy. 

Unfortunately, we see the cycle of mythmaking are starting again. On the bright side, we must thank these influencers for making such blatantly false claims over the years. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had motivation to make such deeply evidence-based blogs to debunk it. Perhaps they were using Cunningham's Law against us all along. 

Blog that Busted this Myth:

 

Conclusion: Learn How To Learn

Some of the most major claims in the Red Light Therapy industry have been wrong by an embarrassing margin. Or worse, completely missed major aspects of the science that were crucial to safe and effective usage. 

From LED Panels not being clinical grade, false intensity measurements plaguing the marketplace, fake science around intensity, misleading dosing theories, omitting the skin contact method, and misrepresenting how wavelengths and penetration work. 

We couldn't have gotten more wrong if we tried. But hey, we all got to collectively learn from it. And isn't that learning experience more valuable than the millions of dollars spent on non-clinical grade LED panels that don't deliver half of the intensity that they advertised? It's priceless. 

As a former process and systems engineer, it is not enough to merely fix a problem. We must fix the broken process the produced these problems to begin with. We already see the cycle renewing itself. The root cause of these errors is more important to me than the errors themselves. 

Instead of simply memorizing a list of 10 things above, we must create better systems that prevent such blatant myths from being spread in the first place. 

Following basic advertising law can help promote science. It requires that brands don't commit false or misleading advertising. As well, brands and influencers must be able to substantiate their claims with quality evidence. If you don't have evidence to support a claim, don't make it.

Even following copyright law can help improve citations and references so we can have traceability to find when and where mistakes were originally made. Then the influencers can at least point to the reference as the foundation of the claim, rather than getting caught making things up or parroting information they steal from manufacturers.  

Since these laws are poorly enforced, then we must use our right to free speech to expose the truth. Ask questions of brands and influencers. Especially for some of their most repeated claims only backed by logic, rhetoric, or anecdotes. They may not be evidence-based. 

And yes, that means our criticisms and call-outs have been completely justified. Despite influencers complaining that they felt personally attacked and worrying about their public image looking bad, those same influencers have clearly benefitted the most from our content. 

In the end, these influencers can only minimize the damage they have caused this industry by pretending to be just humble learners, despite portraying themselves as unbiased experts for years. Instead of blame-shifting, they could actually clean up the industry by issuing a correction statement addressing the specific mistakes they made in their previously published works. Instead, they expect you to buy more books and products to support their "learning" process. 

However, it is typically GembaRed's job to do the dirty work and cleanup for this industry. Then everyone else just takes the credit and enjoys the rewards of our work. The influencers get the benefit of selling new books and products that claim to bust myths, but they will never clearly admit that they were the ones that established, perpetuated, and/or profited from those same myths for many years. 

 

References:

[1]

Hadis MA, Zainal SA, Holder MJ, Carroll JD, Cooper PR, Milward MR, Palin WM. The dark art of light measurement: accurate radiometry for low-level light therapy. Lasers Med Sci. 2016 May;31(4):789-809. doi: 10.1007/s10103-016-1914-y. Epub 2016 Mar 10. PMID: 26964800; PMCID: PMC4851696.

[2]

GCP Ep 5 James Carroll, CEO THOR Laser

Gut Check Project

[3]

Common Red Light Therapy MYTHS Debunked: New Science


*no affiliation implied. Referenced under Fair Use for critical purposes only*

Additional References:

All other references are contained in the corresponding blogs in each section above. This blog serves as a concise summary of those evidence-based blogs. Lest we allow fraudulent influencers charge you to read the same things paraphrased in their book. 

Find more in our Learning Center and support original content by sharing our blogs!

Back to Musings

Tags