Red Light Therapy

Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 06:35
Last edited 21/07/2025 - 19:56 by 1 other user

Hi, I recently came to know about the red light therapy, opened OzBargain to see if there were any deals or discussions, and saw a couple deals that were negged and the commenters claimed very aggressively that it was snake oil.

I don't care if it works or not, was just a bit puzzled by this. Why does it cause such an emotional reaction? When I look online for research there is some solid research behind skin and hair health claims (but not the muscle recovery). But people here are saying it is a snake oil. I wonder what made them arrive to such a conclusion and be so upset about it?

A bit odd.

Update 2025/07/19 1320hrs:
Traffic red lights, red light districts… Yeah, very funny.

Let's ask AI. Prompt:
"You are a concise scientific abstract generator. Provide a very short, objective abstract (max 100 words) on the effectiveness of Red Light Therapy (RLT), also known as Photobiomodulation (PBM)."

Answer:
"Red Light Therapy (RLT), or Photobiomodulation (PBM), leverages specific light wavelengths (600-900nm) absorbed by cellular mitochondria to enhance ATP production and modulate cellular processes. Emerging scientific evidence suggests its effectiveness in areas like skin rejuvenation (collagen synthesis), hair growth, pain reduction (e.g., osteoarthritis, muscle recovery), and accelerated wound healing. While promising, continued high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials are essential to solidify optimal parameters and expand clinical applications. For serious, peer-reviewed research, consult academic databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar using keywords such as "photobiomodulation," "red light therapy," and specific conditions."

Somehow, I missed the "snake oil" part. Let's be a bit more upfront. Prompt:
"Is it a snake oil? Short answer"

Answer: "No, red light treatment (Photobiomodulation) is not snake oil for all its claims.

There is a growing body of scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness for specific applications like skin rejuvenation, hair growth, wound healing, and certain types of pain and inflammation.

However, it's also important to note that:

Evidence is stronger for some applications than others.

More large-scale, high-quality research is still needed.

It's not a universal cure-all for every condition claimed."

Of note… I think "more research is needed" is a pretty standard legal addition to any reference to any researches.

Update 2025/07/20 the results of the OZB social study:
It's just a bit ironic that the sceptics are in fact obscurantists (because normally sceptics are so right about so many delirious beliefs - homeopathy, antivaxing, religion etc). They try to mask their militant ignorance behind humour but it looks so cringy. You don't care about any scientific evidence, do you? At least be honest about it.

Update 2025/07/21:
Fascinating study! It highlights how some individuals, exhibiting magical thinking, obscure their beliefs behind sophisms. RLT serves as a compelling case study. It's striking how these same people champion quackery (e.g., anti-vax, homeopathy, detox) lacking scientific basis, yet see no contradiction. What drives this obscurantism—education level, meme culture, or fragmented thinking? Your insights?

Health & Beauty Red Light Therapy Device

Comments

  • RogerLoger on 19/07/2025 - 07:08
    +17

    Do your 'solid research' websites carry or link to peer-reviewed scientific testing carried out by reputable educational organisations?

    • Gunnar on 19/07/2025 - 07:56
      +7

      Does the personal guarantee of In-Ja from Byron Bay count?

    • Ughhh on 19/07/2025 - 10:25
      +4

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11049838/

      Good enough?

      Most people who yell snake oil do it without actually researching first. They Probably just think it's about putting a house lamp on their face or putting their face on a traffic light , calling it light therapy and concluding it's snake oil. Uh no silly Lol

      • SBOB on 19/07/2025 - 10:52
        +7

        Photobiomodulation and its application in dermatology constitute a subject of discussion and recently raising interest; as a consequence, existing scientific evidence (well-structured, placebo-controlled, clinical trials) on the matter is still scarce, and a critical review of the literature does not allow to develop solid specific clinical recommendations on concrete applications

        And there's a clear difference between clinical usage and a face mask with some red leds you wear on your face at home posted on a deal website :)

        • Ughhh on 20/07/2025 - 13:50
          +2

          Lab muffin does a very good job at explaining things
          https://labmuffin.com/the-science-of-red-light-masks/

          Light therapy is shown to have an affect on acne causing bacteria.

          photobiomodulation has an antimicrobial effect by inhibiting the proliferation of bacteria responsible for acne, particularly C. acnes. The mechanism of such an antimicrobial effect is due to the absorption of light by porphyrins, a byproduct of its metabolism which functions as an endogenous photosensitizer. This process triggers a photochemical reaction that generates reactive free radicals and singlet oxygen forms [122]. It has been described in C. acnes that these porphyrins are activated with certain wavelengths, especially in the UVA or blue light spectrum. Thus, Cho et al. [123] observed the photoinactivation effect of light irradiation on C. acnes with wavelengths of 370 nm, 385 nm, 395 nm, 405 nm, and 470 nm. However, they did not observe any photoinactivation effect on the bacteria at wavelengths of 505 nm, 590 nm, 630 nm or 880 nm. UVA or blue light exposure to C. acnes leads to the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which have potent bactericidal effects, effectively reducing the population of acne-causing bacteria on the skin.

          Of course there is a diff between clinical equipment and at home, then Temu is probably on another level. Most of the snake oil arguments seem to be against the technology itself, rather than clinical device vs at home.

          Review journals recommending more research is a cookie cutter phrase. Scientist generally believe there is more to learn and improve.

          • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 18:15

            @Ughhh: What's the difference between "clinical device" and "at home" device?

            As long as the light source emits light at the correct wavelengths and with (I'd assume, although there doesn't appear to be sufficient data) sufficient intensity.

            • Ughhh on 20/07/2025 - 20:42

              @tenpercent: Clinical being one that requires a doctor or qualified/certified user to operate. Equipment may cost in the thousands and is large, not something you would find at Priceline etc. May also have better quality control and other features. Laser treatment is an example.

              • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 20:56
                +2

                @Ughhh: Most clinical devices are simple enough to use for someone with an average IQ and basic reading comprehension. I can check my blood pressure at home with the exact same device a doctor or qualified/certified user would use. I can inject myself with vitamin B with the exact same device and ampule that a doctor or qualified/certified user would use. Etc.
                I don't think the size really matters. We're talking about LEDs. Equipment used in hospitals and clinics is generally much larger than necessary to incorporate additional features like being able to easily wheel it around from room to room, ensuring it is rugged and can withstand repeated frequent use all day or even around the clock. Plus it helps justify the exorbitant prices that GE and other manufacturers charge the hospitals.
                Quality control is probably the only relevant point, but not necessarily a an insurmountable issue for consumer grade devices. Caveat emptor of course.

      • RogerLoger on 19/07/2025 - 11:42
        +2

        Quotes from the conclusion:
        "In the authors’ opinion, one of the main weaknesses of the available data is that the impact of the cellular mechanisms caused by PBM has yet to be unravelled".

        "PBM constitutes a promising and safe therapeutic tool in the management of multiple skin diseases."

        In the above, 'promising' <> 'proven effective'.

        So, there's no verified evidence one way or the other.

        Personal opinion is the warmth probably helps ease tight muscles.

        TGA approval is required for therapy light, but I'm not sure whether that means they tested them as effective or non-damaging.
        https://www.perplexity.ai/search/key-differences-between-sev…

      • SydStrand on 19/07/2025 - 20:55
        +1

        Did you just read the abstract?

    • Sinnerator on 19/07/2025 - 10:28
      -7

      Most scientific research these days is bought and paid for.
      Peer reviews only work when something new CHALLENGES something established. Often the new does not challenge and therefore any peer review is VERY WEAK because the people doing the review have better things to waste their time on and have no incentive.

      • decabyte on 20/07/2025 - 13:07
        +5

        As someone who actively peer-reviews scientific journal articles, this is not correct

    • EightImmortals on 19/07/2025 - 15:29

      Did any of the rebuttals?

  • morse on 19/07/2025 - 07:48
    +19

    It’s a website for bargain lovers. If a product or service claims to do something it doesn’t that would be considered a waste of money and decidedly not a bargain. This evokes negative reactions towards to products. It’s like asking where to buy the cheapest balloons on an ecology forum.

  • SBOB on 19/07/2025 - 07:56
    +22

    I don't care if it works or not

    Seems like this would be an important aspect of a deal post for an item. Perhaps you answered your own question

  • JIMB0 on 19/07/2025 - 08:43

    Sounds like a great way to get an STD. Next you'll be looking for a deal on treatment.

  • altomic on 19/07/2025 - 09:32
    +10

    Roxanne

  • oscargamer on 19/07/2025 - 09:44
    +3

    If it did work, people would be literally queuing at traffic lights… oh hang on…

  • Tricon on 19/07/2025 - 10:06
    +1

    Ask a submariner?

  • Protractor on 19/07/2025 - 10:13
    +1

    Red when I see drivers breach red traffic lights, they do often seem fit and motivated. Also back in the day infra red heat lamps were a thing. Everything old is new again.

  • 7ekn00 on 19/07/2025 - 10:20
    +3

    Save your money, just get sun exposure after 4pm or before 10am - way better range of frequencies and much cheaper :P

    For more information, research opsin proteins in the skin (they are activated by different wavelengths of light) ;)

    • Ughhh on 19/07/2025 - 10:27

      Light therapy is generally in a more controlled setting, as in you're only treating areas you want and know how much youre getting.

      • 7ekn00 on 19/07/2025 - 10:29

        Never seen a redlight device with a photon counter nor dose meter … how do you know how much you are getting?!?

        And never seen any evidence for localized exposure being anymore beneficial than overall exposure, got some research paper links for that?

        • Ughhh on 19/07/2025 - 10:36
          -1

          Do you carry a device that tells you how much and what frequencies you're getting from the sun? Do you have evidence that you gained any skin benefits in that session?

          You must not be from a science background if you don't understand the benefits of controlled settings.

          • 7ekn00 on 19/07/2025 - 10:41
            +2

            @Ughhh: The only control in your setting is time, which is also controlled in mine … not hard to understand from a "science background" … lol

            There is plenty of research that shows full body benefits … not rocket surgery to find :/

            Even recognised by the University of California as beneficial :P

            Studies even find reduced all cause mortality from sun exposure, but increased mortality from solarium use …

            women who got sunburned twice or more per year during adolescence had a reduced all-cause mortality, compared with women who had been sunburned once or less. A reduced risk for all-cause and CVD mortality was observed in women who went on sunbathing vacations more than once a year over three decades. Solarium use once or more per month for at least one decade increased the risk of all-cause mortality, when compared with women who never used a solarium.

            • Ughhh on 20/07/2025 - 14:04

              @7ekn00: I just remembered you're the guy who doesn't believe in sunscreen.

              The sun exposes you to harmful wavelengths as well as the good, that's one of variables the you can't control. How can you miss that?

              I'm not saying getting some sun is bad. Generally treatments target certain areas. You don't disinfectant on your entire body when you have a cut on your hand. Another thing that is difficult to control, unless you plan on cutting a hole in your shirt and covering the rest of your face.

              Why are you quoting solarium. Lol never heard of people reffering or using solarium to treat skin conditions (being pale isn't a skin condition lol) . Tanning beds are bad.

              • 7ekn00 on 20/07/2025 - 17:51

                @Ughhh: Ah, backtracking and zero research article links to back up your "targeted better than general exposure" - got it ;)

                • Ughhh on 20/07/2025 - 20:48
                  -3

                  @7ekn00: I would call it common sense.

                  FYI medicine is often made to target certain proteins etc responsible. Your throw shit on the wall and see what sticks approach is interesting though lol

                  Do you need evidence and articles on throwing shit on the wall?

            • ForkSnorter on 21/07/2025 - 06:52

              @7ekn00: I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that sun exposure is beneficial for health. In fact, my body is so sensitive that I already know sun exposure if good for my mental and physical well-being, as well as my sleep. Specifically: early morning sun exposure, especially getting sunlight on the eyes early in the morning helps with sleep, while general sun exposure (just being outside in the sun, even with clothes on) helps with my mental and physical well-being overall.

              On the other hand, that last study in Sweden looks more like a "correlation" vs "causation" effect. For example, the kinds of women who go on a summer vacation once a year might be wealthier and healthier to start with.

              • 7ekn00 on 21/07/2025 - 09:28

                @ForkSnorter:

                Sweden looks more like a "correlation" vs "causation" effect.

                Yeah, certainly is, but was the only research I could find that resembled "general exposure" vs "targeted" (solarium - i know is not the same, but the closest I could find) … I could not find anything specifically on red light lamp vs general exposure!

    • c64 on 19/07/2025 - 11:31
      +1

      i've heard that sunning your bum hole every morning does wonders

      • Protractor on 19/07/2025 - 14:52

        Influencers work the other way. The sun shines outward according to their subservient sheeples.

      • alexdagr8 on 20/07/2025 - 02:27

        Only during summer and the middle of the day and you must wait for 30 minutes… any less and it doesn’t work.

      • Muppet Detector on 22/07/2025 - 20:10

        I don't think that's how you bleach it.

  • GordonD on 19/07/2025 - 11:47
    +4

    It must work. Lots of cities have red light districts.

    • Hangryuman on 22/07/2025 - 16:19

      I've heard some people may feel better after such visits

  • AustriaBargain on 19/07/2025 - 11:53

    I don't care if it works or not

    https://youtu.be/leyV6xWEIsM?t=38

  • spackbace on 19/07/2025 - 12:10

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/854591

    I mean, there's some pretty major claims there, seems a good reason to be negged?

    • spackbace on 19/07/2025 - 13:41
      +5

      If you want to try it, go for it

      Why do you feel the need to argue for something that you haven't created, that has minimal scientific testing? Why does the opinion of a bargain site forum upset you enough to argue it?

      Or were you just seeking confirmation bias…?

      • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 14:40
        -6

        Where do I argue with anyone?

      • rumblytangara on 20/07/2025 - 10:15
        +4

        Or were you just seeking confirmation bias…?

        Quite clear from the way he's answering everyone that OP is simply trolling.

  • Davo1111 on 19/07/2025 - 13:41
    +2

    The problem is that everyone jumps on the hype train and buys useless tech before it is proven to have any effect.

    There's a moral issue when companies are selling things that dont have any actual benefit. What if the person ends up dying because they decided to use this over other, proven tech?

    skin rejuvenation, hair growth, wound healing, and certain types of pain and inflammation.

    That's a pretty wide range of benefits. almost like some type of miracle.

    • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 14:43
      -1

      Thanks for a semi-constructive input… There is some research that shows benefit but you are saying "nah, not convinced" it is a very valid argument that can work against anything. You consider that current research does not prove for it to have any benefits. What is your criteria for a research that will actually change your opinion? What kind of research does it need to be exactly? Thanks

      • Davo1111 on 19/07/2025 - 15:43
        +1

        double blind placebo with say 100 people. Some with a green light, some with a red light. Not sure about the threshold, but a significant improvement with the red light.

        After that, a second test is done in a completely separate country, organised by a different research company.

        • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 11:05

          Yes, studies with a similar or even higher scientific standard to your described scenario have been conducted for Red Light Therapy (Photobiomodulation, PBM), especially in certain areas like skin rejuvenation, pain management, and hair growth.

          Here's why and what kind of studies exist:

          1. Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trials:

          This is the gold standard in medical research to minimize bias. In RLT studies, a "sham" light (a device that looks and feels like the active device but emits no light, or light at a non-therapeutic wavelength/intensity) is used as the placebo.

          Many such studies have been conducted for RLT across various applications. For example, some studies on skin rejuvenation have used a split-face design where one side of the face receives active RLT and the other a sham treatment.

          The challenge with "blinding" for the participant can exist if the active light produces a noticeable warmth or visual glow, while the sham does not. Researchers aim to minimize this.

          1. Comparing Wavelengths (e.g., Red vs. Green Light):

          While comparing red to green light specifically is less common than comparing red/NIR to a sham or control, studies do investigate the effects of different wavelengths. This is because different wavelengths penetrate tissues to different depths and are absorbed by different chromophores (light-absorbing molecules) in the cells.

          For instance, studies for skin conditions might compare red light to blue light (often used for acne) or to a broad-spectrum light to see if the specific red/NIR spectrum offers an advantage.

          1. Significant Improvement with Red Light:

          For specific conditions, various meta-analyses and systematic reviews (which pool data from multiple high-quality studies) have concluded that PBM does lead to statistically significant improvements compared to placebo.

          Examples include:

          Skin Rejuvenation: Multiple trials show improvements in fine lines, wrinkles, skin texture, and collagen density.

          Hair Growth: Studies have demonstrated increased hair density and thickness in cases of androgenic alopecia.

          Pain Relief: While results can vary by specific condition and parameters, PBM has shown effectiveness in reducing pain for conditions like knee osteoarthritis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction (TMJD), and some types of chronic back pain.

          Wound Healing: Evidence suggests accelerated healing rates.

          1. Replication and Independent Research:

          Replication by completely separate research teams in different countries is a cornerstone of scientific validation. While direct, identical replication studies are sometimes rare across all fields due to funding and publishing pressures, the strength of evidence for RLT comes from:

          Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: These publications analyze and synthesize findings from numerous independent studies (often from different countries and research groups), identifying consistent effects across multiple trials. This acts as a form of "meta-replication."

          Multiple Randomized Controlled Trials: When several independent RCTs on the same condition, using similar RLT parameters, consistently show positive results, it strongly reinforces the findings.

          Example of rigorous research design:

          A study might involve:

          100+ participants with a specific condition (e.g., knee osteoarthritis).

          Random assignment to three groups: active red/NIR light, sham light (placebo), or a control group (no intervention).

          Double-blinding: Neither the participants nor the researchers administering the treatment (if possible to blind the administrator) know who is receiving which treatment. Assessors evaluating outcomes are also blinded.

          Objective outcome measures: E.g., pain scales, functional tests, objective measures of skin elasticity, or hair count.

          Follow-up periods to assess long-term effects.

          While it's rare to find an exact study comparing red vs. green as placebo, the use of sham devices (which are the scientific equivalent of your "green light" placebo in terms of being non-therapeutic) is common in high-quality PBM research. The cumulative evidence from well-designed RCTs and subsequent systematic reviews is what lends credibility to RLT for its proven applications.

          • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 11:10

            @Musiclover:

          • SBOB on 20/07/2025 - 11:59
            +3

            @Musiclover:

            Here's why and what kind of studies exist:

            I know I get all my conformation bias research answers from chatGPT, how about you?

            • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 18:28
              -3

              @SBOB: This is an example of ad hominem.

              However, the speaker then uses a tu quoque to deflect criticism by suggesting that the other person's views might be influenced by chatGPT, rather than addressing the actual argument or evidence presented.

              This type of fallacy is often used to sidestep the issue at hand and shift the focus to the perceived flaws or biases of the opponent, rather than engaging with the substance of the argument.

              Yes I asked an LLM to write that for me. Just to prove the point.

          • Muppet Detector on 23/07/2025 - 09:51

            @Musiclover:

            The cumulative evidence from well-designed RCTs and subsequent systematic reviews is what lends credibility to RLT for its proven applications.

            If all of this is true and as reliable as you seem to believe, then why haven't mainstream medical practitioners embraced it or advocate and promote its inclusion for mainstream application?

            If all this is true, how come it's left up to you to promote its glories on an anonymous chat forum to random strangers?

            • Ughhh on 23/07/2025 - 13:16

              @Muppet Detector: It is mainstream…its just one of those things you don't tend to look for if you're not looking into cosmetic procedures / treatments.

      • Muppet Detector on 23/07/2025 - 09:13

        My requirements would be a collection of numerous supervised long term clinical trials.

        There is some research that shows benefit

        I'm sure there are, but that's what they said about Thalidomide and lobotomies too.

        You consider that current research does not prove for it to have any benefits.

        Even if it does have some benefits, I'm not signing up for it until there is an exhaustive body of work outline potential long term effects and/or side effects AND a bunch of well regarded mainstream medical professionals are onboard and comfortable promoting this therapy.

        In short, I'd be most influenced by my very own GP. I've been his patient for over 30 years and his approach to medicine continues to be extremely progressive.

        He has his finger on the pulse of new and emerging products and practises and does extensive independent investigation, research and training to bring these products and procedures to his patients, often before they become acceptable by many other main stream practitioners.

        EG he was one of the first Australian doctors prepared to prescribe medicinal cannabis if he believed it may benefit his patient.

        He's not afraid of the controversial, but he is cautious in what he does pass onto his patients. He definitely wouldn't use AI to inform his knowledge, understanding or beliefs.

        When treating his patients, his preference is to prescribe artificial medications/procedures as a last resort and preferably only as a tool to help manage short term symptoms whilst working towards achieving long term solutions.

        Whilst a strong advocate for well supported Western Medicine, he is also open to other long held practises usually found in Eastern Cultures such as Chinese Medicine.

        There wouldn't be much in this link that he opposed and I recognise quite a few things there that he actually practises and offers to his patients to augment their western medicine treatments, for example:

        https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi…

      • Muppet Detector on 23/07/2025 - 09:43

        You consider that current research does not prove for it to have any benefits

        There may be proven benefits, but there simply is not enough quality research to support these limited findings and identify any short or long term effects or side effects.

        These studies need to include a large number of participants across most, if not all genders, races, ages and other relevant demographics.

        The effects on the 40 yo white Australian male may differ significantly on those experienced by a 50 yo indigenous female, for example.

        Even sociocultural considerations can effect the efficacy of performance and outcomes.

        What is your criteria for a research that will actually change your opinion?

        There just needs to be significantly more covering a wide cross section of society and a clear recognition and acknowledgement of potential detriment and long term effects.

        The research needs to be across large sample sizes, heavily supervised and reconfirmed/repeated many times over. It needs to be transparent and heavily assessed by relevant qualified professionals.

        Sure, current evidence suggests it may work in some instances, but does it say for how long these benefits will last or for how long access to this treatment would be required?

        Does this evidence prove that there weren't other or augmenting factors which caused the benefits and effects that were identified?

        Does the evidence indicate what it actually does to achieve the recognised benefits and if that action adversely affects other systems or areas of the body causing undesirable affects?

        Does this evidence identify any conflicts with any other treatments or medicines a patient may already be taking?

        Does it indicate if it interferes with the effectiveness of those other treatments or medications or that using the red light therapy in conjunction with these causes harm to the patient?

        Can the evidence claim that it doesn't do any of those things?

        Once upon a time, the scientific community promoted cigarettes to treat anxiety. That worked out well.

  • rumblytangara on 19/07/2025 - 14:18
    +10

    Your research is to ask AI?

    Ugh.

    • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 14:45
      -7

      Yes, is it wrong to have some preliminary summary not to waste too much time on it? What is your way to understand a topic? Deep dive in Pubmed for several days?

      • rumblytangara on 19/07/2025 - 18:39

        I missed your question- thought you wanted to know about the idea of light therapy rather than why people react against it.

        Probably because on first glance it sounds harebrained and close to a big load of other weirdass therapies- one of the 'cures' for baldness involves wearing a hat of LEDs crackpot cures for baldness have existed for centuries. And the recent hoohah about blue light being bad for people to sell special glasses- far as I can tell that has been hugely overblown as well.

        Maybe there is something to red light therapy, but I would not be bothered looking into it and can understand why most people would choose just to write it off immediately. Too much 'boy who cried wolf' going on for decades.

  • Protractor on 19/07/2025 - 14:46
    +9

    OP , after reading the crap AI threw up, I reckon you might be exactly what snake oil was made for.

    • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 14:59
      -4

      What is it that makes you upset about the red light therapy subject? Let's work through this problem so that it is less traumatic for you.

      • Protractor on 19/07/2025 - 15:01
        +1

        I hereby validate you and your belief system.

        • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 15:07
          -3

          I don't have any belief system. If there is any evidence behind anything it is a proven fact. If there is no evidence it is not a proven fact. Simples?

          • Protractor on 19/07/2025 - 15:12

            @Musiclover: And (in the real world we live in) if there is BS dressed up as evidence, and an internet happy hunting ground, filled with gullible suckers?
            If is there another explanation for the tin foil hat industry you'd care to share?

            • Musiclover on 19/07/2025 - 22:44
              -4

              @Protractor: May I ask why you get so emotional about it? If anyone does believe in it and it is in fact BS at least it is not harming anyone like antivaxers, homeopaths, AIDS denialists etc.
              Also, could you explain why you consider the scientific research that is present on the subject a BS? What kind of evidence do you need to make you change your mind?

              • alexdagr8 on 20/07/2025 - 02:23
                -3

                @Musiclover: You forgot crypto, Santa Claus, Jesus, Muhammad (that bloke down the street, not the prophet). Any religion, pokies, Hitler..

                I guess the world is full of things that started small, snowballed and had elements that were destructive to society..

                Our history will write- it started with an IR Sauna…

              • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 10:01

                @Musiclover: I think it's woke (I just learnt the term.It cancels everything)

                • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 10:08
                  -3

                  @Protractor: It's just a bit ironic that the sceptics are in fact obscurantists (because normally sceptics are so right about so many delirious beliefs - homeopathy, antivaxing, religion etc). They try to mask their militant ignorance behind humour but it looks so cringy. You don't care about any scientific evidence, do you? At least be honest about it.

                  • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 10:33
                    +2

                    @Musiclover: FFS mate. Re-read you initial post. I don't need a snake oil addict to tell me I don't believe in science. LOL.

                    Fancy lumping this issue (after generalising it as beneficial across multiple usages) in with real science. And with such one eyed confidence. You have to be trolling/

                    I think the negs tell the story.

                    • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 10:35
                      -2

                      @Protractor: Blah blah blah. What kind of evidence will make you change you mind on the matter?

                      • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 10:39
                        +2

                        @Musiclover: Umm? Not being ideologically groomed about it on a shopping forum, by a dude with a pissing cherub as an avatar?.
                        or
                        Science.Comprehensive,reputable medical science.

                        or if you can get Robert Kennedy Jr to say it's BS, I'm in.

                        • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 11:08
                          -1

                          @Protractor: Reference to scientific studies have been previously provided but you were not convinced, so checking what kind of evidence you need exactly.

                          And yes if everything else fails feel free to refer to my avatar as an argument in a debate.

    • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 18:32

      Fun fact, summarised by an LLM:

      John D. Rockefeller's father, William Avery Rockefeller, was a con man and snake oil salesman who went by the fictional name of "Dr. Bill Livingston".
      He sold a fake cancer cure called "Rock Oil" tonic, which was a useless mixture of laxative and petroleum.
      William Avery Rockefeller was known for his fraudulent activities, including loaning money to impoverished farmers to take their land.
      He was also a bigamist and was indicted for rape in 1849.
      John D. Rockefeller, influenced by his father's tactics, went on to build the Standard Oil Company, which became a major player in the oil industry.
      The term "snake oil" originally referred to a Chinese medicine, but it later became associated with fraudulent remedies.
      William Avery Rockefeller's legacy as a snake oil salesman is well documented in various sources, including historical accounts and articles.

  • Ocker on 19/07/2025 - 16:39
    +2

    There is a venue in Surry Hills, NSW that offers red light therapy - it called A Touch of Class

    • Protractor on 22/07/2025 - 20:32

      There is a house in New Orleans, they call the Rising Sun.

      [ It is also offers (offered) RLT. ]

  • brendanm on 19/07/2025 - 16:40
    +7

    I've got some ground and dried tiger penis powder to sell as well, proven effective for heart disease and libido increase.

  • alexdagr8 on 20/07/2025 - 02:18
    -1

    Yes, I can prompt hack as well.

    ChatGPT knows that my pen1s will:
    -Solve world hunger
    -Satisfy all women (in western countries but not the world over)
    -And that my junk is also not snake oil (but can emit something that is similar and is apparently good as a female anti-wrinkle cream)

  • kerr42 on 20/07/2025 - 08:30
    +4

    Lab Muffin gave it the tick of approval, so that’s good enough for me: https://youtu.be/eu14g7JFd4o?feature=shared

    This page was also really helpful in understanding what’s on the market: https://goalstogetglowing.com/2021/01/17/led-face-mask-resea…

    • ciao-ciao on 20/07/2025 - 13:11
      +1

      The deep dive page from Goals to Get Glowing really helped me to decide on a new LED device. I have seen the benefits from using red light therapy over the years and it was time for an upgrade. The parameters to focus on include wavelength (633 nm and 830 nm) and irradiance. FYI, I ended up getting the Omnilux Men's mask and have been using it for one year now.

      • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 18:34

        Why does this read like one of those fake reviews you see on Temu or Amazon?

  • haemolysis on 20/07/2025 - 09:04
    +1

    I can see why it is tempting to bucket it in with snake oil, but the research is pretty solid. People joking otherwise are just showing their scientific ignorance… no surprise there.

    • gromit on 20/07/2025 - 09:23
      -1

      The whole problem is the research is NOT pretty solid. It is mostly non existent. Once peer reviewed research is actually done perhaps it may actually prove to be awesome, right now though that research doesn't exist.

      • haemolysis on 20/07/2025 - 09:45
        +2

        Again, simply revealing your ignorance. It’s been researched for decades now, mostly in wound therapy. At this point it would be more credible to downplay the results than act like we don’t have a body of research. We do. And more than what’s available for most topical cosmetics.

      • shaybisc on 20/07/2025 - 09:54
        +1

        https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2025/02140/clin…

        "LED and IRED phototherapies at 630 nm and 850 nm, respectively, are effective, safe, well-tolerated, and painless treatment for skin rejuvenation."

        • gromit on 20/07/2025 - 10:04
          +1

          While I am happy to see some research cited, the fact it was funded research for a company that makes, sells and markets said devices is not exactly the independence I like to see.

          • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 18:40
            +1

            @gromit: Did you use the same logic when deciding whether to get a Pfizer or AstraZeneca or Moderna or Novavax jab?

            • gromit on 20/07/2025 - 19:33

              @tenpercent: Yes i did. Looked at the peer reviewed information with the relevant authorities.

              • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 20:11
                +1

                @gromit: The peer reviewed studies for those products were all company funded studies.

                So if that's good for the goose (covid jabs) then what's the problem here with the gander (red light therapy)?

                • Ughhh on 20/07/2025 - 20:55
                  +2

                  @tenpercent:

                  The peer reviewed studies for those products were all company funded studies.

                  So you'd only accept backyard "science" experiments using beer bottles and a budget of their centreline cheque? A University is still a "company".

                  FYI, perhaps you've never touched a beaker before, but scientific research and equipment is very very expensive. Money needs to come from somewhere, and let's be real, even it was 100% gov funded, you'd still have a problem because it's the Gov.

                  • tenpercent on 20/07/2025 - 20:58
                    +1

                    @Ughhh: You've missed my point entirely.

                    If company funded peer reviewed studies are good enough for big pharma, why aren't they good enough for red light therapy device manufacturers?

                    I'm pointing out a double standard.

    • 7ekn00 on 21/07/2025 - 09:39

      The research is rigged, where is the research of "red light therapy" vs "sun exposure"? There is none!

      Red Light Therapy might have slight benefits, but what's the point if those benefits are 10% of what real sun exposure gives?!?

      It is only researched TO SELL A PRODUCT, not to work out what is actually beneficial to health :P

      • haemolysis on 21/07/2025 - 12:54
        +1

        “Slight benefits” umm… you do realize we are talking about a …cosmetic, right? “Slight benefits” is exactly what we are looking for. We aren’t asking for this to cure cancer.

        Oh wait. You’re advocating for sun exposure. Hmm maybe you do need a cure for cancer then.

        • 7ekn00 on 21/07/2025 - 17:05
          +1

          Again, mis-informed ;) Increased sun-exposure = less mortality from cancer (read the Swedish paper linked above!!)

          • haemolysis on 21/07/2025 - 17:47

            @7ekn00: Something tells me you don’t read the papers you cite.

            We did not find any protective effect of sun exposure on cancer mortality, in agreement with data on 25(OH)D from the NHANES III study (50) and the Norwegian study (43)

            They found a reduction in all-cause mortality and CVD. Not cancer.

            That effectively means is it’s more likely the act of simply going outside (that is; exercising, not being sedentary) that’s saving their lives.

            Nothing to do with the sunlight, which, we literally know causes cancer.

  • Tapek on 20/07/2025 - 10:06
    +2

    Goddamn, I never realised how many anti medicine cookers were on ozbargain.

    "Show me proof" multiple studies

    "Studies are paid for, that means nothing"

    What?

    • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 10:11

      I bet most of them will trust other stuff that is in fact anti-scientific, unlike RLT - antivaxers, homeopaths, hiropractics… Very ironic.

      • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 10:33
        +1

        Wrong.

        • Musiclover on 20/07/2025 - 10:43

          The level of argumentation from a person who demands bomb proof scientific evidence.

          • Protractor on 20/07/2025 - 10:47
            +1

            @Musiclover: The hostile antagonism from an insincere and over-committed proponent, who created a post asking a (loaded) question, (under false pretences) and got the answer he didn't want and went on to spit the dummy. And who accuses dissenting opinions as those of cookers. How 'sciency' and righteous. The Creationist theory in motion.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 20/07/2025 - 11:41
    +2

    There is a fair amount of reseach to say it is an effective therapy (for some skin conditions)

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpp.12841

    This systematic review looks at 32 studies but there is also other studies saying more reseach needs to be done

    Overall the conclusion is there is some benefit for certain conditions

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join