DIY Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus on a Budget — LLLT Under 100,-

And you need a proven inner ear injury to really make a case , I remember Marlino wrote that his t is mainly anxiety / depression caused and he has good hearing

In other words - LLLT cannot fix what's not broken

 

So can you help me build a device with the 7$ dollars led Bobby ? We are going to try that at the same time with @RUM, as we live nearby ! I have a proven inner ear injury.

 

I can confirm. I went to the hospital again to participate in a tinnitus study. Part of it was an audiogram. Same setup as I had 6 month ago when I have been there for emergency. So the tests should be comparable. It shows 5db improvement.
This might be in range of uncertainty but could also indicate some kind of improvement.
If only my tinnitus was 5db better...

 

Very likely in my opinion.
I was a tinnitus sufferer myself 10 years ago. Was a mild one then. One thing I learned is that mindset and good believe is the solution to habituation and healing. Took me one year to get there then.
Placebo effect should help tremendously in these cases.

 

Haha, can't get rid of this.
Well I was depressed after I got tinnitus and believe me for very good reason.
Even if it was depression/anxiety and it's really able to create tinnitus, what might be the mechanism? Could it be a stroke like event in the inner ear? We admittedly just don't know. Not me and not you and definitely not jastreboff.

I spent so much time thinking, studying and evaluating my tinnitus if its brain or ear related. Fact is that I cannot tell. Very good reasons for both. Maybe there is really both involved and interacting giving you this weird sensation.

To figure out in the future I recently did my share. Was in fMRT for about one hour as part of a tinnitus study. Hellish loud but tinnitus was bearable for 10 days after. Unfortunately now its really bad again.

 

Not so sure what I should make of this one as you do see a 5 DB improvement (though not in T).

 

Hi Bobby B, Like @RUM and @Foncky I'm also interested in the device you build and the treatment you toke. Can you share information and help us?

 

Well. Most likely a measurement uncertainty. If this is indeed a improvement and affect my tinnitus in the time to come, I will let you know I promise. I did lllt extensively and I will not stop now. But just not do it regularly anymore.

 

I believe that is an ambiguous statement with a lack of information transfer to it other than containing suggestive content, which seems to read you've wrongly assumed mental states do not have a physical component to them. In fact all literature clearly and unequivocally shows that stress, depression, and anxiety all correlate heavily with an alternate glutamate metabolism i.e stress actually kills the cells responsible for protecting the auditory systems synapses from glutamate toxicity which whether it occurs due to something like the exploding head syndrome, or noise exposure, are fundamentally the same.

As for the power of my LED's, my device totaled 50 Watts and has more penetration than anything else being used experimentally or available on the market.
Furthermore, you've not even attempted to calculate the actual power transfer per wavelength which is quite important.

There is no discussion to be had here. Literature clearly shows minor improvement in hair cell proliference with LLLT, and those affected by hyperacusis which is caused in the cochlea also see great improvements. However, my goal here was to see if it could help my tinnitus.

My results;

To be perfectly honest I have had improvement. I'm not nearly as bothered by my tinnitus as I was before. I'm finding it hard to hear on public transport. I even woke up the other day without hearing it at all until I was making breakfast and was looking for it.
I cannot however link my improvement to LT yet, we need more people to try it. It's worth mentioning that during my LT the tinnitus got slightly worse. But as it stands it dropped noticeably. I will return to an audiologist to see if my hearing has improved, which I subjectively do believe.

All in all it could just be that my inflammation has gone done slightly by itself. More people need to test this. Specifically those who have had tinnitus for a longer time.

The most important thing to remember here is that I used a wide spectrum red light source, i.e red leds. Not IR. And please be careful with IR because I burned my finger with it, don't fry your brain.

When I moved away from the laser the reasoning was that in literature the effects were achieved around 600nm and the laser completely misses that. I would like to suggest you move to high power red LED's for about a month, then wait a month, and then record final results.

 

Hi Bobby B, Like @RUM and @Foncky I'm also interested in the device you build and the treatment you toke. Can you share information and help us?

The most advanced are CityJohn, Bobby B and maybe others.
I have not yet build a device, I just start to order LED and LED driver.
I think to order here: https://fr.aliexpress.com/store/1913069
It is not expensive and there is the choice.
I will order 1, 3, 5 and 10W 660nm and LED driver.

 

You audiogram is not bad at all so an improvement might take time to be significantly visible. Good to see that you contine.

 

@Cityjohn

Do you think LLLT could help with the pressure and fullness feeling?

 

Since LLLT is supposed to work on all tissue, and if fullness in the ear is a tissue problem, it might. But I haven't had much fullness in the ear and it passed before my LLLT.

 

I agree with you. Though it is very hard to establish the cause of this condition.

I'm curious about the end-configuration of your crown. But I think you tuned it specifically for your condition.

Great to see you have these results. Which literature are you refering to? On the internet it is indeed mostly 660 nm laser.

I'm in doubt what I should do. For LLLT I roughly these options (except for clinical treatment):

1- MLS (2700 E), with the advantage of support during treatment of Wilden. Some people are benefiting from this device some not, though low powered it contains properties which seems to make it effictive (two frequenties?)
2- Lucky laser (+/- 1500 E) powerful but not sure it is effective (please somebody correct me if I am wrong). Used by Anne Harila. Dose can be adjusted/ramped up
3- Konftec (450 E): not too expensive, at least two people found it ineffective. Did not find success stories
4- Self build: cheap, no support and no clue if it is effectivene (except for this thread). No uniform specs for the device. I understand 600nm Led, 10 Watt

 

I just purchased this device from www.redlightman.com:

https://redlightman.com/product/infrared-light-device/

It is much more powerful than the 10 watt security lights i have been using for the past couple of weeks and also the beam can be focused better into the ear. This is a high power device and relatively cheap at £165.00. Its power output is 1200 mW/cm² and 200 mW/cm² when held at a distance of 10cm from the ear.

The website is full of practical information on red light.

Ill hopefully provide an update at some point in the future.

 

Found this journal of a mans experience with LLLT for tinnitus:

http://www.progressrec.com/curing-tinnitus.html

 

Let's all not be wanting to punch holes into thin air with powerful lasers without even the simplest analysis of what they're trying to achieve. Wilden does not use 660nm because the mitochondria do not have any chromophores that react to it. He uses a HeNe laser with a 632nm wavelength. 650nm just about scrapes the wavelengths of the chromophores.

The point of self made is that it is better than anything available on the market, because you can customize it to your needs. The 600nm peak, 10 Watt LED's are safe, cheap and powerful enough for anyone to use, and the added bonus is they spread the spectrum so that every protein can get some of what it likes best.
A HeNe lasertube such as Dr. Wilden's office laser would cost around 500 Euro's to make.

I really must warn you, if you focus that onto your cochlea you're going to really heat the water in your cochlea will burn before you feel the heat. Don't forget you don't have any heat or pain sensing nerves in your head.


The added literature provides more info.

 

They talk about LLLT, sorry it is in French:
http://www.multiesthetique.fr/articles/led-et-maladies-veineuses

 

@Cityjohn - Thanks for the warning. I intend to hold it 10 cm or more from the ear so the light hitting the outer ear should give an indication of the heat.

 

Regarding power and heat damage to the inner ear, I notice on the following webpage that konftec sell an 'Auricular laser' with Max. Laser Power: 1,220 mW, for the treatment of tinnitus and menieres (see link below). These being lasers rather than LEDs would focus that power into a smaller area:

http://www.konftec.com/html/ko_product.html

konftec devices for treating the inner are quite powerful and in the form of lasers rather than LED's.

Is anyone aware of any cases of people damaging the inner ear through the use of lazers or LED's?

 

@Cityjohn
Not sure why you keep on saying that only 600 nm works.

Here are a few points I gathered

-the study that show that LLLT can regenerate damaged hair cell shortly after noise exposure used 810nm

- same for the study on cochlear hair cells after ototoxic drugs : 810nm

- the many nerve regenation studies used a lot of different wavelengths even in IR range like 3000nm and all the wavelengths had a positive effect provided the damage was recent

- the high power laser they use to successfully treat brain damages as per study I posted on these forums uses 810nm

- Anne Harila, who treated hundreds or maybe thousands of tinnitus patients for decades with lasers clearly said she got good results by using different wavelengths and also on the longer ones like 900nm or more.

- Hamblin says that the main therapeutic effect are between 800 and 1200nm and he is THE worldwide expert in LLLT

-600 nm does not heat water !

 

Because I've read the research.

Have you any idea why 810nm was chosen?

How positive and by means of what fundamental underlying theory?

Have you any idea why 810nm was chosen?

How positive and by means of what fundamental underlying theory?
If she treated so many patients with success why aren't you in her clinic right now? How many were actually cured?

Have you read all his research, and can you quote why he said that and what he is referring to?

Nobody said that, I was responding to someone that bought a 10W broad IR device with a focusing lens.

I'm not here to chase fairy tales. Messing around with different levels of different light isn't going to do anyone much good. LLLT is like trying to make an airplane out of wood. Without knowing the exact parameters of an airfoil you're not getting off the ground. It is essential that everyone trying this try to understand what LLLT really is based on to reduce the amount of guesswork that will mess up the results quickly.

Let me try to paint a second picture as to why the I stick to 600nm. Shown below is the absorbance of light in cytochrome C oxidase. You see that massive peak in 600nm that happens to be 100 times bigger than anything that happens in IR, that's why everyone uses red light. [Oxidised (black) and fully reduced (red)]



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331044/

 

Have you any idea why 810nm was chosen?

This is a wavelength that maximizes absorption and its in the therapeutic window and is typically used in many studies on LLLT and tissue regeneration as its proven to work with low heat / damage

The hair cells did regenerate on 810nm

How positive and by means of what fundamental underlying theory?

The nerves did regenerate and not the placebo / non irrdiated ones






If she treated so many patients with success why aren't you in her clinic right now? How many were actually cured?

I use the same exact equipment she has which is the lucky laser with 650 and 808nm...she has 2 more wavelengths one at 632 and one around 900nm from other devices as well.

So no need to fly accross the globe for me for a limited one week if this is a 3 year process.

I'm working full time here it's better and cheaper to do it at home .

Wilden sells his laser at 650nm too and some claimed results too

Sorry but I'm just quoting Hamblin who says the best effects are between 800nm to 1200 mm - the study on 600nm does not mention any superior therapeutic effect

And even if 600 is absorbed better by the cells - it's also absorbed more by the skin so by the time it reaches inside the cochlea through skin it's a lot weaker - we don't irradiate the target tissue direclty like in the study you posted

Why would Hamblin say that ? Are you claiming that he is not aware of those studies ?

 

Do not fight, we are in the same side.
We all want to find the best way to operate LLLT.

I use it in the meantime my LEDs order.
http://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/catalog/products/00192363/
I don't know if it usefull lol.
They say 6W on the datasheet.

 

I'm reading a study shared by CityJohn.
They say that:
"Wavelengths in the range 600–700 nm are used to treat superficial tissue, and longer wavelengths in the range 780–950 nm, which penetrate further, are used to treat deeper-seated tissues"
And
"Wavelengths in the range 700–770 nm have been found to have limited biochemical activity and are therefore not used"

 

Yeahhh... stay calm.

I'm not sure if the home laser is a 632 nm HeNe laser or 650 nm. I can not find specs on the internet. Assuming it is 621, it will partially profit from the 600 peak as presented by @Cityjohn. So Wilden can improve his laser when it will use 600 nm.

I found an article which describes the effect on embryo cells of a 632 nm laser:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7853117

I understood that ATP increase will lead to regeneration (if any). But that seems not to be achieved.

 

621=632

 

@Cityjohn - are you doing better? Hard to tell.

 

The site indicates it's safe for use on the face and brain. Do you not agree with that? It also says to use for a very short time frame (5 mins).

 

No fights here, no worries. I'm just really short on time and can't always be polite.

I'll have to answer succintly because I don't have much time.

810nm was used because it is available since optical drives needed mass production of these optoelectrics, not because it is the best way to exact light therapy. Researchers use these weird steps because that's what you can buy, often they do not mention where on the curve of effectiveness it lies and they do not supply the theory because they're shit scientists

"The nerves did regenerate and not the placebo / non irrdiated ones" is not a fundamental theory or mechanism of action. The mechanism here is powered by a specific protein, with specific properties.

"she has 2 more wavelengths one at 632 and one around 900nm from other devices as well." So apparently she too knows it's best to get closer to 600nm.

"Wilden sells his laser at 650nm too and some claimed results too" But his office laser remains a 632 HeNe laser.

"And even if 600 is absorbed better by the cells - it's also absorbed more by the skin", correct, and that is exactly why I've spend so much time to be able to get the red light deep by transferring it through the cartilage in my skull which acts exactly like a fiber optic cable. Using the cartilage is something you will not find in literature. 600nm remains the best option if you can get it to the location of injury, i.e for irradiating the ears because the 1mm cochlear window can let 80% of the light pass through. Besides that, with an opening like the ear you can just ramp up the power until it's too hot.

"Why would Hamblin say that" Not everyone seems to make the distinction between what Hamblin ambiguously states in an interview when he is trying to use simpler terminology, and what he and his students write in their research. Because boy is there a big difference at times. He and I agree on all points. The reason he mentioned that most therapeutic effects have been seen in those ranges is because anything related to nervous tissue is but a small fraction of the total use of LLLT. LLLT has for example been used in animal care for a decade.

Now my point to all this was that depending on your tinnitus you'd either be better off using one or the other wavelength. For example, if you incurred hearing damage by means of a loud sudden noise you should definitely start with Red LED's. If someone incurred something like exploding head syndrome, or benzodiazepine withdrawl and there is no way to reach it with visible wavelengths it's probably best to use IR.
The papers on LT also provide an indication to dosage, another issue that is overlooked often.