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

Still waiting to see anyone have any results from this laser stuff.
Hearing or T wise...nothing yet.

 

Do you mean results among people who follow the DIY approach or in general? Cause we do have seen some positive results from people doing the real thing with Wilden etc.

 

the issue with LLLT is that not　many are good canditates

I got good results hearing wise, and cured my H and even T is softer..I still have 2 years to go with the therapy but so far so good pretty satsfyied with the results

 

I have reactive T. Even if the laser helped with the reactivity, I would be more than satisfied.

 

Exactly what I'm after: soften the T and reduce reactivity.

 

Yes, pretty much the same result as anything that has shown results, such as B1 vitamins, Cbd oil, eating bananas etc.
All in all , could be time or the enormous fluctuations and random character of T.
Nothing concrete , unless i am missing something ?

Still waiting to audiograms that show a definite improvement.

 

There have been a few positive success stories, both with Wilden,etc. and DIY. The only way to know if it will work for YOU is to try it. There is little downside other than emptying your wallet.

 

What are some DIY success stories ?

 

I think it would work for more people if we could be sure that were aiming the thing properly and that the light actually reach the cochlea.
Zazzio says he places the laser at a distance of 1 cm from the tympanic membrane I guess that's what make the difference.

Because for exemple I know that my ear canal is narrow and not straight so more light would probably be lost in the bones and you're not sure if you reach the cochlea...

 

Yes I agree. LLLT is just not researched enough to know why some get results and some don't and in many cases it could just be spontaneus recovery or fluctuations. However, my observations from TT have been that the ones who have had positive results have been doing the "real deal" and not DIY. Personally I'm only interested in LLLT for hyperacusis and audiograms are not of interest for me but LDL-tests and patient testimonies are. Here's one with LDLs before and after.
http://hyperacusisresearch.org/low-level-laser-therapy/

 

the issue with audiograms:
1-cannot find a place that does over 8khz, where most of us have the major loss
2-only test a few intervals in the scale

for me music sounds a lot better, sounds have more depth and clarity, more crispiness.
And T is softer　- its still there but a lot easier to ignore if I'm a bit busy with something.
There are a few sucees stories here if you dig

I am expecting more in the coming years, now that we have access to the high power LED for under 100 dollers there will be more to come

 

This thread is hilarious at times, do you guys mind staying on topic here please.

The topic is the production of the most worthwhile and effective (not just cost effective) device following the rules of fundamental biology and physics; backed by current science, but NOT led by it, because that's not how you improve upon something.

What is the angle of incidence and the angle of polarisation to the plane? By how many dB of T did it reduce, and how have you measured this methodically?

I have yet to find a HeNe laser tube like he has that even reaches one single Watt, if you have please tell me what public company manufactures them.

Here's what a 20,000 watt laser looks like:

Lenses actually get much cheaper if your light source is monochromatic, they cost about 50,- bucks a piece and you need two of those and a few mirrors for his setup.

What is the price difference versus the power ratios per wavelength, because this isn't even an 'in the ballpark' figure.

When you're talking about light we must specify a wavelength that is useful to us. With a broad spectrum light source it will take a few calculations to determine how much power you're actually putting down that is biologically useful and we'll have waste power also being put down into the body that may be harmful.
My own broad spectrum broad application approach failed because it would stimulate the nerves far too heavily just under the skin causing immediate migraines and some other useless excitation of the trigeminal nerve cluster. My tinnitus did not resolve, not was it lowered. All that I had achieved with the Ear Leds is a barely legible improvement in hearing and reduced hyperacusis and fullness of the ears but without an actual data set this might have just been the effect of time passing you see.
The only way one person can tell if LLLT works at all is by completely getting rid of a significant portion of tinnitus and then repeating it with someone else in exactly the same way.

It's worth mentioning that I have since switched, my current device will be laser based.

That's too bad, hope to change that view or at least confirm it. Because now we have neither.

My audiologist tested me up to 22khz the first time and also did an ottoacoustic emissions test.
Funny thing this but my audiologist was actually a physics bsc, perhaps that's why we got along so well and she took the extra time to test me properly as I still had questions. The tests can be done with any interval but there is no use for it. Let's be honest here, an average audiologist just wants to get through the day, not to actually help someone or improve upon any existing procedures.
In actual fact an audiometry is so easy to do at home I wonder why anyone here would even take the time to go to the audiologist.

 

@Cityjohn
20,000 watts is obviously a typo, I wrote 20,000 mw in other posts

The 20w device is what Wilden son is using out of Germany

Also the other study I posted here uses 10w lasers @ 810nm for brain injuries - not sure what you mean by not finding lasers above 1 w..

As part of this review, we present a retrospective case series using high-power NIR laser phototherapy with a Class IV laser to treat TBI. We demonstrate greater clinical efficacy with higher fluence, in contrast to the bimodal model of efficacy previously proposed. In ten patients with chronic TBI (average time since injury 9.3 years) given ten treatments over the course of 2 months using a high-power NIR laser (13.2 W/0.89 cm2 at 810 nm or 9 W/0.89 cm2 at 810 nm and 980 nm), symptoms of headache, sleep disturbance, cognition, mood dysregulation, anxiety, and irritability improved. Symptoms were monitored by depression scales and a novel patient diary system specifically designed for this study. NIR light in the power range of 10–15 W at 810 nm and 980 nm can safely and effectively treat chronic symptoms of TBI. The clinical benefit and effects of infrared phototherapy on mitochondrial function and secondary molecular events are discussed in the context of adequate radiant energy penetration.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550182/

 

As for my own progress and selling pre-made LT devices:

After asking the forum staff I have yet to decide on what to do with the product I'm about to make. I believe that the forum no promotion policy should be maintained and as such I don't want to sell stuff on this forum. On the other hand we obviously badly need a few things to help people test more treatments and productively gather data so a general device and a clear method of logging would be a godsend, as would a home calibrated audiometric test that can be set to any interval to alleviate any dependence on audiologists.
For these reasons I believe it would be best if I just created the products myself and then wrote up a simple website to either sell packs for self assembly or show how to manufacture the exact same product.

So I think there will be no selling of a device on this forum. I will show my device and record my progress but if I made a website to compact the information in a format that works better than a forum, and that website happened to also sell the parts I can not advertise it in any way shape or form and I'll refrain from doing so.

 

Transcranial Red and Near Infrared Light Transmission in a Cadaveric Model
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047460

Jared R. Jagdeo, Lauren E. Adams, Neil I. Brody, Daniel M. Siegel
Full-Text Cite this paper Add to My Lib




Abstract:
Background and Objective Low level light therapy has garnered significant interest within the past decade. The exact molecular mechanisms of how red and near infrared light result in physiologic modulation are not fully understood. Heme moieties and copper within cells are red and near infrared light photoreceptors that induce the mitochondrial respiratory chain component cytochrome C oxidase, resulting in a cascade linked to cytoprotection and cellular metabolism. The copper centers in cytochrome C oxidase have a broad absorption range that peaks around 830 nm. Several in vitro and in vivo animal and human models exist that have demonstrated the benefits of red light and near infrared light for various conditions. Clinical applications for low level light therapy are varied. One study in particular demonstrated improved durable functional outcomes status post-stroke in patients treated with near infrared low level light therapy compared to sham treatment [1]. Despite previous data suggesting the beneficial effect in treating multiple conditions, including stroke, with low level light therapy, limited data exists that measures transmission in a human model. Study Design/Materials and Methods To investigate this idea, we measured the transmission of near infrared light energy, using red light for purposes of comparison, through intact cadaver soft tissue, skull bones, and brain using a commercially available LED device at 830 nm and 633 nm. Results Our results demonstrate that near infrared measurably penetrates soft tissue, bone and brain parenchyma in the formalin preserved cadaveric model, in comparison to negligible red light transmission in the same conditions. Conclusion These findings indicate that near infrared light can penetrate formalin fixed soft tissue, bone and brain and implicate that benefits observed in clinical studies are potentially related to direct action of near infrared light on neural tissue.

 

If you can help with what parts to buy, where and how to assemble so we can create our own device that would be enough. I don't think that is selling
. Also that safes you a lot of time which you do not have

 

I do not think somebody is waiting here for a LED versus Laser discussion. That should not happen as this threat is for constructing a DIY LLLT device under 100 Euro's. That is why @Cityjohn - owner of the threat - started this one. I think you can try both options as they are cheap. You can then see for yourself what works best for you and what is not working at all. A systematical approach as suggested by @Cityjohn e.a. is a big need but hard to get in place. And his example of validity, i.e. what works for me will also work for you is far away. If it wasn't we would have the cure. Unfortunately that is not the case. So what we can do is to create devices on science as far as we have it and emperical data as we gather it along the way.

I my self started with these tiny 620nm inside-the-ear leds and after using them for a while I noticed some very small changes so I got encouraged to experiment further. I ordered 3 pairs of 810nm and 3 pairs of 620nm 5 watt LED's. I can array them to 5, 10 or 15 watt. I also think of creating guiders from fiber to guide the light into the inner ear channel as well. I'm not expecting much of it. But who knows?

The second option is Laser. I do agree with the safety aspect of it as we are intending to use diode which you should not accidentaly shine into your eyes. That is also why I'm a bit reluctant with laser. And maybe I need the LED step before the Laser one for that.

suggestions for requirements for the laser device:
- Safe
- Multi frequence (620 or 632?, 808 ?)
- Inside the ear. Guiders?
- One set of safety spectacle covering all frequences
- power: adjustable?
- timer?
- Headphone construction?

Hope we can refine this one, come to a design and ordering list!

 

What i'm concerned with, not necessarily is my T, I can deal with that 99% of the time.


It's my hearing, I don't have a lot of hearing loss. less than 10dB at most frequencies above 6kz, and somehow according to the Audiologist, I can still hear 20khz fine. But there is slight asymmetry that is largest at 8khz or so. Only a few dB difference, but it's enough to be noticeable and screw with my critical listening abilities when trying to listen to audio reproduced through speakers/headphones.
In normal everyday life, the difference is basically zero. I do several hearing checks throughout the day at work with various sounds, do one ear. Move my head listen with the other, things sound the same.

But when I listen through stereo speakers or headphones, things sound biased left slightly in the silibant frequencies. And it's so despressing. Didn't have any issues with my hearing until I took Azithromycin and then a few weeks later Cephalexin. Even when there was the onset of T, any issues with my ears I noticed were the same in both.

I'd really just like my hearing thresholds to improve a few dB in my right ear.
http://u.cubeupload.com/MrBonk/11172016AudiogramNic.jpg

I feel like sometimes there is some auditory processing error in my brain or middle ear (Or that the TMJ joint is pulling my left ear open wider than my right), but only when I listen to anything through sound reproduction hardware.

I would buy any of this.

 

Have you been using the flashlight? any updates?

 

Is @Cityjohn still going to release his own cheap device ?

 

What is a bad candidate? Musicians/audiophiles with years of damage?

 

@Artemis2K

People with unknown T

Not a clear case of noise trauma / ototoxic drug / ear infection without stress T in the mix

People who had T for years

People who do LT but don't protect their ears so any progress is nullified


The studies show that it works in the acute phase but less as time goes by

And then you need good penetration as the cochlea is cast in the thickest bone in the skull and auditory nerves even deeper hence the superiority of the high power light sources in the 5- 10w range and NIR wavelengths as per studies

 

There have been several people with acoustic trauma that used lllt. Nick.J was one of them. It just depends how badly damaged your inner ear is. Some people have no idea where their T comes from and if it's purely Neurological, then lllt would most likely not help.

 

And then some damage is irreversible - irreparable by the body
What LLLT does is to help the body heal the ears better and faster to a degree - if the hair cells are whacked off for good no Amount of LT will ever work

That's why I would strongly advise to get the 5w or 10w light sources in led for under 100usd at a NIR of 850nm and save the cash for stem cells - only this may really repair extensive damage

 

How is that more effective than the traditional laser? I'm concerned it may be too powerful.

 

Please read the study I posted
No difference between a laser unfocused and unfocused by nature LED besides price and difficulty to properly unfocus high power lasers

You can get LED in any power you want and for very cheap and start low if you are worried

 

There are a bunch of studies where they took skulls, skin and tissue and measured how much light passes through and at what wavelengths - realistically only a small percentage - in the 10% range or less will get through deep inside so any "burning " if ever will happen at the upper skin level if you over do it.

 

The 5W flashlight you linked apparently only runs at 1.5W using AA battery. How long/often would you recommend using it at that strength, and do you need to pulse it? Also is it necessary to blindfold yourself?

 

I've received my parts and constructed it,noted what can and must be improved, and will take the prototype to an engineer for design improvements and a price quote for a limited first run. I've also reserved an organisation domain name and thought about gathering the data properly.

Have some schoolwork coming up again so I'm on a tight schedule again...

 

That is very good news actually. Looking forward to the specs.