Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Tinnitus — Efficacy Debate

If people including some here like ateos did get the improvment in hearing would not that be by itself a great success? If i got t and my audiogram shows 20db loss at 4k and i myself feel that one ear is worse then the other would not fixing that first be the first smart step? Then once my hearing is back i could hope that t gets fixed or i could even do trt to deal wih it. But i would accomish one giant thing - my hearing would get better!!! For me this is a great start and enought to try the laser.

 

I'm not going to guess what do you mean by saying you disagree (too many debates inside a debate here). But the fact is that it's hard to disagree with cold hard numbers that ATEOS has calculated. If assumed therapeutic dosage is around 40k joules and in some study, which states that LLLT has no effect on T, the dosage was only 1,7k joules - I wouldn't use the study as a support for my arguments of LLLT not working on T. But if you do, why would use this study as an example? You may have told it already but I may have missed it.

If you cut of your painkiller dosage to 4% of suggested effective dosage, you won't get any relief from it.

 

The study was referred to as a study "designed to fail." I disagree with that characterization. It sounds like the investigators had some sort of agenda.

What it was was a rigorous study that used the best information available at the time.

I do not for one minute blame the LLLT advocates for criticizing the outcome in retrospect on the basis that they disagree with the treatment protocol. What I blame them for is not producing a single similarly rigorous study in the ensuing 15 years using a treatment protocol they do feel is appropriate.

Dr. Stephen Nagler

 

Thank you, this cleared up things for me. But one thing remains. If you are not using the study as a support for your argument (I conclude from your aswer that you don't) that LLLT is not working for T - What are you using then? The unexistence of proper clinical study with present day knowledge or Wilden not winning the nobel prize isn't quite enough for me to form a strong opinion and I would be suprised if it was for you. I'm asking this only because you have such a strong opinion on LLLT not working on T.

 

Dr. Nagler, just so it is clear (to everyone): it was the following study...

https://www.tinnitustalk.com/threads/low-level-laser-therapy-lllt-for-tinnitus-—-efficacy-debate.7650/page-9#post-88136

...that I referred to as "a study designed-to-fail". I will stand by that statement given the fact that:

• The energy delivered was ridiculously low.
• Parts of the head were also lasered and could not possibly have reached the cochlea with the laser beam from those locations (see photo below).
• A green laser was one of the two simultaneous lasers used (which is contrary to the therapeutic wavelengths of red and near-IR; green light does not penetrate body tissue)
• The duration of each of the only three treatments was around 225 seconds ie. less than four minutes (in total - and including the various locations that did not involve the ear).
• A person from the hearing aid company, GN Resound, was part of the study.

Treatment locations involved in the study (from the link above ie. not the "Vernon/Meikle Study"):

As I said earlier on already, the study (mentioned in this post) is so useless that it is not even worth the paper it was written on. The utility of the study is so low that it would be equivalent to a rectal surgeon operating with a screwdriver.

Sounds like? I see.

Best information at the time? [re: the "Vernon/Meikle Study (ie. in 2002)]

Here is an extract from another laser study in 2002:



As can be seen from the extract, higher powered lasers were available (and in use) back then (eg. 60 mW vs. 450 mW)

I will attach the full study as a pdf file for reference...

 

You are welcome.

The "Nobel Prize" argument was tongue-in-cheek.

And, yes, I am using the non-existence of a proper clinical study not just with present-day knowledge, but with any protocols that Wilden, et al. would have considered appropriate at any point in time period. Moreover, I freely admit that I come from it from a point of bias, have been scammed a number of times myself in my own search for tinnitus relief.

Zech, the type of rigorous study that Wilden claims is so difficult to do, so time consuming, and so costly ... is done all the time. It is the clinical research equivalent of putting one foot in front of the other. Again, it is how science is done and how progress is made. For Wilden to make the sort of claims he is making regarding LLLT and tinnitus, yet to be unwilling to back those claims up with a single reliable and verifiable study published in a juried scientific journal is not only ludicrous to me as a doctor; it is truly odious to me as a member of the human race.

stephen nagler

 

I have been talking about a different study. Drs. Vernon and Meikle would never have participated in a study designed to fail. Glad we straightened that out.

stephen nagler

 

Even though I disagree with you that one can use non-existent clinical study as a base of a strong opinion, I agree with you that maybe Dr. Wilden shouldn't make such a strong claims on LLLT working on T without actually backing it up.

But your answer cleared everything up for me. No further questions, thank you

 

Zech, that is precisely the kind of generous benefit-of-the-doubt thinking that scammers depend on for their existence. But I do understand where you're coming from.

Excellent.

All the best -

stephen nagler

 

I thought it worth finding out who Drs. Vernon and Meikle were. I now feel that I understand and respect Dr. Nagler's loyalty to the memories of two clearly inspirational figures.

http://www.ata.org/jack-vernon
http://www.ata.org/mary-meikle

I would like to distance myself from any suggestion of dishonesty by them specifically as that now makes me uncomfortable.

 

I remember a doctor from Israel that also would not do any double blind studies or and studies at all.
Just maintaining the uncertainty served him pretty well. It should be SUPER simple to prove this once and for all, why that is not done is anybodys guess?

 

Yea, Zechariah Shemesh. What's worse - fifteen years later and he's still at it! People will believe what they want to believe. And in their desperation, they will believe just about anything.

Actually, Shemesh's pitch wasn't that he wouldn't do the studies. It was that he had the data, but it was all the top secret property of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). What a load of crap. But on the incredibly remote possibility that Shemesh was on the level, I got in touch with Brigadier General Arieh Eldad, the Surgeon-General of the State of Israel. Below is Eldad's letter to me; it is self-explanatory.

Wilden and Shemesh are cut from the same cloth.

stephen nagler

 

I stand corrected although my point was rather addressed at the fact of keeping things somewhat under wraps.
That does not inspire confidence. In fact if I was not invested in this "war" on T , I would simply disregard this laser thing altogether seeing that it has been around for decades and yet ...no proper data.

 

I understand.

Scammers like Shemesh and Wilden do not need to inspire confidence. All they need is misery, desperation, and a gimmick. For Shemesh the gimmick is a secret formula that he carries with him in a leather satchel. For Wilden the gimmick is a magic red light. Doesn't matter. It's all shadows and mirrors.

It is precisely because I am invested in the war on tinnitus that I refuse to disregard this sort of thing.

stephen nagler

 

Touche, makes sense.
I guess I am admitting to the fact that I would be open to drinking horse urine and putting garlic in my ears if someone told me it worked

 

Ona different note regarding lasers , I remember reading something about tooth reconstruction with lasers ?
Was that a load of crap as well ?

 

Right. I totally understand.

stephen nagler

 

I have no opinion on that issue.

stephen nagler

 

Three members of this forum have posted audiogram evidence of improvements in their hearing from using LLLT. Most people consider hearing loss and tinnitus related so the relevance is clear, despite Dr Nagler's refusal to engage with this point. I am not aware of Shemesh having success in improving hearing so the parallel does not seem a good one.

I am going to try to make this my last post in this thread (despite the car crash style fascination). Time after time reasoned argument has been brushed aside by rhetorical bluster and techniques for dodging the point. Reasoned debate is something that I love, but it has to be treated with respect if it is to lead anywhere useful. If we adopt the attitude that we already know the truth and that this justifies any tactic of argumentation then what we have is deception.

To me, that is a kind of scam in its own right.

I mean these words very sincerely, and I wish you all peace and happiness.

 

Are you aware that in an unpublished series of fifty-two consecutive LLLT patients, seven showed improvement in their audiograms, nineteen showed deterioration in their audiograms, and twenty-six showed no appreciable change in their audiograms? Moreover, are you aware that of the eighteen of the patients in that series who also had tinnitus, in two cases the tinnitus improved, in nine cases it got worse (two of which where markedly worse), and in seven cases there was no significant change?

stephen nagler

 

No... I was not aware of this, Dr. Nagler. Which is hardly surprising given that the study is unpublished.

But I would like to see the report - if possible - however.

Thanks.

 

!!!

 

!!! What your problem???

You are chiding me for not forming an opinion about the purported effect of LLLT on hearing thresholds when all I would have as a basis for such an opinion is a handful of anecdotal reports on a message board. I just need more to go on than that - like maybe some of the data we don't know about. More than chiding me for not wanting to draw an opinion, you are suggesting that my refusal to do so is the equivalent of a scam, to which I say you can kiss my aspic.

The basis for my opinion on LLLT and tinnitus is an entire different matter. Here you have a fellow making loads of $$$ on the misery and desperation of tinnitus sufferers claiming that LLLT relieves tinnitus but not being able to point to a single reliable and verifiable study published in the juried scientific literature in support of that claim. Now THAT is a scam.

stephen nagler

 

I am surprised at the reaction to Dr.Naglers opinions on this matter ?
Anyone selling a T solution without concrete results would normally be outed as a scammer , which is exactly what dr.Nagler is doing here and usually that would be seen as a good thing , saving us all money and frustration and yet .... I dont get it.

Also, there are way too many variables involved to look at a few hearing tests and use that as any proof not to mention the unreliability of these tests themselves .

 

Could not agree more. Like most people who have a had a hearing test, the range is only within the tones they deem necessary! One test of pure tones & you're done -_- It just feels so dated! I'm not saying I know of a much better way of doing it but as you said, something more substantial & accurate would surely be more beneficial.
Would you say that tinnitus is causing you more problems or the hearing? I'm with the latter.

 

Yes, double or triple the resolution , do the test multiple times over a period of a week or so.
Also , do a slow tone sweep where you would push a button where you can hear a drop marking suspect areas.
From there , using these markings do a high resolution test at these particular areas.

Also , tell a patient how the test is conducted , a test today is done in the following manner.
A tone is played and increased in 10db intervals , when a patient can hear it the volume is dropped and the tone raised in 5db intervals. It is easy to get thrown off in a test like this , waiting for one tone while the test has moved to another , thereby confusing the patient and messing with the outcome.

Just telling the patient that he will hear each tone 2 times would help a lot !

Again , the resolution is too low in my opinion although I have heard some reasoning as to why this resolution should be sufficient but I just dont buy it.

I for one have a sharp/big drop at 3.1 Khz but not at 3 khz where a test tone would land.
I also went for one test where it seemed that my drop was gone , turns out that particular test skipped 3k and went to 4 khz.

Super ancient system in 2015 and to think that its used as a basis for all kinds of research not to mention that a lot of people think they have T and no hearing loss when the hearing loss could be at 3.4 k or 14khz and completely missed.

T or hearing loss .... not sure , I guess I would be somewhat more cool with my T if it did not come with a hearing loss. Also getting used to T is more likely then getting used to my hearing loss, I am a musician and engineer so it affects my life in many ways .

 

1 On this forum - anecdotal, but accompanied by documentation, detailed personal accounts and openness to questions.
2 You complain that studies are not peer reviewed, juried, double blinded, then ask me to consider one that is not even published.
3 With no idea of its methodology any reported tinnitus increases might be the temporary ones that users report prior to improvement.
4 We so far only have your own anecdotal evidence that this study even exists.
5 I mentioned (not chided) your refusal to engage with that particular point about hearing loss. Previously (post 287) I said that this was your right. There are however other points that you have evaded, eg. ATEOS's in post 299.
6 If you would excuse me I really would like to escape the gravitational pull of this irrational, toxic thread.

 

Anecdotal does not mean illegitimate.

What I am saying is that we have no idea what Wilden and his buddies may or may not be keeping from us.

There's a lot we don't know, which is why I am not prepared to form an opinion. You are. I'm not. I'm perfectly OK with that.

My own anecdotal evidence? I made the whole thing up. Seems it's OK with you when Wilden makes something up, but it's not OK with you when I do?

And then you referred to my hesitancy to formulate an opinion on the basis of anecdotal information as a "kind of scam in its own right."

If that's what you want to do, all it takes is self-control. Last time I looked there was no gun to your head.

stephen nagler

 

You admit it then?

 

Of course I made it up. Goodness you are gullible. No wonder you are so ready to take Wilden at his word!

I asked if you were aware of this and that unpublished data; I never said it existed. That's my point. There's just too much we do not know to conclude that LLLT is efficacious in tinnitus.

stephen nagler