Red Light For Cancer

edwardBe

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
31
Forgive me if this already here somewhere, I looked for it, but no joy.

This from the .mp3, Herb Doctors: Cancer Treatment (2012) which is at, http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2219 ... 202012.mp3

At 27:37, Ray Peat begins discussing red light therapy for cancer treatment and it seems to me it would apply to red light therapy applied preventatively as it is by the members of this forum.

Ray Peat: "For about 50 years now, people have been studying the effects of red light, and one of the, probably the basic effect, of penetrating red light is to activate the respiratory enzyme, the mitochondria (cytochrome) oxidase enzyme is restored by red light, and it's pretty well destroyed just by 12 to 15 hours of darkness in rabbit experiments. And so uh, the reason mortality goes up at the end of Winter is because nights are longer in winter, and uh, with using lasers or incandescent lights or sunlight, it doesn't matter what kind of light, you get that penetrates you. Red light will go all the way through your body without a terribly great intensity, but sunlight is very good, even intermittent exposure over a period of 12 to 15 hours. A good bright light will restore the energy producing enzymes in the mitochondria, and this enzyme is the crucial thing that makes a difference in cancer."

(A discussion of metabolic differences between cancer and normal cells.)

(A discussion of sunlight being basically beneficial due to being a mix of UV (bad) and red-orange (good,) with the good outweighing the bad. And that the spread of CFLs and other low level lighting may be starting a new wave of cancers.)

(Incandescent bulbs should be several hundred watts with as much skin exposed as possible, the whole body if possible.)

(Discussion of inflammation and cancer progression.)

Engineer asking a question for a caller: "What about red LEDs, tanning beds and far infrared saunas?"

Ray Peat: "Red LEDs have been demonstrated to reverse many of the changes of cancer. They are being used to treat cancer experimentally. Lasers, incandescent light and sunlight, as well as LEDs activate that enzyme very efficiently. Most of the work has been done with the 630, I think it is, Helium-Neon Laser frequency or the LEDs in that range, but between the 600 to 700 nm range wavelength the light is restorative to that."

Engineer: "So, how about a far infrared sauna?"

Ray Peat: "Um, there's some benefit from some the mostly around 700 to 800 wavelengths; just the heat is beneficial, but the really specific restoration of that crucial enzyme happens in the far red, from orange to red."

Sarah: "So the far infrared is uh,"
Andrew: "Too far!"
Sarah: "too far."

Engineer: "So a tanning bed would be just pure ultraviolet with no beneficial [sic], and therefore harmful? Correct me."

Ray Peat: "Well, yeah, basically you're getting your vitamin D, but without the protective red and orange light, you're gonad have a slight immune suppressive effect, because as your red blood cells run through your skin, they are subject to a slight sunburn themselves. so, until you get so tan that your white [sic] blood cells aren't exposed to ultraviolet, it's better to get your suntan in the real sunlight."

So it sounds like the red LEDs on the belly is a good idea, as is pretty much all of the other approaches described here from big incandescent lights to halogens to laser pointers and sunlight short of sunburn.

It appears from this discussion that the frequencies don't have to be too precise, between 600 to 700 nm.

Nice to know we've come to right place!
 

alfredborden

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
8
Hello I am very interested in these things too and to the very, very limited extent that I understand these things, the red light activating the last chain of mitochondrial respiration and creating a figurative "vacuum" that draws in the chemicals for efficient energy production makes sense to me. The only caveat is the depth at which different wave lengths penetrate tissues. There is a website called heelspurs.com and the guy that runs it seems to have expert knowledge on light. According to what I understand from what he says, majority of the light does not penetrate deeper than about 2 inches. Would that not mean that the external application of the light would not have an effect on the internal organs ? I am very curious about this and I think that if we could find a clear answer to this on the Raypeat forum it would be very encouraging to a lot of people that are doubtful about the potential benefit of therapies of the kind. If there is anybody on this platform that is an expert on light, please elucidate the parameters that would determine the effect that the light would have on tissues other than its wave length. Example might be brightness. Thank you.
 
J

j.

Guest
alfredborden said:
Would that not mean that the external application of the light would not have an effect on the internal organs?

I think circulation of blood allows the internal organs to benefit.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
A LED doesn't produce heat so can be placed at skin contact and then penetrate very deep.

An alternative I'm experimenting with is to do the same with halogen/incandescent but with a glass layer. The glass layer increases the red/infrared ratio a bit, with less heat I can place the light closer to the skin. I wonder if that's equivalent to increasing wattage, for that purpose: using a high wattage lamp at a distance and using a lower wattage lamp but close to the skin (with a glass shield, something that reduces infrared while letting red through so that it doesn't burn the skin) might be equivalent.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
A LED doesn't produce heat so can be placed at skin contact and then penetrate very deep.

An alternative I'm experimenting with is to do the same with halogen/incandescent but with a glass layer. The glass layer increases the red/infrared ratio a bit, with less heat I can place the light closer to the skin. I wonder if that's equivalent to increasing wattage, for that purpose: using a high wattage lamp at a distance and using a lower wattage lamp but close to the skin (with a glass shield, something that reduces infrared while letting red through so that it doesn't burn the skin) might be equivalent.

I know this thread is old, but it's not that LEDs produce NO heat, just significantly/dramatically less than most other light sources. Many LEDs will remain cool to the touch, even after months (or years!) of continuous use, but the higher powered LED lamps, and LEDs in the near infrared (like the 850 IR illuminators) will start to produce a noticeable amount of heat after 5-10 minutes. This heat can damage the LEDs over time, and many lights come with a built in fan for this very reason. It should also be taken into consideration when using these devices.
 

Osukhan

Member
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
379
Location
Ohio

Photodynamic study shows selective destruction of cancer cells via autophagy mechanism​


I like to use red light 4-5 times a week, once or twice a week i will use MB with it as well
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,494
“Red light (RL) phototherapy may also be a beneficial adjunctive melanoma therapy by inhibiting tumor growth and augmenting anti-tumor immune activity. RL may non-thermally alter cellular biology via a process termed photobiomodulation (9).”

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom