[VSTAR]

In vision science, and probably other areas of science, when an author(s) allows themselves to be interviewed and they state they have revolutionary new information/results, they usually allow their report/data to be released to the general public, or the publication allows one to sign up to receive a copy of the report. Otherwise you can not defend your study, data, or interview information. If I had to pay for all the reports and studies I need to read in order to keep up with what is new in the eyecare field ...I would go broke. So...to release a new scientific proposal and to not release the original study is unusual in my specialty area of healthcare. I will wait and expect that the original data will eventually be released for eye doctors to review sometime in the future.

It is very interesting...IMHO....that a search on the web for red light eye research actually shows a very detailed study/report from several years ago..
Efficacy of 670?nm Light Therapy to Protect against Photoreceptor Cell Death Is Dependent on the Severity of Damage
"5. Conclusions
Our findings indicate that determining an effective dose for 670 nm light therapy is complex, being dependent on the degree of damage being treated. While low levels of 670 nm light are ineffective, too high a dose has potentially toxic effects. Consistent with this, dose-response curves for 670 nm light appear to trend towards an inverted U-shaped distribution, consistent with hormesis. We also find that 670 nm light induces an increase in spare respiratory capacity in 661 W photoreceptor-like cells, reinforcing the view that red light therapy stimulated mitochondrial function. Such an increase in spare respiratory capacity would provide for increased metabolic output, to maintain retinal homeostasis and protect against the progression of photoreceptor cell death."

It will be interesting to observe if the above authors believe their 2015/2016 study has been plagiarized or the newer study is different from their results and conclusions. Last, the topic of red light eye therapy has not been an area of discussion in my eye journals or continuing education in the last few years.

[slartibartfast01]

In vision science, and probably other areas of science, when an author(s) allows themselves to be interviewed and they state they have revolutionary new information/results, they usually allow their report/data to be released to the general public, or the publication allows one to sign up to receive a copy of the report. Otherwise you can not defend your study, data, or interview information. If I had to pay for all the reports and studies I need to read in order to keep up with what is new in the eyecare field ...I would go broke. So...to release a new scientific proposal and to not release the original study is unusual in my specialty area of healthcare. I will wait and expect that the original data will eventually be released for eye doctors to review sometime in the future.



It is very interesting...IMHO....that a search on the web for red light eye research actually shows a very detailed study/report from several years ago..

Efficacy of 670?nm Light Therapy to Protect against Photoreceptor Cell Death Is Dependent on the Severity of Damage

"5. Conclusions

Our findings indicate that determining an effective dose for 670 nm light therapy is complex, being dependent on the degree of damage being treated. While low levels of 670 nm light are ineffective, too high a dose has potentially toxic effects. Consistent with this, dose-response curves for 670 nm light appear to trend towards an inverted U-shaped distribution, consistent with hormesis. We also find that 670 nm light induces an increase in spare respiratory capacity in 661 W photoreceptor-like cells, reinforcing the view that red light therapy stimulated mitochondrial function. Such an increase in spare respiratory capacity would provide for increased metabolic output, to maintain retinal homeostasis and protect against the progression of photoreceptor cell death."



It will be interesting to observe if the above authors believe their 2015/2016 study has been plagiarized or the newer study is different from their results and conclusions. Last, the topic of red light eye therapy has not been an area of discussion in my eye journals or continuing education in the last few years.

How about this?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342531647_Optically_improved_mitoch...visual_decline

[yucafrita]

How about this?
(PDF) Optically improved mitochondrial function redeems aged human visual decline

I am no expert for this field or for statistics. But since I am a biologist I stumble a bit about the sample size. 24 subjects of both gender, with a bias to female (?) and dispersed over an age-range from 28-72 yrs (?). I would seriously question if the sample size is big enough to quantify effects (gender differences apart). Did they check any health conditions? They write healthy but to which criteria? The illumination was done at home, so you dont have any control whether it was done at all, or if it was done correctly. They measured different things in different groups (no explanation).


Maybe the results indicate an effect or they are just anecdotal. I would prefer a bigger sample size, 50:50 both gender, clearly mentioned methodology how the health status was checked, the illumination done in a controlled way in the institue, and whenever I see overlapping error bars, I scratch my head.

[Sykil]

In vision science, and probably other areas of science, when an author(s) allows themselves to be interviewed and they state they have revolutionary new information/results, they usually allow their report/data to be released to the general public, or the publication allows one to sign up to receive a copy of the report. Otherwise you can not defend your study, data, or interview information. If I had to pay for all the reports and studies I need to read in order to keep up with what is new in the eyecare field ...I would go broke. So...to release a new scientific proposal and to not release the original study is unusual in my specialty area of healthcare. I will wait and expect that the original data will eventually be released for eye doctors to review sometime in the future.

Not that I speak in defense of journals and paywalls, but I hardly know releasing research to the public for free to be the norm unless it is government/taxpayer funded OR the author(s) / funding institution can use it to make a profit. That would be pretty common in certain healthcare fields like optometry and dentistry when the research relates to the efficacy of a patented technology rather than a general method, which is what I assumed this research to be about. There's no trade name to be seen. If you work in research or otherwise rely on it and are not independent, employers (or educational institutions etc.) sometimes provide access.

It is very interesting...IMHO....that a search on the web for red light eye research actually shows a very detailed study/report from several years ago..
Efficacy of 670?nm Light Therapy to Protect against Photoreceptor Cell Death Is Dependent on the Severity of Damage
"5. Conclusions
Our findings indicate that determining an effective dose for 670 nm light therapy is complex, being dependent on the degree of damage being treated. While low levels of 670 nm light are ineffective, too high a dose has potentially toxic effects. Consistent with this, dose-response curves for 670 nm light appear to trend towards an inverted U-shaped distribution, consistent with hormesis. We also find that 670 nm light induces an increase in spare respiratory capacity in 661 W photoreceptor-like cells, reinforcing the view that red light therapy stimulated mitochondrial function. Such an increase in spare respiratory capacity would provide for increased metabolic output, to maintain retinal homeostasis and protect against the progression of photoreceptor cell death."

It will be interesting to observe if the above authors believe their 2015/2016 study has been plagiarized or the newer study is different from their results and conclusions. Last, the topic of red light eye therapy has not been an area of discussion in my eye journals or continuing education in the last few years.

Replicating a study is not plagiarism, and to prove that their research is plagiarism, you'd have to confirm that they were using someone else's data and claiming it as their own. Replication (by way of attempting to falsify a hypothesis) and new lines of inquiry are literally how a scientific body of knowledge is formed.

---

Last edited by Sykil; 07-22-2020 at 11:45 AM.

[VSTAR]

Not that I speak in defense of journals and paywalls, but I hardly know releasing research to the public for free to be the norm unless it is government/taxpayer funded OR the author(s) / funding institution can use it to make a profit. That would be pretty common in certain healthcare fields like optometry and dentistry when the research relates to the efficacy of a patented technology rather than a general method, which is what I assumed this research to be about. There's no trade name to be seen. If you work in research or otherwise rely on it and are not independent, employers (or educational institutions etc.) sometimes provide access.


Replicating a study is not plagiarism, and to prove that their research is plagiarism, you'd have to confirm that they were using someone else's data and claiming it as their own. Replication (by way of attempting to falsify a hypothesis) and new lines of inquiry are literally how a scientific body of knowledge is formed.

If your paper is being cited by another source because you are being interviewed about your findings, and you agree to release the information.....it would be unusual IMHO to not allow your paper and data to be challenged by the general public or people in your area of specialty. As far as optometry, ophthalmology, etc., ...much of the scientific research is not about a "patented technology" but about vision science in general. Which is why no one in practice, in vision education, or vision research would ever accept the information released about this finding without reading the actual original paper or looking at the data.

This "red light" finding is interesting but certainly needs more investigation, larger number of study participants, protocol rules for accepting or rejecting patients, larger amounts of data regarding the patients pre-study eye examination findings, what medications the subjects may be taking...etc.

Still interesting to me..why the previous research into ocular mitochondria red light function was not pursued further.

Regards,

---------- Post added 07-22-2020 at 10:21 PM ----------

I am no expert for this field or for statistics. But since I am a biologist I stumble a bit about the sample size. 24 subjects of both gender, with a bias to female (?) and dispersed over an age-range from 28-72 yrs (?). I would seriously question if the sample size is big enough to quantify effects (gender differences apart). Did they check any health conditions? They write healthy but to which criteria? The illumination was done at home, so you dont have any control whether it was done at all, or if it was done correctly. They measured different things in different groups (no explanation).


Maybe the results indicate an effect or they are just anecdotal. I would prefer a bigger sample size, 50:50 both gender, clearly mentioned methodology how the health status was checked, the illumination done in a controlled way in the institue, and whenever I see overlapping error bars, I scratch my head.

I would have expected the methodology to include the fact that family eye history, medical history, prescribed and over the counter medications, possibly race (as certain races have a higher rate of macular disease than others), genetic history for retinal/macular problems, and possibly even a macular degeneration macular test(although is is controversial and not widely accepted by all eyecare practitioners) to be sure the study participants have no abnormal pre-existing macular condition. Just a thought.

---------- Post added 07-22-2020 at 10:21 PM ----------