Was there even a real debate? 808nm for deeper penetration and ~650nm for treating the front parts of the cochlear.Good find ! This is a very recent study - which closes the debate on wavelengths since 808nm penetrates well and worked fine here and they could have used any other wavelengths but 808 penetrates deep enough to do the trick .
Btw, how are your audiograms from 2, 3 and 6 months coming up? If there is an improvement - many here would be interested to seeing them. - For some reason I feel that we are not going to see the audiograms. You seem to be dodging a lot of key questions.
For some reason you seem to promoting people to build their own "high power LED". Why even bother to build. You can buy LED lamp from about every super market - In case you happen to believe that normal light heals your ear.
I'd also like to see some sort of evidence that pointing a flashlight and/or microwaving your body parts heals tissues or organs deep beneath the skin and/or bone. - This is a reference to your polarized light treatment which you are doing in some clinic which you wouldn't tell to some members who asked it.
If you want to discuss about polarized light treatment - please start a new thread. This is about LLLT.
If you want the best results possible, go for Lucky Laser. Konftecs lasers are too low power.Can you help me compare the Lucky Laser and the Konftec ?
So
@650nm :
Lucky = 120mW
Konftec = 50mW
@808nm :
Lucky = 900mW
Konftec = 90mW
No it didn't, there was no placebo rat group - I'm not even sure if there is any placebo control done with rodent studies. I think it is safe to assume that rats aren't prone to placebo effects as humans are...Does this imply Placebo effect?