LLLT(LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY) FOR SPINAL CORD REGENERATION

No!

But, I sure would like additonal informaion on this. However, I have a family member.....that is truly in need.

How realistic is the laser program for SCI. Has there been any reviews from Christopher Reeves Foundation......

Rejeena,

You ask "how realistic is the laser program for SCI". First, there does not seem to be a formal laser program yet in North America (see details below). But there have been encouraging antedotal cases where people tried on their own. And given the simplicity of lasers, and their safety if only a few basic procedures are followed, there is nothing preventing somebody from trying on their own.

As a formal program, the only ones I have heard about are the French one (with a few branch locations), referrenced under http://www.laserponcture.com (which focusses its attention on laser-puncture - a type of laser acupuncture), and Dr. Simon Rochkind's experimental program in Israel, which I understand (from comments made by Laurance Johnston) probably works with some people in addition to the animal experiments. Everything else, other than individual antedotal cases where people have tried lasers themselves (outside formal test situations), has been done with experimental animals. The 2005 article on the current state of laser research says "Dr Jackson Streeter’s firm, PhotoThera, of San Diego, is likely to carry out the very first clinical trials. Dr. Streeter will be concentrating initially on treatment of strokes but is aiming for the beginning of 2005 to start the first ever repair of human spinal cord injuries." I have not heard anything since then about those trials.

The Christopher Reeves Foundation site makes no mention of laser therapy that I could find, even though the the Thor laser website at http://www.thorlaser.com/nerve/index.htm confirms that Reeve "visited with leading laser clinicians in Israel" before his death. A news article, located at: http://www.editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddbb42c6178, which appears to have first been published in 2005 (though the electronic publication date was 2008) says "Israel has long been a leader in laser therapy and last summer Christopher Reeve flew there to see the progress the scientists and doctors there were making on spinal cord injury. He had private meetings with the specialists as well as public visits to the labs and hospitals. One of the leading doctors Semion Rochkind, of Tel Aviv University, told me he had informed Mr. Reeve that a cure for his paralysis could be as little as two years away - using a combination of laser and stem cell technology." So the suggested method at the time for a C1-2 fracture like Reeve had was a combination treatment, one which created a bridge around the damaged area, then enhanced growth. This type of treatment is one that would need high tech medical intervention.

The Thor site has a brief write-up about Dr. Simon Rochkind's research, and about the research that is being done by Dr. Anders and her staff. And Laurance Johnston has an online book that has a section that also mentions Dr Rochkind's research (see: http://www.sci-therapies.info/laser.htm), as well as Dr. Anders' research and the work being done by the French laserpuncture laser clinic.

Part of Thor's comments about Dr. Anders' research says it includes: "The use of low power laser irradiation (LPLI) to promote regeneration of acutely transected corticospinal tract axons. The regeneration of corticospinal tract axons through and beyond the lesion site is determined quantitatively and reinnervation of the target tissue is determined by behavioral testing." More details of Dr. Anders' biggest animal research experiment success is at: http://www.editinternational.com/read.php?id=47ddbb42c6178.

The difference with Dr. Anders' experiment was that progress there was gained by simply applying laser light, with no surgical intervention. This is what Tiger93 is trying himself, and this is what the antedotal cases from the Indiana area tried.

Are there any guarantees? No. Is there hope that it should be able to help a number of people? Based on everything I've read, I think the answer is clearly Yes. First, it seems that use of laser light helps reduce swelling and stimuates neurons, increasing the chances of waking up dormant neurons. Second, some of the studies seem to imply that it might make scar tissue more congruent, and if this happens, this would partly unblock areas that had previously not allowed neurons to pass through, and when neurons pass through, there is a good chance of at least some level of regeneration, which could mean more senses, more muscle control, etc. And if the right triggers can be found, it should be possible to trigger the body to change spinal tissue scar tissue into embryonic like cells, which would be getting into even more regeneration. And the experts say that all that is needed is 10% of the neurons working and they should be able to help somebody walk.

Does this help? For more details, read the earlier posts under this heading, and read and listen to the reference links.

Anthony (Echairsitter),

In your last post you mentioned that, from the work you have done in electronics manufacturing you learned that the exact frequency was important. I've been thinking about that, and figured I'd pass along some of the things I had learned about lasers.

First, from Dr. Lytle's comments (Dr. Lytle was the idea person behind the Q laser systems, including the Q1000, and is still their key researcher - he is a neuro-muscular dentist who also has a PhD in nutrition and is a naturopath, in addition to getting into healing lasers, starting out with dental lasers, then getting into and developing healing related lasers), as much as they would like them to be, frequencies on laser diodes are not exact. They are within a few nanometers of what they claim to be, but there can be some deviation (and he has worked extensively with the engineers who actually designed the QLaser system from Dr. Lytle's initial ideas). The nm rating of the laser diodes gives the light frequencies the diodes put out. Apparently cells are fairly forgiving in the light they respond to, so the nm rating does not need to be exact. What is important is getting the energy to the cells. Different wave lenghts have different penetration. For example, the infared range (i.e. that used by laser pointers, etc - in the 630 to 670 nm range), is used for acupoint therapy and in treating shallower muscles and skin conditions, and has fairly shallow effective penetration before most of the energy is lost (usually around 1/2 to 1 cm). Near infared lasers used for treating deeper points, bones, joints, cartilege, etc, (also used by Dr. Anders in her spinal cord experiments) usually range from 790 to 820 nm, with the normal ones being 808 and 810 nm (because they have deeper penetration and also are well received by the parts being treated). While most of the diodes used out there seem to be the 808's, a few laser companies, to try to separate themselves, run with something else (like Thor's 810 nm instead of using 808 nm). These are rated as having an effective treatment depth of between 1.5 and 2 inches deep, though from one of Dr. Anders' experiments, it seems that only 6% of the energy made to the far side of the rat's spinal column even with a 810 nm laser.

Where hitting exact frequencies becomes important is where you are using pulsed laser (pulsed to frequencies), or other types of frequency based treatements. To date the Spinal Cord research, including Dr. Anders' research, does not sound like it has included frequencies. Both Dr. Anders' successful experiments, and the successful antedotal cases, used constant beam lasers (no pulsing).

The Q1000 has a number of very specific frequencies built in for pulsing, to accomplish specific things, to enhance that the laser is accomplishing. For example, they have one mode designed for pain and similar problems, another for calming and working with the brain, a couple for healing, one for bacteria and fungi, etc, and one to stimulate seratonin and dopamine. And there are a number of frequencies found by Rife and others that can be programmed into lasers, or used on other devices, to accomplish certain things, including neutralizing various pathogens, etc. And with the devices that work in the full Rife frequencies, they have even had success exploding various cells and pathogens with frequencies. When dealing with side issues like that, those are the frequencies that have to be exact. But even then, the frequencies have to be adjusted to account for how they are changed within the human body.

Thank you again for info. I have learned and understand a lot of new things.

To my understanding and study from my side of the semiconductor industry. Not all diodes are made the same and not all waveslenght/frequency from the light have the same effect on the chemical/matter that it need to effect. There are different material used to make diodes, the end results are that how effective the light producted from the diodes and how long the effective light last. Some diodes has greater efficiency and can maintain that effective as other will decay more rapidly.

ANYWHO, if the companies that produce the laser used and tested each laser to the design specification and duration then it should have the same effect/results as per claim per same condition and per treatment. All of us does not have the same condition and not every one eat same food or used the same med. But we all have the same type or similar condition and it's always good to use what has been know to worked. That's why we follow the doctors and therapists on trying to recover from this or any other illness with med. and everthing else.

I am Inspire and happy that there are still more hope to come from everyone in different fields that comes together and work on a problem.

Thanks Again Learning1 for all the hard work and research for all the info we are all getting,

Anthony

Anthony,

Thanks for the response. It is interesting hearing the thinking from the semi-conductor side of the laser business, rather than just the end user side. From what you indicate, at least some in the business look at it with a lot more exactness than those who often assemble and sell the lasers view as the level of precision, and what the end users, see.

From Dr. Lytle's comments, there are only half a dozen or so key chemicals used that determine the wave length of the laser diodes, and it is the combination of these which creates the wave lenght of the laser light created. I'm not sure why Dr. Lytle feels there can be a difference in the wave lenghts between two laser diodes with the same rating in nm. Maybe it is a bit like paint and other products, where there can be minor differences between dye lots even though they attempt to mix it the same, or maybe it is that different manufacturers have slightly different mixes to try to come to the same nominal wave length.

Either way, because of how flesh responds, there appear to be narrow bands of frequencies which will work on the same thing, at least with what has been there in the experiments so far. As time goes on, they might find something more exact helps certain conditions more. But with how each of our bodies change what is received, and as you say, not all bodies are the same, even the same frequency going in may not be the same frequency an inch into the body.

The key for most laser use, according to Dr. Lytle, is that laser light provides energy to the cells, and cells respond to the energy. Beyond that, frequencies can apparenlty help certain things. One place that goes through a lot of the CAFL and similar experimental frequencies etc is: http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/ (somone more electronically than I am pointed me to this site). But as mentioned before, the SCI experiments have not used pulsed laser to date, other than possibly the use of the Q1000 to get the process started with some of the antedotal cases from Indiana.

Hi Tiger23 & Learning1,

First of all, I would like to really thank you for all the wonderful informations you have been feeding us. It is hope for each one of us. I know you have been answering so many questions/comments so I will just make this quick.

My question is, do you have any idea/opinion regarading the low level laser therapy, if it could be applied to someone like me with a Harrington rod placed in my back, I mean operated into to protect my spinal cord which according to the doctor almost got separated during my fall.

I am really interested with the laser therapy and with anything else that will help me restore my ability to walk more. I can walk currently with the use of crutches, but still my balance is not that good. Also, the sensation on my left leg is just about 50%.

Thanks again.

ols23

Hello ols23,

In all that I've read and heard about lasers, I have not heard of anything which would require extra caution to be taken for anything like harrington rods. What the lasers do is stimulate at the cellular level. For scenars and cosmodics, the presence of the rods should not make a difference. Something like the pulsed magnetic therapy, another of the therapies that holds some hope for helping SCI situations, with the strength of the magnetic pulses, might be affected somewhat by the rods, so at least initially for that method you might want to at least initially avoid that area.

The only warnings that I've heard of at all for lasers, other than making sure you do not look at them, are for cancer patients, and for treating the area around the fetus for a pregnant woman. And then the warnings for those situations are there to avoid using a stimulating laser (like a fairly powerful 808 or 810) in the area of the cancer, or directly on the belly area where the fetus is.

For cancer the warning is because you do not want to stimulate growth of the cancer cells. For a fetus, it is because they can be sensitive, and it seems to be an unknown and it is not worth taking chances. With Dr. Anders' research showing that only 6% of the enegy from a 810 nm laser actually got to the far side of the rat's spinal column, I suspect that short term use of an 808 on the back would probably not even be harmful for a pregnant woman, since little energy would penetrate that far, but to be safe, anything other than very brief use in that area (like for treating back pain) probably should be avoided if a woman is pregnant, but even then the belly should be avoided with a stimulating laser. A resonating laser (like the Q1000), which is lower power and operats on a little different principle, while it should still be used with caution and for limited times over the sensitive areas, apparently does not have quite the same warning, and has been used by some cancer patients in shifting their body's PH to a point where the cancer could not grow, and the calming mode has been used, for short durations, to help with morning sickness, with no reported adverse affects.

For something like harington rods, a laser should be as effective as it would be if the rods were not present.

Google Scalar wave laser, I have one and it is amazing. It retrains new cells not to have the "damaged" memory. I've been injuried nearly 30 years and like I posted the other day I felt a spot on my back the other night that I've not felt in a very long time. God Bless, Creekwater

Creekwater,

It is good to hear you have had some results using a laser. I don't know what is technically behind the Scalar wave laser, other than what is posted on their web site and in their adds. They have several frequencies for their laser diodes, and they have a number of pulsed settings. And they also have their enhancers (or separate lasers you can plug in), one being their 808 nm laser. 808 nm to 810 nm seems to be the light frequency which seems to be the common denominator so far for the results with in the animal tests and in the antedotal examples for Spinal Cord injuries.

The main laser that I have, and have experience (non-SCI) with, and have heard of results from - both non-SCI and a few SCI examples (other than the results of the numerous published studies I've read - all which used regular laser technology - not soliton) is the Q1000, plus their 808 enhancer (which is really just a 808 laser that is powered from the Q1000 - the only difference is the quartz crystal tip, which apparently affects the wave in some way). Their 808 is the the one with the antedotal results from Indiana that I'm still trying to catch someone to confirm exactly what progress was made, and what techniques were tried. And really an 808 should be an 808, as long as the same amount of energy and locations are used.

The Q1000 has some features similar to the Scalar Wave, and some differences. At a first glance the Scalar wave laser seems to have more features, but I can't tell from the information if the Scalar wave laser has the key feature that the Q1000 has - soliton wave technology, with its greater penetration and substantially lower energy loss as it penetrates. It may have this, and simply not be mentioning because of patent reasons, or it may not. If not, it has all the benefits of regular laser technology anyway. Regular laser technology relies on power to get the laser signal into the body. The disadvantage for some uses is that, since much of the signal is absorbed on its way in, there is a heavy loss of energy the deeper you go. For example, Dr. Anders' study on rats indicates that only 6% of the energy actually made it to the far side of the spinal column (if I've read the results right). Soliton technology apparently uses computer syncronization to form constructive interference, making it so the laser waves hae much more amplitude in the waves, penetrate deeper, and have less energy loss as the waves penetrate, making it so a much large portion of the wave energy makes it to the deeper areas, and it relies on cellular resonance rather than a simple energy transfer.

Generally the Scalar wave laser looks like a good laser, with many good features, and like I mentioned, other than the soliton technology, it seems to have more features than the Q1000. Both the Scalar wave laser and the Q1000 have several laser diode frequencies itself, and pre-programmed pulsed settings. It sounds like the Scaler wave laser has in many ways tried to be a copy of the Q1000, and tried to better it where they could, but may be limited in some features by patent considerations, and not knowing some of the propiertary information imbedded in some of the tried and true combinations.

The areas where the Scalar wave laser is better is that it has a few more laser diodes (16 rather than the 12 the Q1000 has), it comes with more programmed settings (100 rather than 3 or 7 - at least some of the Q1000 tried and true modes integrated modes can not be there exactly because they are propietary ones, but they may have close equivalents), you also have 100 extra modes you can program yourself (how much benefit this is to the average user has yet to be shown, but the option is there), and is user programmable (the Q1000 currently has to be programmed at their factory, though it sounds like they will be releasing a program and cable later this year that will allow user programming of 4 of the modes). Even without soliton technology, many of the laser combinations should work well - the only question is how much penetration is acheived, and how much energy is lost, for deeper problems.

Clearly any option is worth looking into. And it is great to see that you began getting more sensation using the your laser. Did you use just their base Scalar wave laser, or did you use their 808 nm plug in laser? Where did you use it - on the site of your spinal injury (to try to get past scar tissue & wake up neurons, etc), or on some other part of your body (to stimulate that part of the body to get neurons working)? For how long, and how often? Those are all things that can be important for someone considering trying a laser themselves.

Thanks for touching base, My wife and sister have a business w/ this low level scalar wave business and Quantum Bio feed back in N.H.. I've had a shoulder issue that w/ the direct probes from the Scalar held on the site resulted in amazing relief. I also had a dime size pressure wound which healed up in two weeks time. this thing has many, many settings all kinds of applications even for sleep and is an amazing piece of technology. I have to pack and get ready for a business trip to Baltimore M.D. and when I get back I will send you more info. Creekwater

we ar e also want to know about laser therapy for spinal or nurve injury in kids when injury is not by hitting some thing but because of reacation of surgery and reaction of anithasia my grand daughter is now one years old and durig sergery she is affected spinal injury and her legs and arms are not working and neck is not conected with their body it is 2 month old story but now through normal therapy phisio her arms are working comperitively better but legs are not working how laser is beter in our case and what is the way

Rehana,

The cause of the injury should not matter with laser, scenar, or pulsed elecro-magnetic frequency therapy (PEMF). They all help the body heal itself. For example, these have also helped people with MS, parkinsons, and autoimmune problems which affect the nervous system and brain, and have helped my nephew who is autistic. There have not been a lot of studies done on any one, so you will probably not find many medical doctors using them. But the few studies done, and the number of testimonies out there, seem to show that these should help in many cases. And none of the technologies should hurt the body. What all of these do is to work on, and stimulate / add energy, at a cellular level. Each of these things, in their own way, helps to coach the body through problems, and helps get cells operating properly. By themselves they do not fix anything, but they help keep down infection and swelling, with fresher injuries they seem to inhibit (slow down or prevent) building of scar tissue, and help the body work though its healing process.

I've personally seen a number of things helped with laser and scenar / cosmodic, and have seen a lot of information and testimonies by people who have tried these, and there are not a lot of things they don't seem to help with. And the people who have begun to try lasers here seem to be getting improvement in senses, which is the starting point for improvement otherwise. Everything I've read about PEMF seems to indicate it should also help - even the pulsed magnetic therapy without the overlay of frequencies seems to help with a number of situations.

Dear Everyone/ Learning 1 in particular,

I have just begun to research laser technology (every place I started from came from something someone posted on this forum…. especially the info provided by Learning1 ….thank you all so very much!)

Through this site and my own research, I decided to purchase a Vetrolaser for my dad (little does he know that I used his credit card ;) I think any improvement will be well-worth it….and if not, at least we tried.

Now that I have the Vetrolaser, I am having a very difficult time in determining what is the right dosage/ how long/ what areas to use the laser on….and the more I try to figure it out, the more I second-guess myself.

Learning1,

On June 30th, when referring to the Vetrolaser, you stated that, “key difference would be the amount of time the laser needs to be used for if you are using a single 200 mw laser.”

Therefore, I would really appreciate it if you/ anyone could look at my calculations below, both in comparison the Dr. Ander’s laser and also to Tiger93’s laser…and please please please correct me if I am mistaken….the last thing I’d wanna do it hurt my dad.

The Vetrolasers Specifications are:

• Three (3) 808 nm Diodes (infrared)

• 200mW

• Energy Density: 200-250 mW/cm 2 for the spot of laser beam

• 1 joule/cm 2 every 4-5 seconds for the spot of laser beam

• 10 joules/ cm 2 every 40-50 seconds for the spot of laser beam

• Area Covered per Diode: at 3 cu cm

The reported rating of the laser used in the experiment with rats was 810nm, 150 mw, with 50 mw per cu cm (so the laser light was a bit difuse, or spread out).

My Calculations to Match Those Used by Anders:

She used just under 1,600 joules/ per day

1,600 joules/ 10 joules for every 40-50 seconds = 160 groups of 40-50 seconds

160 X 40 = 6400 seconds total/ per day and 160 X 50 = 8000 seconds total/ per day

6400 seconds/ 60 seconds in 1 minute = 106 minutes

Or 8000 seconds/ 60 seconds in 1 minute= 133 minutes

So first- I thought that to reach the # of joules that Anders did, the laser would need to be used between 106 minutes – 133 minutes…. Or just around 2 hours.

However, I then realized that there are 3 laser beams/ diodes, so then would I:

1. Divide the # of minutes by 3

a. (106/ 3 = 35.5 & 133/3 = 44.3 minutes)

2. Multiply the # of minutes by 3

a. (106 X 3 = 318 minutes or 133 X 3= 399 minutes)

Or in reference to the advice given by Learning 1 to Tiger 93:

The reported rating of the laser used in the experiment with rats was 810nm, 150 mw, with 50 mw per cu cm (so the laser light was a bit difuse, or spread out).

A little brainstorming starting here (and going to the end of tonight's thoughts): With 5 - 200 mw diodes, each diode is putting out 36 joules of energy, and combined it is putting out 180 joules per minute.

Tiger93’s Laser:

1000 mW with 5 Diodes = 200 mW/ Diode

My Laser:

200 mW with 3 Diodes= 66.6 mW/ Diode

Tiger’s Laser:

200mW puts out 36 joules/ diode

(and 200/ 36 = 5.5)

My Laser:

66.6 mW / 5.5 = 12.1 joules/ diode

Tiger’s Laser:

36 joules/ diode X 5 diodes = 180 joules per minute

12.1 joules/ diode X 3 diodes= about 36 joules per minute

If it has the same apparent spread that Dr. Anders' laser (reported in the articles) has, it would be 12 joules per cu cm per minute.

??? I don’t know how to calculate this???

The total energy she used was just under 1,600 joules per day for 2 weeks, then she gave a time to heal / recover.

Tiger’s Laser:

1600 joules per day / 180 joules per minute = 8.889 minutes

My Laser:

1600 joules per day / 36 joules per minute= 44.4 minutes

Because Tiger’s laser is 5X as powerful as my Vetrolaser

(1000mW/ 200mW)

Tiger should use his laser 9 minutes, and because his is 5X as powerful as mine, I then would need to use my laser 5X longer:

(9 minutes X 5 = 45 minutes)

Therefore, am I correct in believing that the Vetrolaser would need to be used 44 minutes/ day in order to reach the number of joules used by Ander’s?

I would so greatly appreciate any and all opinions you guys have…because though I believe my calculations are correct, 45 minutes seems awfully long….and I worry that using the Vetrolaser for so long on my dad will lead to an energy overload and thus, no progress.

Mkusiak,

I'm not an expert on the calculations, but with the formulas I can muddle my way through. It looks like you have it figured out. I normally take the short-cuts. The way I calculated the power of the Vetro laser was by taking a couple shortcuts. I have a 300 mw 808 nm laser myself, and was told that it put out 54 joules per minute. 200 mw would be 2/3 of that, or 36 mw. Divide that by 3 diodes, and you have 66 2/3 joules per diode per minute. I then confirmed my quick calculation with the veterinary chiropractor who handles the Vetro laser - who confirmed my calculation of 12 joules per minute per diode.

Dr. Anders' laser, for her rat experimetns, used a 150 mw - 810 nm laser - half the power of the laser I have (which would make it 27 joules), and 3/4 of the combined power of a 200 mw cluster like the Vetro laser. 810 nm is very close in frequency to an 808 nm - and Dr. Lytle says that, given the discrepancy in ratings and the difference in chemical mixtures in manufacturing, they could actually be the same wave length. At 27 joules per minute, it would take just about an hour to get 1600 joules. Using the combined power of the three diodes on a Vetro laser, it would take about 45 mintues to get to 1600 joules.

For a rat's spinal column, you might need to be fairly specific in location, so one diode is probably the right size. For a human spinal column, it is larger so the the wider area present with a Vetro laser (with power split between 3 diodes), or the Thor laser that Tiger has (with power split between 5 diodes), should not be a negative factor. The only question is how much energy is the optimum amount for a human spinal column. I suspect that the optimum amount of energy for a human spinal column is longer than for a rat's, simply because of the larger size of the spinal column.

You're right about Dr. Anders' experiment flying in the face of normal laser theory. It shouldn't work based on normal laser treatment theory. For example, the highest of the per point (cubic cm) use ratings from the WALT charts is 40 for working on the lower back. Even using 12 joules per diode, you are up to 40 joules per diode in 3 1/3 minutes, and even if each diode has an ultimate light distribution of 3 cu cm at its point of penetration (a figure mentioned by the chiropractor who handles the Vetro Laser), it would max out at 10 minutes. And since it appears the WALT chart for the lower back is actually dealing with an AREA rather than a point, it could be a lot lower.

The strange thing about it, though, is that it seems to help. Reading between the lines, it seems to be that what would otherwise be an overload might do something to the scar tissue and somehow allow the neurons to grow through or past that tissue. Possibly something sort of like what they are trying to do with the chemicals they have tried injecting at injury points to inhibit scar tissue from interfering (see the Christopher Reeves Foundation comment on that, as well as the comment on the experiments with Neurogel - both which are using chemical inhibitors to get past the body's natural factors which inhibit growth in the spinal cord area). That would be my guess.

Technically, low level laser use for that time should not be harmful based on everything I've read. Dr. Larry Lytle, in his healing Light video seminar, indicates that longer use of a laser is not harmful. What it does in most treatment situations, though, according to Dr. Larry Lytle, is similar to a bell curve. As you use more laser energy in normal situations, the benefits increase to a point where the benefts max out, Then they remain stable for a while when you are at the top of the curve. After that, you start losing the benefits that you originally had gained, getting to the point you were at before you started, and healing stalls. At that point you have to back off on laser use for a while - the cells have reached a point of saturation. It doesn't totally prevent healing at that point - it simply stalls progress until the body has had a chance to adjust and use some of the energy it has absorbed.

But if there is a side benefit of inhibiting the body's natural defence mechanism, and allowing the body to begin working past the scar tissue, it might be worth trying a short term overload. The worst that will happen is no progress, which is basically where most with SCI are at to begin with. It at least seems worth trying - if it can help get some progress, any progress, started, it should help. Some use, even shorter term, might be of use even without the overload (if you want to try it), but if shorter term use doesn't accomplish anything, it is worth trying longer term use. Dr. Anders had her rats treated for an hour a day for 2 weeks, then stopped, providing that recovery time (similar to what Dr. Lytle described in the example he gave of stalled healing of a different problem when someone over-used a higher power laser). Then the benefits then apparently began to show up a couple weeks or so later (as they did in the example Dr. Lytle gave).

With the Vetro laser, if you are going to be trying it for a longer time you will want to do a few things:

1. Get a little clamp - I found an ideal one, a small woodworking type, at a local dollar store, then cut off the excess length and smoothed the edges - it works well for the friend who is trying a Vetro laser.

2. Use the Vetro laser plugged in if you can - you can use it on battery power, but then you need to charge it, and according the the person who sells it, it charges in 2 hr, and you don't want to let it charge for over 6 hr because you could damage the battery (so you don't want to charge it overnight). You can use it when it is plugged in, making it so you are both charging it, and using it, at the same time. And other things I've read about battery operated lasers indiate that you want to use them at the upper end of their charge, since as the power drops, so do the joules of energy you get per minute - so for optimum joules per minute, you want to use it plugged in. The chiropractor who sells the Vetro laser also suggested using it charged in as the most effective way to use it (if possible in the setting).

3. Find some way to prop up the laser, or hold it in place, when using it. It is basically like a little flashight in size and weight, and would get tiresome for someone holding it.

4. Make sure you do not look directly at the laser diodes when they are on - it could harm your eyes.

And anybody who is trying a laser has to remember that lasers are not miracle workers, though at times they seem to have worked miracles, and there have been some encouraging lab experiments. Nothing with SCI is proven, and no results can be guaranteed. But with the lack of other options out there, it seems to be worth a try, and any improvement is more than usually occurs, especially after the first few years. Currently anything is experimental. From the numerous studies done, as long as you don't look at the light output by a low level laser it will not hurt you, even if used for longer times. Lasers work at a cellular level, and help the body to work on healing itself at a cellular level. Spinal cord injuries can be complex for what happens, and the built in inhibitors the body has put into place to prevent growth in the spinal cord area, and most spinal cord injuries are bruising or tearing type injuries, not the clean cuts that are done in laboratory experiments, so it is an uphill battle to gain ground. And even if you can begin to get around the built in inhibitors and the scar tissue, you then need to start getting nerve signals to and through the area, which appears to be what revives existing neurons, and develops new neuron links through the damaged area. But it looks like progress should be possible, and like Christopher Reeves approached life, he never gave up trying.