Talk:Blood irradiation therapy

Summary
From talk:ultraviolet blood irradiation

I have tried to answer the deletion note by adding references and bibliographic items. However, the references are not showing up correctly yet. There is much more to be said about this therapy, but I thought that a useful (and long-overdue) first step would be to provide a simple, straightforward account that others could then build on.Kjdillon (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cut down the size of the article quite substantially as it made a lot of unreferenced statements and was written in a fairly promotional style. I've reduced it to a brief summary just based on the sources given. ~ mazca  talk 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the 1953 JAMA article was embarrassingly unscientific; and there have been more than 100 articles published in German and Russian journals since 1990 that provide clinical trial reports of the use of UBI in several dozen indications. Citations to many of these articles can be found in my three books wholly or largely on UBI.  So the article as currently written is inaccurate and misleading.  Kjdillon (talk)14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.170.187 (talk)
 * I made a good-faith effort to find better references for this article but the topic really seems to have fallen out of view in the general scientific community. Most recent mentions of it tend to come from extremely dubious alternative therapy centres that are trying to sell it as part of a general package of unorthodox medical treatments - I didn't see any recent real studies that suggest it is effective, but neither did I see much in the way of recent studies showing it isn't effective. In the absence of either it is hard to produce a referenced encyclopedic article, I would welcome links to the studies you mentioned as I was evidently looking in the wrong place. ~ mazca  t 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What a bunch of nonsense this blood irradiation thing is. Only thing it could possibly end up doing is accidentally mutating B and T-Cells.  Horray for surpressing the immune system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.25 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

China and Russia
Please excuse some inadvertent violations of Wikipedia rules as I am a first time editor and this article is a work in progress. Constructive comments are therefore appreciated. However, there is nothing original here except that it is an effort to legitimately group an important set of therapies that have largely been overlooked by the English language community because much of the related communication is in either Russian or Chinese. The therapies are already widely researched and practiced in Eastern European countries and China. I will continue with the editing to improve the article. Qudore (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though there is nothing inherently against sources from China and Russia, when all sources are from a limited number of countries, that's reason to be suspect. Also note that Quackwatch considers it quackery.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is hypocrisy. When I supply refs from American/European sources, they get deleted. --Dyuku (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't supplying references, you are pushing primary source, medically unreliable sources into a further reading section. There's also a conference abstract, which is still unreliable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the dose of reality. There's no ban in Wikipedia on citing primary sources. I never deal with medically unreliable sources. There's no ban in Wikipedia on citing conference abstracts. Conference abstracts are peer-reviewed. All this just shows the double standards of WLU. --Dyuku (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PSTS, MEDRS and MEDRS. It's not a double standard.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section
'Further reading' section is a generally accepted feature of Wikipedia articles. By deleting 'Further reading' section from this article, User:WLU has negatively affected the value of this article.

Currently, all items listed in this section are published peer-reviewed studies, and they are all relevant for this article. --Dyuku (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So integrate them. Further reading is for listing relatively lengthy sources that have wide-ranging implications for the article in question.  These do not.  This is talking about the best shape for the end of a fiber optic cable to diffuse light - which for one thing assumes defusing light and even irradiating blood is a good thing, and for another, is quite a technical nuance.  It's not therefore a general source about blood irradiation in general.  This (leads to here) is a conference presentation, and per WP:MEDRS is therefore inappropriate.  This is a basic research paper about irradiating pig blood. This is about in vitro work with blood.  This is a nine year old primary source about blood irradiation being relatively ineffective in the treatment of arthritis (in addition to being a poor study - control group?).  This is yet more basic pig research, and again is quite old.  This is a twelve year old review article which criticizes negative research and looks like little more than apologetics, in addition to being about low level laser therapy - not blood irradiation.  And I'll be removing them again.  Further reading should include recent studies about blood irradiation which don't give undue weight to fringe theories.  The further reading section is not about cramming in sources, it's about further reading - lengthy, detailed analyses of the topic.  Not primary sources about animal and in vitro models.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have reviewed all the further reading suggestions, and very consciously examined each one. And no, none are suitable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is completely ridiculous. "Meta-analysis on intravascular low energy laser therapy [Proc. SPIE, Vol. 7280, 728012 (2008); doi:10.1117/12.823336] is completely appropriate. There's nothing in WP:MEDRS to preclude its use as 'Further reading', and you know it. You don't own this article. Your "review" is just your own personal opinion, and it's worth no more than any other personal opinion. You're going against Wikipedia rules in deleting the whole 'Further reading' section. --Dyuku (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not. My review standard is WP:MEDRS as I mentioned above.  Zhao et al is precluced by MEDRS, please see MEDRS or search for "conference" and you will see what I mean.  I am referring to the rules, not bypassing them, while you are ignoring the rules on the basis of what appears to be the belief that blood irradiation therapy is an effective treatment despite lacking proof.  I shall be removing them, yet again.  Please justify your replacement per MEDRS or some other policy/guidelines, rather than simply your preference.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the note at WT:MED. In general, WLU is correct.  In most articles, WP:FURTHERREADING (when it is included at all, and it usually isn't) is usually a list of books, not individual scientific papers.  Conference posters and old papers are generally poor choices, especially the non-human/in vitro work.  I don't think that any of these are such important papers that we need to include them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Which "old papers" are you talking about?
 * All I'm citing is recent peer-reviewed articles. The readers should be able to make up their own minds about those. I'm not making any claims. But here we have a bunch of censors who are apparently afraid of peer-reviewed research. Bending over backwards looking for a reason to delete relevant peer-reviewed references. Pathetic. --Dyuku (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't write a page that "people make up their mind about" - we write a reliable encyclopedia giving the most reliable information we can. Journalists "tell both sides", we do not.  I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws of the further reading section.  You sought out input from WT:MED - that you got an answer you didn't like doesn't matter.  You have your answer, and it is the same one that I've been repeating for a while now.  Such is WP:CONSENSUS.  Insulting people you disagree with won't win you friends, nor will it result in a page that is more to your liking.  You are welcome to take your contributions elsewhere, or attempt to change our policies, but while here, please be civil.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

International research
Wikipedia does not belong to US of A. This is an international encyclopedia. The research in this area has been conducted primarily in non-English speaking countries. I perceive some considerable ethnocentric bias here in the edits of User:WLU. Just because some publication is not indexed in an American database, this is no reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. People in other countries also read Wikipedia, so let's go easy with such nationalism. --Dyuku (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In China, not a single study of acupuncture has come back negative. Not one.  In the West, it's about 50-50 trending towards zero effect when solid controls are used.  Pubmed is seen as a measure of the quality of a journal, but in addition, when the only sources are from a single area, it is reason to be cautious - particularly when they promise the moon.  It is the rare modality that can treat "everything" as BIT appears to promise.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also not a fan of acupuncture and I am aware of the studies on acupuncture - but this is not acupuncture. The comment is uncalled for. And the studies on relevant light irradiaton therapy also originate out of Russia, Germany, and many other countries; not just China. There is scientific basis behind the mechanism of blood irradiation therapy (not talking about the discredited ultraviolet modality). This is not about "vital energy", "meridians", or any metaphysical phenomena. I can present a whole article on this if you permit me (complete with references to studies but I am afraid not originating in US). The therapy is not rare in a number of countries and it does not treat "everything". What the red light (mainly studied in low level laser form) therapy demonstrates clearly is the ability to improve the rheological properties of blood. The outcomes are based on this primary factor and some other secondary ones such as the release of nitric oxide. I can also write a whole article on how this works (supported by biochemistry and microbiology facts) but I can see this to be another waste of time for anything that does not have the foundation in the US and are not Pubmed indexed. This therapy is "fringe" in the US due to the regulatory conditions and medical politics, and that again is the subject of another lengthy essay. Yes, be cautious but state your caution rather than doing wholesale deletion. So frustrating.... Qudore (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not being indexed in pub med does not exclude papers per say. But there are still publications that are more respected than others.  For topics like this we do need to stick to review articles.  The burden of proof is on those who present an idea.  The null hypothesis ( that this intervention has not effect ) is assumed until good evidence proves otherwise. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note my general and rather lengthy comment here. This is not a cut-and-dried issue, but one that requires considerable judgment given the lack of current attention outside of Russia and China.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 07:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc James says: For topics like this we do need to stick to review articles.
 * Nice of you to mention this, Doc. So then why is the recent review article that I cite keeps getting deleted? Do we want review articles or not? You guys should make up your mind about it... --Dyuku (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the conference presentation? I have repeatedly pointed out that MEDRS indicates conference presentations should not be used for medical articles.  Or are you referring to another one?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MEDRS indicates conference presentations should not be used for medical articles?? Come on, since you're so heavily into wikilawyering, you should be able to cite chapter and verse? This must be some unusual 'MEDRS' that's available only to yourself... --Dyuku (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Conference abstracts present incomplete and unpublished data and undergo varying levels of review: they are often unreviewed self-published sources, and these initial conclusions may have changed dramatically if and when the data are finally ready for publication. Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that "conference presentations should not be used for medical articles"? --Dyuku (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But WLU, notwithstanding your personal beef with Dyuku, you have also deleted informative balanced peer-reviewed articles and imposed your own preconceived view on the whole subject, and keep referring to UV blood irradiation like it is representative of all blood irradiation modalities (once again, very different). This whole initiative is taking a lot of my time and becoming very frustrating because I am just trying to share what I have objectively researched and experienced regarding this therapy. What I have presented and largely got axed is only a little of the database the Russians and Chinese researchers have accessed to. The limitation of Wikipedia as a balanced and in-depth information platform is becoming clear to me. What more can I say, except that the English-literate community is missing out. Qudore (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted peer-reviewed research
Here's the recent peer-reviewed research that keeps getting deleted from the main article. Apparently this stuff is so dangerous that it needs to be looked at with magnifying glass for any sign of sedition. Keep out of hands of children, so to speak... You never know, people might go berserk with this.

(former 'Further reading' section)

Actually, on second thought, even this whole idea of a 'Further reading' section might be seen as seditious! Simple folks might start reading, and then you don't know where it'll end!

Guarding the world from any new ideas... --Dyuku (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Snide remarks such as above are in breach of WP:AGF
 * re you last comment, I think you are missing an important aspect of encyclopaedia (well Wikipedia at least) writing - it is not a forum for new ideas, nor does it try to modify accepted real world consensus. Instead it reflects current established accepted body of knowledge - even if that is "wrong" or just been shown by a new primary source study to be misconceived. Wikipedia therefore lags (hopefully only a little) behind changes in real-world knowledge. WP:MEDRS indicates that the real world majority viewpoint (per WP:NPOV) is established from secondary sources for medical topics, and such viewpoint has primary WP:Weight in articles. So one might ask:
 * Is this therapy generally (i.e. in scientific quality peer reviewed journals) established by high quality studies (i.e. double blind trials) as having been proven efficacious in humans ?
 * Is this therapy generally (i.e. widespread in the world) accepted by conventional medicine as being effective ?
 * Finally if a research paper is useful, does it belong in an article as a footnoted reference to a discussed point, or as an unassociated item in the further reading list ?
 * The 3rd question is one of copyediting style, and I would not expect to see primary sources, in vitro or animal studies in a 'further reading' section on a treatment aimed at human usage. Whereas, books or longer review articles not otherwise used in the article would seem suitable for inclusion.
 * Others (above) have looked at the studies and expressed their opinons on the 1st question, but the 2nd question is clearly (irrespectively of rightly or wrongly) de facto a negative at the present time. Whilst at the present time this probably constitutes a "tiny minority view" as described by WP:UNDUE policy, clearly the accepted use of the therapy in at least some countries does establish WP:Notability - but that is not the same as the article necessarily warrenting being written in support of my 1st question. David Ruben Talk


 * Is this therapy generally (i.e. in scientific quality peer reviewed journals) established by high quality studies (i.e. double blind trials) as having been proven efficacious in humans ?
 * The answer is clearly Yes.
 * Is this therapy generally (i.e. widespread in the world) accepted by conventional medicine as being effective ?
 * The answer is clearly Yes.
 * So here, once again, it's the question of, Does WP really belong to USA? This therapy is _mainstream_ in many countries. USA is lagging behind, for whatever reasons... Clearly there's ethnocentric bias on the part of some editors, and this is actually against official WP policies.
 * So here it's not the question of 'Wikipedia as a forum for new ideas', or trying to modify accepted real world consensus. What Qudore is trying to do is make this article reflect the real world situation. These are not 'new ideas' in the real world outside of America. These are 30-year-old ideas. --Dyuku (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet in 30 years, it hasn't been adopted in the west. It is noted that it's not used much outside of Russia and China, there's minimal literature on the subject and it doesn't have wide application or attention from the best sources.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote, and that looks like what is happening here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, you're just showing your ignorance here. Laser blood irradiation therapy was government-certified in Germany in 2005. In the following two years, this method was established in more than 300 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and Australia. See --Dyuku (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy is licensed in Germany as well, is it not? The existence of centres willing to deliver a treatment is no indication of its effectiveness, nor is it an indication of its acceptance as a world-wide intervention.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference to broken DOI
[This problem with DOI of Weber article was fixed. --Dyuku (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)]

Small trial report removed as unreliable source
I recently removed the addition of claim of efficacy supported by a reference to Liu et al. (2012) "Randomized, Double-Blind, and Placebo-Controlled Clinic Report of Intranasal Low-Intensity Laser Therapy on Vascular Diseases". It strikes me as a rather preliminary result, appearing as a primary publication; per WP:MEDRS we should wait for appropriately WP:WEIGHTy secondary coverage to assess the value of this study. Broadly speaking, on quickly reviewing the paper my concerns fall into two categories.

First, the journal itself (the International Journal of Photoenergy) is one of those new open-access journals with a rather...broad ambit from Hindawi Publishing Corporation, a publisher that has been identified as potentially engaging in 'predatory' behavior (essentially, acting as a vanity press rather than a reputable scientific publisher).

Second, the study itself has a number of dubious features which make me question the...rigorousness of peer review. For instance, the authors claim (indeed, boast in their article title) that the study is double-blind, however the protocol involves sticking a bright red laser source up the patient's nose and turning it on (experimental group) or leaving it off (control group). A red glow would be visible in the corner of the patient's visual field, where some laser light diffused through the tissue of the nose&mdash;indeed, there is a photograph of a patient undergoing treatment where the red glow on the outside of the nose is clearly visible. Not only do the authors fail to describe any steps taken to prevent this problem (straightforward solutions might include covering the nose with opaque foil, or blindfolding the patient during treatment) they fail to even acknowledge that they might be aware of this most literal failure of their experiment's blinding.

The statistical comparisons in tables 2 and 3 throw up all kinds of red flags. Among other problems, the changes in many parameters pre- versus post-treatment are smaller than the difference between the pre-treatment parameters for the experimental versus the control arms of the study. In other words, from the outset, the patients in the two study arms weren't anywhere near alike in the measured properties of their blood; 'significant' changes may simply represent regression to the mean or other uncontrolled effects. Worse, the study used unequal-sized arms (60 patients in the experimental group, and only 30 in the control) and then did a t-test to compare the means before and after within each arm, but not between arms. That is to say, the study was designed to be appreciably more sensitive to changes in the experimental arm than it was to changes in the control arm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience or not?
What is the general medical consensus regarding this subject, pseudoscience or not? The article makes it appear that it is potentially a viable and effective procedure, but I'm doubtful if this is truly the case. If there is a verifiable medical consensus that this is pseudoscience, it should be clarified as such in the article, because as it stands, it reads like a potentially legitimate procedure. Laval (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten about this article. The first question is, effective for what?  The article currently doesn't give any indication about why a person would want to do this.  We can be certain that it won't work for everything, but the article doesn't indicate what it might work for.
 * As for whether it's pseudoscience: There are a lot of ways to classify treatments, and efficacy isn't really the defining hallmark of pseudoscience.  If they're genuinely trying to find out something through scientific methods, then it's science, even if it doesn't work.  On the other hand, if they're trying to use science-y words to sell stuff, then it's pseudoscience, even if it works.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the history section
This edit sounded like a April Fools Joke. I found no hint for Knott beeing a Nobel Laurate. There might have bee correct things, but I distrust the whole edit.Tox (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tox for WP:CHALLENGEing and removing dubious content without any Inline citations to support it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is rubbish.
.Midgley (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Manufactured version of this article reported spreading on social media
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)