Talk:Deep penetrating light therapy

Lack of factual accuracy?
I am sorry to say that as it stands, the factual accuracy of this piece is not grounded. Sure, the links show some early results in clinical trials and a greenlight from the FDA that it's safe. That doesn't mean it works. The NASA page gives the piece a spurious authority, but when you read it, is again refers to clinical trials. Indeed, it says another three years of trials are needed.

There isn't enough here, yet, to say that this is scientifically valid.

It is critically important, with medical pieces especially, that a page should stand up to proper scrutiny. You need to put an inline citation for each individual claim, or risk being written off as a proclaimer of pseudoscience.

Please don't be offended by this post. If you're sure of your facts, please do go ahead and provide the inline citations that will convince the skeptics. I hadn't heard of the therapy until I read this piece and I just don't see enough here to allow anyone to make a decision. I think the piece won't last very long if you leave it just as it is.Astral Highway (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now proposed deletion of the page on the grounds that it contains pseudoscience. That's not ethical and it's not in line with Wikipedia policyAstral Highway (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to beat me about the head and shoulders with a rolled-up newspaper (complete with shouting "bad dog" or other appropriate scolding) if I'm wrong, but rather than deletion, wouldn't it be more appropriate to document the subject of DPL therapy as it stands (with regard to solid science) on the DPL therapy page, in the same way as magnet therapy or gene therapy or some other new, unconfirmed, *possibly* real, yet still unproven medical treatment? I understand that the science isn't there, and may well never be, but that would place it firmly in the same arena as magnet therapy, which, IMO, is complete bollocks, but still believed/practiced by many, making it worthy of an article, just not an article that makes unfounded claims and presents itself as factual...right? It might be your opinion that this is all still rubbish, and it might be your opinion that it's not even worthy of being documented, and believe me, I share the former opinion with you, but that doesn't mean that this isn't worthy of an encyclopedia article, so long as it's written with a strong sense of "none of this is proven, take it with a grain of salt". Just my opinion of course, and I am new here, but wiki is not paper and I, for one, don't see a reason why this topic should outright be denied an article altogether. Even if it is, to borrow a non-suable term from Penn & Teller, complete bullshit. - Pegasus Epsilon (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think you're a 'bad dog' for saying that. Far from it. You very reasonably make a good case for documenting it with a big health warning attached, and I'd like to agree with you, but I'm not sure I'm quite able to right now.  My main issue is that once these things are in the encyclopaedia, they go round gaining currency when they just shouldn't.  There'll doubtless be edit wars, too.  I think it'd be reasonable to see it headlined as an unproven or as yet unproven theory, so long as it doesn't  make out there's FDA approval or good science behind it, and so long as there's no commercial stuff going on.Astral Highway (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganizing LED-related pages
There are 23 different LED-related pages, and I think there should be less than half that many. I've started a discussion on this at Talk:Light-emitting_diode; please come and join in. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit over the top
This bit right here seems somewhat ridiculous: "Acne vulgaris is an emotionally crippling disease that result in psychological and social morbidity, with anxiety, severe depression and suicide ideation." This is quite an absurd statement in relation to such a common and mild ailment. Very out of place as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.116.80 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)