I am not sure about the comment, "infrared lasers (which heat the
tissue and therefore don't seem to have therapeutic effects)".... I've
been using a 980nm, 7500 mW continuous output laser for over a year. I
am a chiropractor, and have observed numerous therpaeutic benefits
from this infrared laser.

I conducted a small "study" in my office - I took ten people with
chronic knee pain, gave half of them treatment with this laser and the
other half treatment with an ordinary heat lamp. The visual analog
scales of the laser group showed significant improvement to the heat
lamp group. They received six, seven-minute treatments - over 3000
Joules - over a two-week period. Granted - this is by no means a
definitive scientific study - but it did demonstrate to me and my
patients that infrared laser is beneficial.

We are also batting 1.000 with plantar fascitis. Treatment time is 5
minutes over the entire base of the foot, usually 4 treatments in 10
days takes care of it.

Dr. Phil


--- In Therapeutic-Laser_Therapy@yahoogroups.com, "Nenah Sylver"
<nsylver@...> wrote:
>
> BlankList,
>
> My journey to better understand soft lasers for an article I'm
writing has led me into some interesting territory.
>
>
>
> Recently, I received a highly informative email from Gerry about the
difference between cold lasers (which have biomodulative effects on
the cells) and infrared lasers (which heat the tissue and therefore
don't seem to have therapeutic effects). To me, "laser" has always
meant "coherent red visible light of some wavelength or another"
(though it's probably old news to some of you that lasers are also
classified as infrared). However, since my association with laser was
always "red light," I was astounded by how one word ("laser") can be
used to mean so many things -- because that lack of precision is so
unscientific, considering that different wavelengths in the EM
spectrum can do such different things.
>
>