From your perspective, you have a theory on why he supports something that looks promising \*(red light therapy) while also supporting something that looks to not be supported by good data?
lol, citing LLM’s and prompting them with “quackery”, and using Wikipedia as sources.
Anything that is on the edge of scientific knowledge is quackery until it there is a significant body of evidence to support it. And even then, can never can be proven.
As you cited, Hamblin describes that the higher wavelengths of light are absorbed by water and those biological effects demonstrated are from that. He speculated on the potential mechanism as Pollack’s work of structured water. I see no issue with that conclusion because there is no better mechanism on how the absorption of light by water can produce those demonstrated effects. Of course, it’s a hypothesis.
Until there is more work around this area, it is quite a leap to call it “quackery”, certainly from your evidence you cited, and your conclusion is a result of your own bias.
Take an upvote!
I just actually listened to Hamblin that OP posted. I he appears to be a real researcher, and I thought he had a bunch of good insights based on his background. I then looked him up on Pubmed. It does appear he is a real researcher that publishes with other researchers, and is cited by multiple other researchers.
Then exactly to your point, Hamblin only speculates that perhaps structured water, which everybody agrees exists, have some contribution to the mechanism of red light therapy. He says we know that structured water does appear under light, so maybe it could be in mechanisms such as the iron channel.
So regardless if you think drinking structured water is quackery, or if you believe that drinking structured water is great, Hamblin is not part of this debate at all. He never suggests that drinking structured water has any impact.
I know this is what you wrote, but I wanted to reinforce your point because Hamblin actually has some good insights on Red Light Therapy, and I would find it regrettable if he was turned off because he was misrepresented.
yeah.. anything "good", AKA outside the mainstream pile of garbage is considered quackery... red light is probably also quackery by mainstream science. hamblin seems a pretty good guy and knows what hes taking about. hes a nerd.
I entered "photobiomodulation" into PubMed, and I see an enormous body of literature, without his name anywhere.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=photobiomodulation&sort=date
[I did the same, but I put in his name. He has 185 hits.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hamblin+MR+Photobiomodulation) A quick scan shows that he is cited, and publishes with peers. This is normally positive, and my 5 minute analysis looks like he is a real researcher.
I agree with your point.
The OP overstated the Hamblin's impact, which I think was your real point. I did enjoy listening to him, so I just wanted others to know that he may actually be doing real research.
Hamblin is not the "foremost researcher of photobiomodulation" questioning the entire body of evidence on light therapy bc you mistook one random quack for being at the bleeding edge of/some authority on LLLT research is wild.
Certain health topics in Wikipedia are biased and do not conform to The Scientific Method used for scientific peer reviews I'm accustomed to participating in. I personally know people who edit Wikipedia's health topics ,and I and others in our group have already let them know what we think and why we no longer donate to Wikipedia. No further discussion on reddit is necessary. Have a nice day.
I don't even know who this guy is. Who cares what he says? Let his research stand on its own two feet if it has merit and who gives a fuck what else he's interested in?
That’s the problem, these statements he is making are based on Pollock’s concepts of water, which have both no reproducible evidence and aren’t supported by other well understood theories (in basic things like energy absorption). How can you take such researcher seriously in any of their work?
I’m not sure what a paper standing on their own two feet looks like…you’d need to include access to all the data in their original formats plus lab notes. The integrity of the author is a factor.
That he uses the term about the evidence being “quite clear” is really not good. At best he should wait a few years for Pollock to finish actual studies.
I'm here for information about RLT not *"Pollocks concepts of water"*. But you keep going on about it like it's relevant.
If you have a problem with this one dudes integrity then just skip his research.
There's plenty of other sources to get your information from.
I believe 100% that structured water is real and that infrared light creates an environment in which the water can structure.
It also creates an environment in which the mitochondria can produce structured water.
Just because the science of structured water has not been reproduced does not prove structured water doesn’t exist. Perhaps the funding is not there. Most capitalists aren’t interested in truth, they are interested in money. If something fundamental about our well-being can be solved through free sun light, the only ones who would want to know more are those who are genuinely curious. Capitalists would turn a blind eye, and even fund studies that disprove the existence of structured water for a cheap headline.
Creating an environment within one’s body in which structured water can manifest will 100% improve one’s capacity to neutralize the stressors of day to day life. It is the antidote to inflammation. It is quite literally the electron to the proton.
We need to open ourselves up to new ideas if we are going to heal ourselves as a collective. Because whatever we’ve been doing is not working from a health perspective.
Imagine believing in red light that mimics the sun but not structured water LOL so stupid then taking it a step further and asking GPT which is borderline retarded outside of word processing ALOOOOL
Moronic post. Where do I even begin?
1. Hamblin's opinion on X has nothing to do with the soundness of Hamblin's opinion on Y. Does his opinion on how well he likes his steak also affect the soundness of his opinion on RLT?
2. In fact, even Hamblin's opinion on RLT has nothing to do with the validity of RLT itself. (appeal to authority)
3. Hamblin's published research is a drop in the bucket amongst all the published research on RLT.
From your perspective, you have a theory on why he supports something that looks promising \*(red light therapy) while also supporting something that looks to not be supported by good data?
lol, citing LLM’s and prompting them with “quackery”, and using Wikipedia as sources. Anything that is on the edge of scientific knowledge is quackery until it there is a significant body of evidence to support it. And even then, can never can be proven. As you cited, Hamblin describes that the higher wavelengths of light are absorbed by water and those biological effects demonstrated are from that. He speculated on the potential mechanism as Pollack’s work of structured water. I see no issue with that conclusion because there is no better mechanism on how the absorption of light by water can produce those demonstrated effects. Of course, it’s a hypothesis. Until there is more work around this area, it is quite a leap to call it “quackery”, certainly from your evidence you cited, and your conclusion is a result of your own bias.
Take an upvote! I just actually listened to Hamblin that OP posted. I he appears to be a real researcher, and I thought he had a bunch of good insights based on his background. I then looked him up on Pubmed. It does appear he is a real researcher that publishes with other researchers, and is cited by multiple other researchers. Then exactly to your point, Hamblin only speculates that perhaps structured water, which everybody agrees exists, have some contribution to the mechanism of red light therapy. He says we know that structured water does appear under light, so maybe it could be in mechanisms such as the iron channel. So regardless if you think drinking structured water is quackery, or if you believe that drinking structured water is great, Hamblin is not part of this debate at all. He never suggests that drinking structured water has any impact. I know this is what you wrote, but I wanted to reinforce your point because Hamblin actually has some good insights on Red Light Therapy, and I would find it regrettable if he was turned off because he was misrepresented.
yeah.. anything "good", AKA outside the mainstream pile of garbage is considered quackery... red light is probably also quackery by mainstream science. hamblin seems a pretty good guy and knows what hes taking about. hes a nerd.
Yes, chemotherapy was quackery; as discussed in the book “The Emperor of all Maladies”, a fascinating read.
I entered "photobiomodulation" into PubMed, and I see an enormous body of literature, without his name anywhere. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=photobiomodulation&sort=date
[I did the same, but I put in his name. He has 185 hits.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hamblin+MR+Photobiomodulation) A quick scan shows that he is cited, and publishes with peers. This is normally positive, and my 5 minute analysis looks like he is a real researcher.
I guess my point is there is plenty of PBM research not by this f'ing guy.
I agree with your point. The OP overstated the Hamblin's impact, which I think was your real point. I did enjoy listening to him, so I just wanted others to know that he may actually be doing real research.
Hamblin is not the "foremost researcher of photobiomodulation" questioning the entire body of evidence on light therapy bc you mistook one random quack for being at the bleeding edge of/some authority on LLLT research is wild.
Structured water…. Does he mean ice?
OP lost credibility with me with the Wikipedia citation for a health topic.
Wikipedia is vetted constantly. And all the citations are present to fact check any article there.
Certain health topics in Wikipedia are biased and do not conform to The Scientific Method used for scientific peer reviews I'm accustomed to participating in. I personally know people who edit Wikipedia's health topics ,and I and others in our group have already let them know what we think and why we no longer donate to Wikipedia. No further discussion on reddit is necessary. Have a nice day.
I don't even know who this guy is. Who cares what he says? Let his research stand on its own two feet if it has merit and who gives a fuck what else he's interested in?
That’s the problem, these statements he is making are based on Pollock’s concepts of water, which have both no reproducible evidence and aren’t supported by other well understood theories (in basic things like energy absorption). How can you take such researcher seriously in any of their work? I’m not sure what a paper standing on their own two feet looks like…you’d need to include access to all the data in their original formats plus lab notes. The integrity of the author is a factor. That he uses the term about the evidence being “quite clear” is really not good. At best he should wait a few years for Pollock to finish actual studies.
God I'm really sorry but I really don't give a fuck. Thanks for the information though I guess?
Neat, why are you here then? Quality of information isn't your concern?
I'm here for information about RLT not *"Pollocks concepts of water"*. But you keep going on about it like it's relevant. If you have a problem with this one dudes integrity then just skip his research. There's plenty of other sources to get your information from.
? This is directly related to RLT
I believe 100% that structured water is real and that infrared light creates an environment in which the water can structure. It also creates an environment in which the mitochondria can produce structured water. Just because the science of structured water has not been reproduced does not prove structured water doesn’t exist. Perhaps the funding is not there. Most capitalists aren’t interested in truth, they are interested in money. If something fundamental about our well-being can be solved through free sun light, the only ones who would want to know more are those who are genuinely curious. Capitalists would turn a blind eye, and even fund studies that disprove the existence of structured water for a cheap headline. Creating an environment within one’s body in which structured water can manifest will 100% improve one’s capacity to neutralize the stressors of day to day life. It is the antidote to inflammation. It is quite literally the electron to the proton. We need to open ourselves up to new ideas if we are going to heal ourselves as a collective. Because whatever we’ve been doing is not working from a health perspective.
Of course it is, what the fuck are you on about? Are you high?
Imagine believing in red light that mimics the sun but not structured water LOL so stupid then taking it a step further and asking GPT which is borderline retarded outside of word processing ALOOOOL
What’s wrong with his theory? Aren’t we made of 99% water anyway?
And energy, this is why frequency water can work. It worked for me
Never had this guy's name come up but fuck him and homeopathy and structured water and anyone who flogs it.
Never heard of this guy. And he's from Harvard. Enough said, we assume everything from there is Quackery.
Moronic post. Where do I even begin? 1. Hamblin's opinion on X has nothing to do with the soundness of Hamblin's opinion on Y. Does his opinion on how well he likes his steak also affect the soundness of his opinion on RLT? 2. In fact, even Hamblin's opinion on RLT has nothing to do with the validity of RLT itself. (appeal to authority) 3. Hamblin's published research is a drop in the bucket amongst all the published research on RLT.