While not in the majority, a band of front-line doctors has been in the trenches responding to the COVID-19 pandemic seeking patient-first regimens based on repurposed drugs and other non-pharmaceutical interventions with an aim of saving more lives and reducing the suffering among a growing long COVID patient population. Controversial in an age of top-down, national protocol-driven medicine, doctors advocating for alternative points of view in some cases have paid with their licenses. The medical industry shouldn't be proud of its COVID-19 response strategy. With over a million deaths, America, the biggest, richest economy with the most sophisticated health system, records the greatest number of COVID-19 deaths.
Long Covid patients, potentially representing anywhere from 10%-30% of all COVID-19 cases, suffer with no formal protocols established nationally nor any medications authorized specifically for that purpose. While the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did allocate over $1 billion for long COVID research, this started way back in February 2021 and has yet to deliver any real goods. A growing chasm between academic medicine, health systems, and the pain and suffering on the street due to long COVID sends patients out looking for alternative pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions.
While some commercially-minded groups are exploiting these patients with all sorts of snake oil products, other well-intentioned, passionate, and non-commercial physicians are at the forefront of real-world medicine and the unfolding science, such as the physicians at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance , who have raised controversy by prescribing off label various regimen combinations, including ivermectin and now also near-infrared light therapy for long COVID. But is there medical evidence for the use of near-infrared light therapy targeting long COVID?
According to one definition, near-infrared light therapy uses directional low-power but high-fluency light, monochromatic or quasimonochromatic, from lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the wavelengths, red to near-infrared, to mediate biological functions or to promote therapeutic effects in a safe way. See the report from the International Journal of Medical Sciences
This class of light therapy falls under the umbrella of a class of products called photo-biomodulation therapy or “PBMT.”
One recent assessment of potential benefits derives from a Chinese study led by Hua Zhong, Department of Ophthalmology at the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming, Medical University
What is the difference between light therapy and near-infrared therapy?
While light therapy involves exposure to light actually brighter than indoor light, often used to treat persons with challenged cognitive ability due to conditions such as depression, seasonal affective disorder, or sleep disorders, this involves light therapy on the visible part of the light spectrum—which equals 400 nm to 480 nm. This differs slightly from color light therapy but has been shown to help patients deal with problems ranging from depressed moods to sleep problems.
While red light therapy also falls into the visible part of the light spectrum (630-700 nm) on the electromagnetic scale, it's used as a regimen against the surface of the skin. But near-infrared wavelengths are actually part of the invisible light spectrum segment (700 and 1200nm).
This means that this method involves longer wavelengths with deeper penetration, which purportedly delivers energy to cells that can stimulate not only healing but also lower pain levels. This approach becomes more granular as different cell and tissue segments may have their own tailored light absorption requirements at different wavelengths. While blue wavelength light may benefit dermatology, other colors and wavelengths may impact other deeper parts of the human body.
Where is near-infrared light used today?
Based on a number of sources cited below, infrared therapy is used widely in medicine, dentistry, and veterinary, as well as for autoimmune diseases.
Some risks are involved, and some mainstream medical experts report that the use of this class of regimen for the treatment of chronic diseases at the expense of not taking prescribed medications or other treatment procedures prescribed could lead to trouble.
Studies
In one case report reported in Brain Stimulation the study evaluated neuroimaging and cognitive testing on a patient with Post-COVID-19 before and after near infrared therapy. The researchers showed that the use of near-infrared therapy helped a patient with presented neurocognitive executive dysfunction due to COVID-19 “return to normal cognitive functioning.”
Led by the Neurological Associates—the Interventional Group in Los Angeles, the study team concluded that while only a case series, “NIR light therapy may be a promising technique for the treatment of cortical hypoperfusion brought on by COVID-19 infection.” TrialSite reminds the case series of just a patient (or a handful of patients) typically isn't weighty enough for conclusive evidence.
A more recent relevant study program in Brazil published in “ Laser Physics Letters ” revealed that various light-based therapies show promising results in helping treat patients with long COVID, including patients with symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, neurological issues, and dermatological damage.
Led by investigators working at the Center for Research in Optics and Photonics (CEPOF) as well as the National Institute of Science and Technology (INCT) in Basic Optics and Optics Applied to Life Sciences—both led by the University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos Institute of Physics (IFSC-USP) professor Vanderlei Bagnato —as reported by Agencia FAPESP , researchers sought to develop guidelines to help treat post-COVID-19 complications along with the establishment of novel protocols supported by multidisciplinary teams addressing the mounting long COVID crisis. Their recent article can be found here
Other recent studies suggest the use of photo-biomodulation therapy (PBMT) of the particular wavelength 1068 nm as a therapeutic regimen targeting COVID-19 may improve conditions based on a handful of findings, including cytoprotection, nitric oxide (NO) release, inflammation changes, improved blood flow, and more.
The authors from Durham University, Department of Biosciences and the QuietMind Foundation in Philadelphia suggest that “PBMT 1068 is a potentially effective and innovative approach for avoiding severe and critical illness in COVID-19 patients, although further clinical evidence is required.”
The prominent YouTube doctor, Dr. Mobeen Syed, also affiliated with the FLCCC, recently presented that near-infrared light may help to protect neurons by reestablishing mitochondrial health, referring to a study titled “ Protection against neurodegeneration with low-dose methylene blue and near-infrared light ” led by F. Gonzalez-Lima and Allison Auchter introduce that both methylene blue and near-infrared light interventions may act by “a cellular mechanism involving enhancement of the electron transport chain in mitochondria.”
The authors affiliated with the University of Texas, Department of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience wrote at the time (2015), “Low-level near-infrared light applied transcranial deliver photos to cortical neurons that are accepted by cytochrome oxidase, which causes increased cell respiration and cerebral blood flow.”
The Texas-based neurological investigators declared, “Breakthrough in vivo studies with these interventions suggest that targeting mitochondrial respiration may be beneficial for protection against different types of neurodegenerative disorders.” See the FLCCC video presentation
Earlier on in the pandemic, a trio of researchers from San Diego and Milwaukee published a paper, “ Light as a potential treatment for pandemic coronavirus infections: A perspective .”
The authors noted:
“ Further evidence shows that blue light inactivates several viruses, including the common flu coronavirus, and that in experimental animals, red and near infrared light reduce respiratory disorders, similar to those complications associated with coronavirus infection. Moreover, in patients, red light has been shown to alleviate chronic obstructive lung disease and bronchial asthma. These findings call for urgent efforts to further explore the clinical value of light, and not wait for another pandemic to serve as a reminder. The ubiquity of inexpensive light emitting lasers and light emitting diodes (LEDs), makes it relatively easy to develop safe low-cost light-based devices with the potential to reduce infections, sanitize equipment, hospital facilities, emergency care vehicles, homes, and the general environment as pilot studies have shown “
Is PBMT the same as infrared light therapy?
No, but infrared light therapy falls under a subcategory of PBMT, which is an umbrella term classifying several technologies that utilize different light wavelengths. PBMT includes laser and LED technologies emitting varying wavelengths in the visible or near-infrared spectrum. So, therapies like red light therapy are a subset of PBMT. There are dozens of PBMT (again, an umbrella term) studies ongoing, with a few targeting COVID—and none targeting long COVID that TrialSite could find.
What's the clinical trial pipeline?
TrialSite reviewed the American clinical trials registry to evaluate any ongoing clinical trials involving near-infrared light therapy or PBMT targeting long COVID.
A search using the term “near-infrared light therapy” turns up 85 active studies in the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Many of them are hybrid in that they may also involve photo-biomodulation and other technologies. The therapeutic targets range from chronic pain and other forms of pain to aging, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's to many more conditions. Only three COVID-related studies are listed but are not relevant for the purposes of this investigation. None targeted long COVID. And the vast majority of these therapeutic areas are not proven.
Similarly, for the term PBMT, the search found four ongoing studies , of which none target long COVID.
Conclusion from FLCCC
Although there is no evidence as would be defined and accepted by the medical establishment for the use of infrared light therapy targeting long COVID TrialSite estimates that there may be as many as 20 million people in America suffering from this condition. In some cases, this group is debilitated and in desperate condition.
While academic medicine will crawl along attempting to develop evidence, groups of physicians will attempt to advance real-world regimens based on a confluence of possible evidentiary sources. While not strong enough for the FDA, NIH, or CDC, with informed consent, off-label usage of therapies deemed safe by physicians continues to grow in commonality.
The FLCCC uses this light therapy in its vaccine injury protocol called “ I-RECOVER post vaccine .”
The FLCCC recognizes that “major public health authorities do not recognize post-COVID-vaccine injuries and no specific ICD classification code exists for the disease.”
The group continues, “Since there are no published reports detailing how to manage vaccine-injured patients, our treatment approach is based on the postulated pathogenetic mechanism, clinical observation, and patient anecdotes.” They continue on with individualized treatments targeting each patient's “presenting symptoms and disease syndromes” they recognize that “chances are, not all patients will respond equally to the same intervention.” Emphasizing early treatment, the FLCCC includes “Sunlight and Photo-biomodulation (PBM) therapy, also referred to as “low-level light therapy, red light therapy and near-infrared light therapy.” Again, the PBM represents the umbrella category per previously reported.
The FLCCC recommends:
“Of all the wavelengths of sunlight, near-infrared radiation (NIR-A) has the deepest penetration into tissues. NIR-A in the range of 1000 to 1500 nm is optimal for heating tissues. For more detailed information see ‘An Approach to the Management of Post-Vaccine Syndrome.”
The group's “ I-RECOVER: Long COVID ” doesn't include near-infrared light (or other PBM) therapies.
TrialSite's founder Daniel O'Connor got in touch with Dr. Paul Marik , one of the FLCCC founders and well-known researcher—controversial from the mainstream perspective due to what he calls a “Big Pharma-driven agenda to monetize the pandemic.”
Dr. Paul Marik
Source: FLCCC
Dr. Marik reports:
“We have patients that are seeing remarkable results from the combination of Methylene Blue and PBMT (again includes near-infrared light therapy). Working synergically together, there is solid science backing the use of these approaches.”
Marik didn't claim that it was a proven, authorized treatment but rather that he and his colleagues are observing a significant number of improved patients with this off-label regimen.
For example, one study shows that near infrared therapy relieves TLR-4 dependent hyper-inflammation of the type induced by COVID-19.” See a study led by corresponding authors Margaret Ahmad and Nathalie Jourdan, both at Sorbonne University in Paris.
Dr. Marik is a wealth of information and informed TrialSite's O'Connor that some of this evidence dates back to the Surgeon General of Massachusetts in the 1918 influenza pandemic known as the “Open-Air” treatment. See the link for a summary.
According to Marik, “Mortality declined in this study from 40% down to 10%, which was highly significant.” The physician-investigator pointed out that infrared can penetrate the skin at deeper levels leading to benefits including improvement of mitochondrial function leading to improved cellular ATP offering health benefits.
A review of various medical academic papers points to multiple examples of preclinical work backing such claims in animal research. In 2008, a basic science paper purported that low-intensity light therapy associates with mitochondrial photostimulation and boosted APT production, leading to greater transient increases in reactive oxygen species (ROS). In that same study by Tafur et al., Karu reports on experiments that show a specific wavelength of UVA light, such as red and infrared “can lead to activation of mitochondrial oxygen consumption.”
Other studies reveal that persons who are sun-averse face higher mortality conditions. One prominent study is from Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, titled “ Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality: results from the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort .” Of course, factors such as the social determinants of health could be a contributing factor for such a result.
What about Big Pharma? Marik told TrialSite's founder, “Frankly, I think all of us, with our eyes wide open, saw the inherent bias toward Big Pharma commercialization during the pandemic.” TrialSite can confirm a significant bias chronicled from NIH ACTIV research to the over hundred billion two COVID-19 vaccine producers are generating for a vaccine product that wanes in effectiveness within a few months. See, for example, “ Therapeutic Management of Patients with COVID-19: Some Unanswered Questions about Disturbing Chasm ” For a description of how the NIH Foundation managed ACTIV during the pandemic, see the following . We also encourage a read of “ Big Money, Politics & Fed Gov Redirects & Captivates Mass Attention, Obscuring Pragmatic Off-Label Studies Targeting COVID-19 ”
“ My eyes are wide open, and I am a new person after this experience .” Marik continued, “Unless Big Pharma can find a way to charge us for licenses to sunlight and low-cost forms of treatment regimen, they aren't interested in that kind of healthcare.” Unfortunately, this may not be conducive to widespread health as Big Pharma's expertise is needed to develop, produce and distribute drugs—even lower-cost generic regimen
Unfortunately, no federal agency charged with overseeing aspects of healthcare, whether the FDA, NIH, or CDC, seem that interested in opening up the collective mind to consider a different pathway. Perhaps the monetization pressures across society are too great?