> The vast majority of research into photobiomodulation was done on animals, not humans, and most positive results in lab animals do not lead to approved interventions in humans
This statement is true for all medical research. It's not a critique unique to PBM.
> Proponents of photobiomodulation will often cite that we understand how it affects the body at a molecular level, but these kinds of mechanisms are easy to hypothesize and they do not imply that the technology is actually curing anything
Also true for all medical research.
There is no actual examination / critique of any evidence, just a meta critique about the unreliability of young science with questionable hype to evidence ratio. Which is well deserved, but very redundant.
This kind of article is very easy to write, and can be copy pasted for any emerging area of research: be skeptical, wait for oodles of double blind RCTs, don't give money to hype artists.
This statement is true for all medical research. It's not a critique unique to PBM.
> Proponents of photobiomodulation will often cite that we understand how it affects the body at a molecular level, but these kinds of mechanisms are easy to hypothesize and they do not imply that the technology is actually curing anything
Also true for all medical research.
There is no actual examination / critique of any evidence, just a meta critique about the unreliability of young science with questionable hype to evidence ratio. Which is well deserved, but very redundant.
This kind of article is very easy to write, and can be copy pasted for any emerging area of research: be skeptical, wait for oodles of double blind RCTs, don't give money to hype artists.