MKUltra (pronouced M-K-ultra) was a covert Central Intelligence Agency research program carried out between 1953 and 1973 to investigate mind control. It used techniques such as high doses of the psychedelic drug LSD, hypnosis, sensory isolation, and electroshock therapy to influence a subject’s brain, and in particular to obtain secrets from unwilling people. This program is notorious for torturing studying subjects without their consent, which is considered a grave sin in research today.
One subproject of MKUltra (#119) was to use very low frequencyelectromagnetic fields to influence the brain. This project comes disturbingly close to techniques I’ve worked on over the years, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. It got me to wondering: is mind control using electromagnetic fields possible?
I guess I have thought about this before, because in the August 14, 2015 post in this blog I suggested that the “psychic probe” described in Isaac Asimov’s famous Foundation Trilogy might be made by combining transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), which are both described in Chapter 8 of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. In that post I wrote “a combo TMS/MEG unit could therefore both detect and alter brain function.” Of course, I was writing tongue-in-cheek, joking about how a science fiction device might have worked within the constraints of real science. On the other hand, perhaps I was actually an MKUltra agent sending a secret message to my underground accomplices?
That last sentence mocks the recent conspiracy theories surrounding MKUltra. Last week the House Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets held a hearing about the research program. It didn’t focus on the historical record (which is sparse because most of the MKUltra documents were destroyed) but instead went off on weird tangents, talking about things like mind control related to the assassination of President Kennedy. The purpose of this hearing seemed to be aimed primarily at blaming science in general for past errors. Some issues that were brought up, like MKUltra itself, were serious mistakes that should be, and have been, investigated. Others, like bogus lab leak theories related to the origin of Covid, were just crazy talk with no scientific justification. One researcher, Elizabeth Ginexi, a respected former program official at the National Institutes of Health, was invited by the Democrats to talk about the horrendous anti-science policies currently imposed on NIH by anti-vax zealot Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Ginexi (a hero in my view) tried to discuss these vital issues, but was constantly cut off by Republican members of the committee who were focused on the bizarre and engaged in an attempt to demonize scientists and public health workers.
But back to my question: could electromagnetic fields be used for brain control? Well, transcranial magnetic stimulation is currently used to treat depression, so you can’t rule out the possibility. However, the technique is very nonspecific. I spent seven years at NIH trying to improve the focality and spatial resolution of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Generating a localized stimulus is extraordinarily difficult, especially for activating deep brain structures. You can use transcranial magnetic stimulation to make individual fingers move, but only because the hand has a widespread representation in the motor cortex. The idea that transcranial magnetic stimulation could control individual thoughts or suggest specific actions seems like science fiction to me. Other techniques that have been suggested as potentially useful for mind control are brain-computer interfaces and deep brain stimulation. Both of these have important medical uses. For example, deep brain stimulation can help reduce or control tremors caused by Parkinson’s disease. Perhaps these techniques could potentially be used for controlling behavior, but they are highly invasive (requiring surgery to implant electrodes in the brain).
Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?
What about techniques growing out of subproject 119? That work was led by W. Ross Adey and Mary (“Mollie”) Brazier, two leading scientists studying how electromagnetic fields interact with, and are produced by, the brain. I mentioned Adey in my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?. He claimed to find “window” effects, for which one particular applied field strength resulted in an observable effect, but stronger or weaker fields did not. Similarly, he found that certain frequencies had marked responses (“resonances”) but both higher and lower frequencies did not. These window effects are not very reproducible and are not widely accepted today. Generally, resonant effects are claimed at very low frequencies (say, 20 Hz). Ultimately subproject 119 ended in failure because no mind control methods were found. Some say that a modern offshoot of this research is microwave weapons responsible for the Havana syndrome. Again, in Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? I discuss why electromagnetic fields are almost certainly not responsible for the Havana syndrome. My opinion is that this is another anti-science conspiracy theory.
The final question I address is: could something like MKUltra happen today? The ethics rules governing research are far more stringent now than several decades ago. About 15 years ago, I served for one year in an interim role as Oakland University’s Vice Provost for Research, which is the chief research officer at the institution. Among other things, I was in charge of overseeing research misconduct issues at OU. Any human subjects research had to go through our Institutional Review Board. If a faculty member merely wanted to give a simple survey to students, that survey had to be assessed by this board and a detailed consent form was required. Any potentially dangerous human studies were monitored particularly closely, and informed consent was essential. It’s the same at all academic institutions. MKUltra would be virtually impossible in today’s academic research environment. Could it happen in the CIA or another research center associated with the military? I don’t know. Perhaps. But the CIA and other intelligence agencies can’t compete with academia and scientific institutions like the NIH and NSF when it comes to scientific advances. (Take, for example, the recent brouhaha over the military’s claims about “ghost murmur” which are almost certainly bogus.) I don’t believe MKUltra or anything related to it is going on today, especially involving electromagnetic fields to control the brain. I believe that such a suggestion is a conspiracy theory, advanced to discredit scientists and scientific institutions. It’s part of the Republican War on Science. Please, don’t believe the anti-science crackpots. At the very least, insist that they support their claims with evidence. They rarely can.
Angela Rasmussen and Liz Ginexi discuss MKUltra and What Really Happened in the Wuhan Lab
I’m old enough to remember the bicentennial. In 1976 the USA reached the age of 200. I was 15 years old, about to start my junior year in high school, and living in Ashland, Ohio. I recall the bicentennial being a much bigger event than what we are experiencing this year. Perhaps I was simply younger and more easily impressed. Or, perhaps, Chuck Todd’s explanation is correct; I’ve always liked Chuck. Or, perhaps, the problem is that semiquincentennial is so @#%& hard to pronounce!
What was the status of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology back in the summer of 1976? Russ Hobbie, then the sole author, was 43 years old. Just three years before he finished auditing all the courses medical students take in the first two years at the University of Minnesota and must have been hard at work on the first edition of IPMB, published two years later, in 1978, the year I graduated from high school. I didn’t become aware of the book until I reached graduate school at Vanderbilt University. I probably saw it first in 1982 or 1983.
Move forward 50 years and the 6th edition of IPMB should appear (assuming all goes well) just a couple months after the semiquincentennial celebration. Russ Hobbie passed away in 2021, but Gene Surdutovich will join as an author of this new edition.
I expect that during the tricentennial celebration in 2076 people will look back at 2026 as a dark and dangerous time for science, when anti-science forces came to dominate the federal government, promoting vaccine hesitancy, climate change denial, and other nonsense. I hope that by 2076 this era will have passed, and science will have become respectable again, but I’m not certain that will be the case. Will IPMB still be read and used in college courses? Who knows? I’ll be gone by then, and most likely Gene will too. But perhaps new coauthors will come along, and the tricentennial will coincide with the 11th edition of Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology!
For you scientists and science-lovers celebrating the 4th of July, I recommend a series of events sponsored by the American Philosophical Society about science during the founding of the United States, called America’s Scientific Revolutionaries. I particularly like the lecture in the video below, about Benjamin Rush—an American Founding Father who was also a medical doctor—and his role in early American medicine. The video is also about the war on vaccines today, and features vaccine scientist Paul Offit. It’s an interesting analysis of how much progress medicine has been made in the last 250 years, how much ground we have lost recently, and the work ahead of us during the next half century.
Communicating Disease: Assessing Benjamin Rush's Public Health Legacies at America's 250th.
For the last six months, I’ve been the Michigan Representative of the volunteer group Grandparents For Vaccines. Our group’s mission is to ensure America’s grandchildren have their best start in life without the threat of vaccine-preventable diseases. We do this by sharing the stories of people who have lived during the time before vaccines were common.
There’s a link between being a coauthor of the textbook Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology and volunteering for Grandparents For Vaccines. In IPMB, Russ Hobbie and I discuss the misconceptions associated with electromagnetic fields, such as the debunked claims that 60-Hz powerline fields cause leukemia and radiofrequency fields emitted by cell phones cause brain cancer. I explored these topics further in my popular science book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? A tremendous amount of misinformation and many conspiracy theories are associated with these issues. After the rise of the Make America Healthy Again movement, I noticed similar misinformation and conspiracy theories associated with the opposition to vaccines. Naturally I was attracted to groups advocating for vaccines, especially vaccines for children. In addition, last August I became a first-time grandfather. So Grandparents For Vaccines seemed like a perfect fit for me.
Want to learn more about Grandparents For Vaccines? This week I had an essay published by Your Neighborhood Scientist. This nonprofit organization works to make science accessible, understandable, and human-centered. It strives to explain why science is important to communities and why we should support science. Boy, do we need more of that. I thank the founder and executive director of Your Neighborhood Scientist, Audrey Drotos, for publishing my essay and am grateful to the two editors who helped me write it: Trinity Pirrone and Kate Giffin. You can read the essay here.
In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.
I believe this holds true for the role of science in America today. We cannot defeat the forces of antiscience by legislation or lawsuits. Our only hope is to convince the public of the value of science.
The main thing Grandparents For Vaccines does is collect videos of people (mostly, but not exclusively, grandparents) telling stories about their experiences with vaccine-preventable illnesses. If you want to hear some of these inspiring stories, you can find them on the Grandparents For Vaccines YouTube channel. I link to several of these stories below, and others can be found in my Your Neighborhood Scientist essay. If you have such a story of your own, please consider sharing it with us.
Christine from North Carolina talks about getting the polio vaccine as a child.
Teri from Oregon tells her story about vaccines. The irrepressible Teri Mills, a retired nurse, recruited and trained me as the Michigan Rep for Grandparents For Vaccines.
DeeDee from Colorado is another nurse who understands the importance of vaccines.
Renowned vaccine scientist Paul Offit describes a polio unit in the 1950s.
Arthur Lavin is the founder of Grandparents For Vaccines.
This is the worst of this bunch of videos, recorded by an odd guy with poor public speaking skills. I include it to show that even if your story isn’t the most inspiring or articulate one, it’s still worth telling.
This story isn't worth a whole post, but the claim of "ghost murmur" technology used to save an American pilot in Iran was obviously made by someone who had not studied Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology.
Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, being a textbook, talks a lot about scientific theories, models, and facts, but not much about why we believe these are true. Every once in a while, it’s useful to step back and ask how we know what we know. This is becoming even more important as anti-science forces in our society become louder and more powerful.
Today, I am going to present a video that helps answer the question “Why should we trust science?” It features Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, who was awarded the 2025 Volvo Environment Prize “for her groundbreaking research on scientific consensus, climate change, and the often-turbulent journey toward truth in science.” My favorite quote from the video is “if anything is proven, climate science is proven.”
Some of [Isaac Goiz] Duran’s ideas harken back to the bizarre notions of Albert Roy Davis
and Walter Rawls, who believed that the north and south poles of magnets have
dramatically different biological effects, even though the only difference between
the poles is the direction of the field. For instance, they write that “when magnetic
energy of the negative N [north] pole is applied to [a] cancer site, a remarkable
reduction in the condition and also a marked arrest in further development of the
cancer condition takes place… [whereas] when the S [south] pole of a magnet, this
being the positive energy of a magnet, is applied to cancers they become more
advanced and then develop, grow and spread at an accelerated rate.” Their
ideas are not limited to explaining how magnetic fields interact with biological tissue,
but require a complete revision of the electromagnetic theory expressed in
Maxwell’s equations, which have formed the theoretical foundation for our understanding
of electricity and magnetism for over 150 years, and are responsible for
much of our modern technology. Indeed, Davis and Rawls immodestly
declare that their readers “must be willing to leave behind them the outmoded,
incorrect theories and concepts of magnetism [as formulated in Maxwell’s equations]”
and insist that their view “offers a totally different picture than is now used
in present textbooks and is used as law and theory in all related research.”
To give you a flavor of Davis and Rawls views, I obtained interlibrary loan a copy of their book Magnetism and its Effects on the Living System. The picture below (their page 22) show the traditional view of the magnetic field produced by the earth on the left (Davis and Rawls call it “the old”), and their revised view on the right (“the new”). The magnetic field near the equator is completely different in the two cases; in the traditional view the field is parallel to the earth’s surface, while in the revised view it is perpendicular to the surface. Davis and Rawls should have consulted the work of Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), who was one of the first to measure the dip angle of the earth’s magnetic field and map the magnetic equator. “The old” view is the correct view.
Page 22 of Magnetism and its Effects on the Living System, showing two hypotheses for the magnetic field of the earth.
In case you think that this is an unimportant detail that does not represent Davis and Rawls general theory, take a look at the picture they selected for their title page.
Title page of Magnetism and its Effects on the Living System.
Davis and Rawls also believe that magnets can be used for pain relief. They write
The effects of applying N [north] pole magnetic energy to the nerves act to lower their sensitivity. This lowering of sensitivity allows us a certain control of a pain condition. When we transmit S [south] pole energies to the nerves they respond with a greater sensitivity to pain.
Yet, using magnets for pain has been proven to be ineffective. In my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill? I cite several clinical studies finding no effect. Magnetic fields do not provide pain relief, regardless of the polarity you use.
In addition, the authors claim that magnets can affect your brain.
In research experiments with small and advanced animals and man, in the case of willing subjects, we have found that the magnet’s NORTH POLE ONLY, when applied to the brain, can and will upgrade the senses of perception.
Again, no such effects have been found. Having an MRI does not influence how your brain works, regardless of if you lie in the bed feet-first or head-first.
Why do I harp on people like Becker, Firstenberg, Davis, and Rawls? Am I beating a dead horse? After all, none of these authors are around now to defend themselves, and their views have been rejected by modern science. Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The main reason I bring them up is that people still cite these researchers and their books to advance their voodoo science ideas of how electric and magnetic fields influence the body. These views are both wrong and, at times, dangerous. They are not harmless eccentricities.
To be fair, I’ll give Davis and Rawls the final word: below I quote the last sentence of their book. Let me note that the book was written in 1974, over fifty years ago, and their hypotheses are all but forgotten, except by a few quacks.
Therefore, we hope this book will challenge the youth and the physicists of today, the scientific community as exploring scientists, to explore this new and exciting scientific probe, with a new outlook and new approach for a better world, the world of tomorrow.
Listen to Walter Rawls describe his view of how magnetic fields affect the body. I disagree with what Rawls says, but you can watch the video and decide for yourself.
In Science Under Siege we seek to provide a succinct yet detailed delineation of the five forces behind the modern-day antiscience movement (the five p’s, as we call them—the plutocrats, the petrostates, the pros, the propagandists, and our press). We draw upon our respective experiences on two different fronts of the war on science to identify and delineate the drivers and their financial backers. We provide a road map for dismantling the antiscience machine, through stories that at times are quite personal but speak to challenges and threats that are broad and sweeping. This book is a warning. But it is also a call to arms. While there is urgency—unlike any we’ve ever known—there is still agency. We can still avert disaster if we can understand the nature of the mounting antiscience threat and formulate a strategy to counter it.
In their first chapter they write
We find ourselves facing not just a one-two punch of pandemics and the climate crisis, but a one-two-three punch, with that third punch, antiscience, obstructing the needed response from governments and civil society. The future of humankind and the health of our planet now depend on surmounting the dark forces of antiscience.
My favorite chapter was their last one, titled “The Path Forward.” They present a Venn diagram for winning the war against antiscience.
About it they write
One circle describes ways to expand the visibility of scientists, while providing the tools for scientists to better engage with the public. Another characterizes efforts to protect scientists. And the remaining circle emphasizes the battle against the intensifying flow of antiscience disinformation. We propose a framework for accomplishing this tripartite mission.
I’m going to adopt this Venn diagram as a guide for my future posts. 1) I will continue to communicate constructively about Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology, but in addition I’ll stress how important science is in our society and oppose the forces of antiscience. I also will try to fulfill this role in my “Bob Park’s What’s New” series that I also publish weekly here. 2) I will search out and attempt to debunk and defeat disinformation. I’ve been trying to do this all along, but this goal is more urgent now. 3) I’ll support scientists. I can’t do much to support them financially or materially, but in this blog I can take on the role of cheerleader-in-chief and provide moral support, especially to those who are attacked by the forces of antiscience.
Mann and Hotez adopt a strident and pugnacious tone in Science Under Siege. Is it justified? It is. I truly believe that there is a Republican War on Science. I believe the forces of antiscience are currently winning this war. And I am certain we must oppose antiscience with all our resources. Particularly as a retired scientist, I have an obligation to fight antiscience for the sake of the next generation of scientists. And as a new grandfather, I must oppose antiscience for the sake of my grandson and all the others of his generation.
Science is humanity’s best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected. What is now happening to virology is a stark demonstration of what is happening to all of science. It will come to affect every aspect of science in a negative and possibly dangerous way, as has already happened with climate science. It is the responsibility of scientists, research institutions, and scientific organizations to push back against the anti-virology attacks, because what we are seeing now may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Book Talk: Michael E. Mann and Peter J. Hotez — Science Under Siege
Last November, right after the Presidential election, I wrote a blog post about trusted information on public health. In that post, I featured the science communication efforts by Katelyn Jetelina (Your Local Epidemiologist) and Andrea Love (Immunologic). I didn’t realize at the time just how much I would come to rely on these two science advocates for trustworthy information, especially related to vaccines.
Today, I recommend several more science communicators. The first is Skeptical Science. That website focuses primarily on climate science. The current Republican administration has denied and mocked the very idea of climate change, describing it as a “hoax.” Skeptical Science has a simple mission: “debunk climate misinformation.” This is extraordinarily important, as climate change may be the most important issue of our time. Check out their website www.skepticalscience.com, and follow them on Facebook. I just signed up for their Cranky Uncle app on my phone. I learned about Skeptical Science from my Climate Reality mentor, John Forslin. For those more interested in doing rather than reading and listening, I recommend The Climate Reality Project (Al Gore’s group). Take their training. I did. Oh, and don’t forget Katharine Hayhoe’s website https://www.katharinehayhoe.com.
Want to know more about science funding, especially to the National Institutes of Health? Check out Unbreaking.
They’re documenting all the bad stuff happening to science these days.
I learned about Unbreaking from Liz Neeley's weekly newsletter Meeting the Moment. Liz is married to Ed Yong, who I have written about before.
My next recommendation is Angela Rasmussen, a virologist who publishes at the site Rasmussen Retorts on Substack. What I like about Rasmussen is that she tells it like it is, and doesn’t worry if her salty language offends anyone. I must confess, as I experience more and more of what I call the Republican War on Science, I get angrier and angrier. Rasmussen’s retorts reflect my rage. She writes “Oh, also, I swear sometimes. It’s not the most professional behavior but I believe in calling things what they are and sometimes nothing besides ‘asshole’ is accurate.” Give ’em hell, Angie! Here’s the concluding two paragraphs of her August 5 post:
There’s always a ton of talk about how public health and science have lost trust. A lot of people like to tell me that it’s our fault. Scientists didn’t show enough humility or acknowledge uncertainty during the COVID pandemic. We were wrong about masks or vaccines or variants or whatever. We didn’t communicate clearly. We overclaimed and underdelivered. I reject these arguments.
The public didn’t lose trust in science because experts are wrong sometimes, and are imperfect human beings who make mistakes. They lost trust because people like [Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.] constantly lied about science. He is constantly lying still. He’s eliminating experts so that he and his functionaries on ACIP [The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will be able to continue lying without any inconvenient pushback. We need to recognize this and push back hard.
What am I doing to push back hard? Regular readers of this blog may recall my post from this April in which I imagined what Bob Park’s newsletter What’s New would look like today. Well, I’ve made that a weekly thing. You can find them published on my Medium account (https://medium.com/@bradroth). I’ll link a few of the updates below.
You will also find these IPMB blog posts republished there, plus a few other rants. When I started writing my updated version of What’s New, I (ha, ha)… I thought (ha, ha, ha!)... I thought that I might run out of things to talk about. That hasn’t been a problem. But writing a weekly newsletter in addition to my weekly IPMB blog posts takes time, and it makes me appreciate all the more the heroic efforts of Katelyn, Andrea, Liz, and Angela. I hope they all know how much we appreciate their effort.
Is there anything else on the horizon? The book Science Under Siege, by Michael Mann and Peter Hotez, is out next month. As soon as I can get my hands on a copy and read it, I will post a review on this blog. In the meantime, I’ll keep my powder dry, waiting until RFK Jr starts in on microwave health effects (Y’all know it’s coming). Now that’s physics applied to medicine and biology, right up my alley!
“Don’t Choose Extinction.” This is one of John Forslin’s favorite videos. Enjoy!
My Treeing Walker Coonhound Harvest is getting older and having some trouble with arthritis. The vet says she’s showing signs of hip dysplasia, but it’s not too severe yet. I want to nip this problem in the bud, so we have started a treatment regime that includes oral supplements, pain medication, moderate exercise, weight control, and massage. We’re also trying photobiomodulation, sometimes called low-level laser therapy or cold laser therapy.
We bought a device called Lumasoothe 2 Light Therapy for Pets (lumasoothe.com). I use it in it’s IR Deep Treatment Mode, which shines three wavelengths of light—infrared (940 nm), red (650 nm) and green (520 nm)—from an array of light emitting diodes. I doubt the green light can penetrate to the hip, but red and especially infrared are not attenuated as much. In IPMB, Russ and I talk about how red light is highly scattered, and you can see that by noticing how the red spreads out to the sides of the applicator (kind of like when you hold a flashlight up to your mouth and your checks glow red). The light is delivered in pulses that come at a frequency of about 2.5 Hz (I used the metronome that sits atop my piano to estimate the frequency). I can’t imagine any advantage to pulsing the light, and suspect it’s done simply for the visual effect. I apply the light to Harvest’s hips, about 15 minutes each side.
Mechanisms and Applications of the Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Photobiomodulation.
Photobiomodulation (PBM) was discovered almost 50 years ago by Endre Mester in Hungary. For most of this time PBM was known as “low-level laser therapy” as ruby laser (694 nm) and HeNe lasers (633 nm) were the first devices used. Recently a consensus decision was taken to use the terminology “PBM” since the term “low-level” was very subjective, and it is now known that actual lasers are not required, as non-coherent light-emitting diodes (LEDs) work equally well. For much of this time the mechanism of action of PBM was unclear, but in recent years much progress has been made in elucidating chromophores and signaling pathways.
Any time you are talking about a therapy, the dose is crucial. According to a study by medcovet, the output of Lumasoothe is 0.225 J/cm² per minute (it’s advertised at 6.4). I don’t know which of these values to use, so I’ll just pick something in the middle: 1 J/cm². If we divide by 60 seconds, this converts to about 0.017 W/cm². The intensity of sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface is about 0.1 W/cm², so the device puts out less than the intensity of sunlight (at noon, at the equator, with no clouds). The advertised intensity would be similar to the intensity of sunlight. Of course, sunlight includes a wide band of frequencies, while the Lumasoothe emits just three.
There seems to be an optimum dose, as is often found in toxicology. Hamblin explains
The “biphasic dose response” describes a situation in which there is an optimum value of the “dose” of PBM most often defined by the energy density (J/cm²). It has been consistently found that when the dose of PBM is increased a maximum response is reached at some value, and if the dose in increased beyond that maximal value, the response diminishes, disappears and it is even possible that negative or inhibitory effects are produced at very high fluences.
Joules per square centimeter per minute may not be the best unit to assess heating effects of the Lumasoothe. Let’s assume that 0.017 W/cm² of light penetrates into the tissue about one centimeter (a guess). This means that the device dumps 0.017 watts into a cubic centimeter of tissue. That volume of tissue has a density of about that of water: 1 g/cm3. So the specific absorption rate should be about 0.017 W/g or 17 W/kg. That’s not negligible. A person’s metabolism generates only about 1.5 W/kg. Diathermy to heat tissues uses about 20 W/kg. I don’t think we can rule out some heating using this device. (However, I shined it on my forearm for about two minutes and didn’t feel any obvious warming.)
Hamblin believes there are non-thermal mechanisms involved.
Cytochrome c oxidase (CCO) is unit IV in the mitochondrialelectron transport chain. It transfers one electron (from each of four cytochrome c molecules), to a single oxygen molecule, producing two molecules of water. At the same time the four protons required, are translocated across the mitochondrial membrane, producing a proton gradient that the ATP synthase enzyme needs to synthesize ATP. CCO has two heme centers (a and a3) and two copper centers (CuA and CuB). Each of these metal centers can exist in an oxidized or a reduced state, and these have different absorption spectra, meaning CCO can absorb light well into the NIR [near infrared] region (up to 950 nm). Tiina Karu from Russia was the first to suggest that the action spectrum of PBM effects matched the absorption spectrum of CCO, and this observation was confirmed by Wong-Riley et al in Wisconsin. The assumption that CCO is a main target of PBM also explains the wide use of red/NIR wavelengths as these longer wavelengths have much better tissue penetration than say blue or green light which are better absorbed by hemoglobin. The most popular theory to explain exactly why photon absorption by CCO could led [sic] to increase of the enzyme activity, increased oxygen consumption, and increased ATP production is based on photodissociation of inhibitory nitric oxide (NO). Since NO is non-covalently bound to the heme and Cu centers and competitively blocks oxygen at a ratio of 1:10, a relatively low energy photon can kick out the NO and allow a lot of respiration to take place.
That’s a considerable amount of biochemistry, which I’m not an expert in. I’ll assume Hamblin knows a lot more about it than I do. I worry, however, when he writes “the assumption that…” and “the most popular theory…” It makes me wonder how well this mechanism is established. He goes on to suggest other mechanisms, such as the production of reactive oxygen species and a reduction in inflammation.
Hamblin concludes
The clinical applications of PBM have been increasing apace in recent years. The recent adoption of inexpensive large area LED arrays, that have replaced costly, small area laser beams with a risk of eye damage, has accelerated this increase in popularity. Advances in understanding of PBM mechanisms of action at a molecular and cellular level, have provided a scientific rationale for its use for multiple diseases. Many patients have become disillusioned with traditional pharmaceutical approaches to a range of chronic conditions, with their accompanying distressing side-effects and have turned to complementary and alternative medicine for more natural remedies. PBM has an almost complete lack of reported adverse effects, provided the parameters are understood at least at a basic level. The remarkable range of medical benefits provided by PBM, has led some to suggest that it may be “too good to be true”. However one of the most general benefits of PBM that has recently emerged, is its pronounced anti-inflammatory effects. While the exact cellular signaling pathways responsible for this anti-inflammatory action are not yet completely understood, it is becoming clear that both local and systemic mechanisms are operating. The local reduction of edema, and reductions in markers of oxidative stress and pro-inflammatory cytokines are well established. However there also appears to be a systemic effect whereby light delivered to the body, can positively benefit distant tissues and organs.
I have to admit that Hamblin makes a strong case. But there is another side to the question. Hamblin himself uses that worrisome phrase “complementary and alternative medicine.” I have to wonder about thermal effects. We know that temperature can influence healing (that’s why people often use a heating pad). If photobiomodulation causes even a little heating, this might explain some of its effect.
I’ve talked a lot in this blog about websites or groups that debunk alternative medicine. Stephen Barrett of quackwatch looked at Low Level Laser Therapy in 2018, and concluded that “At this writing, the bottom line appears to be that LLLT devices may bring about temporary relief of some types of pain, but there’s no reason to believe that they will influence the course of any ailment or are more effective than standard forms of heat delivery.”
Mark Crislip writing for Science Based Medicine in 2012 concluded “I suspect that time and careful studies on the efficacy of low level laser will have the same results as the last decade of acupuncture studies: there is no there there.” Jonathan Jarry wrote about “The Hype Around Photobiomodulation,” saying
“That is not to say that all of PBM’s applications are hogwash or that future research will never produce more effective applications of it. But given biomedical research’s modest success rate these days and the ease of coming up with a molecular pathway that fits our wishes, we’re going to need more than mice studies and a plausible mechanism of action to see photobiomodulation in a more favourable light. A healthy skepticism is needed here, especially when it comes to claims of red light improving dementia.”
So, what’s the bottom line? In my book Are Electromagnetic Fields Making Me Ill?, I divided different medical devices, procedures, and hypotheses into three categories: Firmly Established, Questionable, and Improbable (basically: yes, maybe, and no). I would put photobiomodulation therapy in the maybe category, along with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, bone healing using electromagnetic fields, and transcranial direct current stimulation. As a scientist, I’m skeptical about photobiomodulation therapy. But as dog lover, I’m using it every day to try and help Harvest’s hip dysplasia. This probably says more about how much I love Harvest than about my confidence in the technique. My advice is to not get your hopes up, and to follow your vet’s advice about traditional and better-established treatments. The good news: I don’t see much potential for side effects. Is it worth the money to purchase the device? My wife and I were willing to take a moderately expensive bet on a low probability outcome for Harvest’s sake. because she’s the goodest gurl.
Mechanisms & History of Photobiomodulation with Dr. Michael Hamblin
The title of this week’s post is ironic, because with all the events of the last few months I often suspect that the Age of Reason is coming to a close. The title comes from volume seven of Will and Ariel Durant’s The Story of Civilization. After I retired from Oakland University, I set about reading the entire eleven-volume series. The subtitle of The Age of Reason Begins is: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo, and Descartes: 1558–1648.
Today I want to focus on Francis Bacon, who is probably the central figure in the Durants’ book (his picture was their choice for gracing the book’s cover). They introduce him this way.
Francis Bacon, who was destined to have more influence on European thought than any other Elizabethan, had been born (1561) in the very aura of the court, at York House, official residence of the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, who was his father, Sir Nicholas; Elizabeth called the boy ‘the young Lord Keeper.’ His frail constitution drove him from sports to studies; his agile intellect grasped knowledge hungrily; soon his erudition was among the wonders of those ‘spacious times.’
Why bring up Bacon now? Well, the last few months have seen unprecedented attacks on science and scientists: Budget cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy, conspiracy theories, political requirements for government funding, the demonization of scientists such an Anthony Fauci, and more. It seems like something horrible happens every day. This makes me wonder: what is the key feature of science that must be preserved above all else? What one thing must we save? I can think of many possibilities. Science drives our economy and prosperity. Scientific discoveries have led to amazing advances in human health. Educating and providing opportunities for our young scientists is a critical investment in our future. Yet, as important as these things are, they aren’t the central issue. They aren’t what we must save lest all be lost. It’s this key element of science, its essence, that brings me to Francis Bacon.
Bacon was an early promoter of the scientific method. The Durants write
Bacon felt that the old Organon [of Aristotle] had kept science stagnant by its stress on theoretical thought rather than practical observation. His Novum Organum proposed a new organ and system of thought—the inductive study of nature itself through experience and experiment. Though this book too was left incomplete, it is, with all its imperfections, the most brilliant production in English philosophy, the first clear call for an Age of Reason.
Let me explain (and perhaps expand on) Bacon’s idea in my own words. How do we know what is true and what is not? By evidence. By experiment. By data. By comparing our ideas to what we can measure happening in the world. By accepting as true only those hypotheses that survive our best efforts to disprove them. By submitting our conclusions to rigorous peer review from our fellow scientists. Yet the current Republican administration seems to have its own ideas of what is true, regardless of the evidence. This is the very opposite of science. It is anti-science.
For example, the reality of climate change and humanity’s impact on global warming is backed by an enormous body of data. We have records of temperature, carbon dioxide concentration, and increasingly violent storms. We have sophisticated mathematical models with which we can conduct numerical experiments to predict what will happen in the future. The evidence is truly overwhelming. Yet, many—including President Trump—don’t care about the evidence. They claim climate change is a “hoax.” They don’t back these claims with facts. They don’t approach the topic as an inductive study based on experience and experiment. They believe things for their own reasons that have nothing to do with evidence or science.
Another example is vaccines. There are so many clinical studies showing that vaccines don’t cause autism. Again, the evidence is overwhelming. Yet people like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. believe just the opposite: that autism is caused by vaccines. They don’t support such claims by presenting new evidence. While they occasionally drag up discredited studies or cherry-pick data, they don’t systematically examine all the evidence and weigh both sides. They don’t try to falsify their hypotheses. They don’t subject their ideas to peer-review.
Still another example is the source of covid. The evidence is uncertain enough that we cannot say definitively how the covid pandemic arose. Yet, the data points strongly in one direction: Spillover from an animal to a human. Nevertheless, the government’s covid.gov website now claims that the “lab leak” hypothesis has been proven, and asserts that covid arose from sinister events in a lab in China. No, we don’t know that. While we can’t yet be certain, the evidence suggests that the cause was not a lab leak. Just because some politicians want the source of covid to be a lab leak doesn’t make it so.
I would love to be proved wrong, and shown that, say, climate change is actually not happening. That would truly be wonderful, and millions of lives would be saved. But you have to prove that using evidence. You can’t just declare it. My dad was born in Kansas City and he used to say “I’m from Missouri and you have to show me!” That’s the gist of what it means to be a scientist. You have to show me, not tell me. Convince me with the data.
So, what is the feature of science that is essential? What aspect, if we lose it, means we no longer have science at all. I would say the belief that evidence matters. That experiments are how we determine what is true and what is not. If we give that up, all is lost and we’re back to the age of faith. Not religious faith necessarily, but an age where truth is determined not by evidence but by what is consistent with your personal beliefs, your friends and family, your wishful thinking, your fears, or your politics. The supremacy of evidence is where we must focus our resistance. That must be our line in the sand that we will not cross. That must be the hill from which we defend against the onslaught of the Republican War on Science, so that the Age of Reason can resume.
Because he [Bacon] expressed the noblest passion of his age—for the betterment of life through the extension of knowledge—posterity raised to his memory a living monument of influence. Scientists were stirred and invigorated not by his method but by his spirit. How refreshing, after centuries of minds imprisoned in their roots or caught in webs of their own wistful weaving, to come upon a man who loved the sharp tang of fact, the vitalizing air of seeking and finding, the zest of casting lines of doubt into the deepest pools of ignorance, superstition, and fear!...
…[Bacon] repudiated the reliance upon traditions and authorities; he required rational and natural explanations instead of emotional presumptions, supernatural interventions, and popular mythology. He raised a banner for all the sciences, and drew to it the most eager minds of the succeeding centuries.
I am an emeritus professor of physics at Oakland University, and coauthor of the textbook Intermediate Physics for Medicine and Biology. The purpose of this blog is specifically to support and promote my textbook, and in general to illustrate applications of physics to medicine and biology.
