Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ova Fertilization Through Laser Therapy

01/25/19

The article presented following this introduction describes a specialized application of BioFlex Laser Therapy. Moreover it represents an outstanding research project at an appropriate point in time. Whereas in some aspects it may be considered preliminary, the benefits it demonstrates in elevating the mobility and potency of sperm are significant and should facilitate the process of successful fertilization.

Many articles and factors relating to this topic are explored at a time when a simpler therapy than IVF should be applied in order to facilitate procreation for a population in which the rate of fertilization is declining.

This piece of research might lead to a follow up project exploring irradiation of the ova pre and post ovulation from the anterior lateral and posterior approach. I believe that this might add additional benefit and would be pleased to assist in the design of appropriate therapeutic parameters. Of significance, is the potential benefit that can be derived from the application of precise laser therapy in an area where currently no other specific treatment is available. On a final note, my congratulations to Dr. Heinrich van Wyk and Professor Stefan du Plessis at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, one of the oldest and most respected educational institutions in the world.

Fred Kahn, MD, FRCS(C)


The use of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to enhance human sperm parameters

crest

Heinrich van Wyk

BSc honours (med) medical physiology
Supervisor: Prof Stefan du Plessis
Co-supervisor: Miss Bongekile Skosana

Click Here To Read Article

Case Presentation: Utilizing Laser Therapy in the
Treatment of Rasmussen’s Encephalitis

01/10/19

Santiago, R.; Kahn, F.; Kim, S.; Oszarfati, J.

This patient had been diagnosed with Rasmussen’s Encephalitis and decided to independently pursue a course of Laser Therapy, making the decision to select this therapeutic approach prior to surgical intervention which had been advised.

The patient is a 23-year-old female who lives in France and has been diagnosed with Rasmussen’s Encephalitis, characterized by frequent grand mal seizures which she had been experiencing since November 2015. These seizures were poorly controlled by individual or a combination of medications in high dosages. Her condition became more severe in April 2017 when paralysis of the right side of the body developed accompanied by an increase in the severity of her seizures. This was accompanied by pain on the right side of the face and tongue, gradually extending to the right side of the body including both extremities.

A CT scan performed in January 2018 noted a hypodense area in the left parietal region consistent with Chronic Encephalitis. During this period, she began to experience focal seizures of the right lower extremity which was poorly responsive to medication. This prompted treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy over a 3-month period, which improved her condition minimally. Over time she developed decreased muscle tone and lack of coordination of the right side of her body which confined her to a wheelchair, and resulted in increased difficulty writing, eating and functioning on virtually every level. She also began to experience difficulty processing information and developed expressive aphasia. Prior to presenting at our clinic, she had been under the extended care of a Neurologist in France.

Treatment with Laser Therapy was initiated in May 2018 at the Meditech Clinic in Toronto. Therapy began with the application of both large surface arrays utilizing radiation at Red 660 nm and Infrared 840 nm, followed by the Red and Infrared Laser Probes at 660 nm and 830 nm, respectively. Therapy was applied to the cervicothoracic spine region targeting the brainstem, cerebellum and the cervical spine including the cord. Cranial coverage was included following a week of therapy to the cervico-spinal area.

The initial positive response from the patient included an increased range of motion of the right lower extremity, gradually permitting short walks independently. Of significance was the improved quality of her sleep which increased in duration and depth along with emotional stability. This improved her overall status significantly. Her seizures became less severe in frequency and duration and the protocols were adjusted as the various symptomatic improvements continued to improve. The tremors she had experienced in her right leg decreased in severity.

Following two weeks of therapy at the Meditech Clinic in Toronto, the patient noted continuing improvement in her overall well-being, particularly sleep duration and quality and improved range of motion of all affected areas, accompanied by an almost total lack of seizure activity. On that basis, she was provided with a portable unit to continue treatment in France. This followed careful training of the patient and her family who were provided with a variety of protocols to use at home in accordance with symptom changes.

The patient was advised to continue treatment on alternate days including the cervicothoracic spine and the cranium with instructions for change concomitant with her symptomatology. She was advised to communicate with the clinic in Toronto by email for ongoing guidance. She was also advised to continue treatment with IV immunoglobulin therapy and anticonvulsants as indicated by her Neurologist. The patient currently continues to respond to this multifaceted approach and at this time, the proposed cerebral hemispherectomy, which had been previously advised has been cancelled.

Rasmussen’s Encephalitis is a rare and chronic neurological disorder characterized by unilateral hemispheric inflammation of the cerebral cortex, seizures and progressive neurological and cognitive deterioration. At this time, cerebral hemispherectomy is generally offered to patients in this category, particularly those who respond poorly to conventional medication1. Decisions regarding surgical intervention and the appropriate time to institute such measures are challenging to healthcare providers, caregivers and, needless to say, patients, particularly in the absence of a severe neurological deficit and is questionable at best. Immunomodulatory therapy appears to slow rather than halt progression of the disease and does not change the eventual outcome.

Over the past two decades, Laser Therapy has been introduced as an innovative treatment for the modulation of neural activity in order to improve brain function. Treatment requires exposure of the cervical spine and the central nervous system to a low fluence of light using appropriate delivery methods. The safety and ability to customized protocols using Laser Therapy including variations in wavelength, fluence, power density, number and duration of treatments and the mode of application (continuous or pulsed) to the central nervous system have been investigated in many clinical studies. Several reports with regard to the effects of Laser Therapy demonstrate a significant effect on a wide range of CNS disorders2 including epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, neurodegenerative disorders, headaches, vertigo, mobility problems, multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular disorders along with impaired sleep patterns, CVA and transient ischemic episodes.

Although the response of this patient to Laser Therapy may primarily be attributed to its neuromodulatory and neuroprotective effects, the potent anti-inflammatory effect on tissue may have contributed significantly. A number of researchers have demonstrated an increase in adenosine-3’, 5’-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) following the administration of Laser Therapy. Although it is tempting to suppose that this increase in cAMP is a direct consequence of a rise in ATP following light therapy, clear-cut evidence for this supposition is still beyond the realm of proof. It has been reported that cAMP-elevating agents, i.e. prostaglandin E2, inhibit the synthesis of TNF and therefore downregulated the inflammatory process. Lima et al. investigated the signaling pathways responsible for the anti-inflammatory action of Laser Therapy (administered at 660 nm, 4.5 J cm−2) when applied to the lungs and airways. They found reduced TNF levels in the tissue treated, probably secondary to an increase in cAMP levels3. This would indicate that Laser Therapy may be a useful adjunct in the treatment of certain central nervous system disorders that are accompanied by a significant inflammatory component.

CONCLUSION:
This case of Rasmussen’s Chronic Encephalitis serves as an example of how Laser Therapy can be utilized in the neuromodulation of a serious brain disorder and demonstrates how Laser Therapy can potentially be a significant factor in the neuromodulation of both the central and peripheral nervous system where conventional therapies do not offer solutions. This is based on a significant improvement in this patient’s overall status and clearly illustrates the potentials of Laser Therapy in the treatment of these conditions. This is largely due to its neuromodulatory, neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects and supports ongoing research and application of this treatment for this and other neurological conditions. During a relatively brief course of treatment which is continuing, the majority of the patient’s symptoms were markedly reduced and functions at most levels have improved substantially. Currently as her treatment is effective, surgery need not be considered. Moreover, the patient and her family are pleased with the positive changes noted.

  1. Varadkar S, Bien C, Kruse C, Jensen F, Bauer F, Pardo C, Vincent A, Mathern G, Cross JH. Rasmussen’s encephalitis: clinical features, pathobiology, and treatment advances. Lancet Neurol. 2014 Feb; 13(2): 195–205.
  2. Salehpour F, Mahmoudi J, Kamari F, Sadigh-Eteghad S, Rasta SH, Hamblin M. Brain Photobiomodulation Therapy: a Narrative Review. Molecular Neurobiology https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-017-0852-4.
  3. Freitas LF, Hamblin M. Proposed Mechanisms of Photobiomodulation or Low-Level Light Therapy. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2016 May-Jun; 22(3): 7000417.

BioFlex Professional Systems

10/2/18

multiport

Laser Therapy is a highly effective, non-invasive technology – the treatment of choice for the resolution of many pathologies including arthritis, sports and soft tissue injuries, wound healing, etc. A series of patented devices utilizing Red and Infrared Superluminous and Laser Diodes in sequence initiates a cascade of beneficial physiological activities within the cell. The Diodes emit electronic particles called photons that stimulate the body’s natural healing processes by eliminating inflammation, initiating the regeneration of new cells and increasing the body’s production of endorphins – naturally produced substances (i.e. enzymes, hormones, etc.) which mitigate pain.

Systems are designed “by clinicians for clinicians” in order to relieve the dysfunction induced from the pathological entities encountered. The result – the restoration of normal structure and function of the cells.

Clinically, this results in the rapid and often complete alleviation of pain and other symptoms accompanied by the restoration of normal physical activities without the need for pharmaceuticals and frequently making surgical intervention unnecessary.

probes

Numerous design and safety features are integrated into the BioFlex Therapy Systems permitting the delivery of precise, consistent and reliable therapy.

Systems are readily integrated into the practice of physicians, chiropractors, physiotherapists and many other healthcare professionals. The symptoms accompanying pathologies, including pain, are mitigated and frequently completely resolved in the majority of conditions, some of which are listed below:

ARTHRITIC AND SPINAL PROBLEMS
Degenerative osteoarthritis.
Multilevel degenerative disc disease.
Spinal stenosis.
Sciatica.
Disc herniations.

Sports and Soft Tissue Injuries
Ligament, tendon and muscle tears/strains.
Knee injuries (meniscal and ACL tears).
Synovitis.
Fractures.
Contusions/Hematoma.

INFLAMMATORY CONDITIONS
Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Myofascitis.
Plantar Fasciitis.
IBS.
Tenosynovitis.

Repetitive Stress Injuries
Carpal tunnel syndrome.
Rotator Cuff Problems.
Epicondylitis (tennis elbow).
Stress fractures.

General Conditions
Temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
Lymphedema.
Fibromyalgia.
Gout, etc.

Conclusion: Administration of therapy is pain-free and in most instances is effective on a short term basis, but in all situations has a long-term cumulative effect accompanied by the restoration of tissue integrity. This results in pain-free activity levels and restores the quality of life.

A Passing Thought

09/7/17

Simple Solutions Are Best – the reason!

− not only because they are simple but logical. Generally, they have a scientific basis and are effective − and so it is with the treatment of pain. Conventional methods of managing pain consist of modulating symptoms, much like venting smoke from a burning fire. Usually, pharmaceuticals in varying doses are utilized to achieve this objective, which is only temporary at best and not devoid of adverse effects.

With the utilization of Laser Therapy, one treats the cause of the pain or the existing pathological condition. The logical sequence – the pain disappears, much as smoke will vanish when you put out the fire.

Many people simply defy logic and as scientific solutions evolve, it is sometimes absurd how simple the process can be. Subsequently, people will state, “Why didn’t I think of that?”. The fact is, they didn’t and therein lies the problem.

In our society, independent thought and creativity are stifled by an overwhelming number of factors including excessive regulations, the challenges of technology and expanding governments, not to mention a flawed educational system. All these matters will need to change if our civilization is to survive.

Final Comments Re: –Theralase Questionnaire

06/6/17

Enclosed in this communication are the responses offered by four knowledgeable and experienced clinicians for your review.

Ongoing efforts to denigrate a superior product by the infusion of false rhetoric brings to mind the growing trend of the dissemination of false information, something that is becoming a serious problem in our culture. This is reinforced by the age old dictum that the lie oft repeated may eventually become the truth.

On that note, a recent Time magazine cover questions “Is the Truth Dead?” Further confirmation of this state of affairs was well depicted in a recent episode of 60 Minutes, describing the extensive circulation of false information on the internet, social media and other channels of communication. This trend, similar to the questionnaire, threatens the integrity of our methods of communication and potentially our civilization. It was interesting to learn that individuals engaged in this type of activity fund other companies to post reinforcements on additional websites, specifically designed to perform this service. The perpetration of this type of activity has become a major enterprise, often designed to destroy a competitor or to gain competitive advantage.

In a recent editorial by Robin V. Sears in the Toronto Star, it is stated that Lenin, who allegedly said that an insistence on “telling the truth is merely a bourgeois prejudice” lauded the strategic value of lies. He was also purportedly the author of the timeless insult to naïve Soviet fellow travelers as “useful idiots”. Not surprisingly, Putin reveres Lenin openly.

Whereas all of these activities demonstrate various degrees of spreading information designed to mislead, seldom does a rebuttal occur. The result—a new form of white-collar crime is perpetrated without challenge, often anonymously, yet no one takes the time or trouble to rectify these matters. Governments and the judiciary, unless directly affected, do not seem to care and for small organizations, a response can be time consuming and costly.

Nevertheless, from our perspective, it is of the utmost importance that this type of activity must be opposed, particularly in the field of science and medical practice. In these areas, it is imperative that a rigorous standard of truth be maintained and vigorously defended.

At this time, I consider this matter closed and if any further clarification is required, address all inquiries to Richard Bramer, Director of Communications at Meditech International Inc.

Dr. Ben Yuen Writes:

Having reviewed Theralase’s questionnaire and the misleading answers, it is clear that the company has a minimal understanding of the effects of bio-photo therapy on tissues and internal organ systems.

The efficacy of light therapy depends on a number of factors including wavelength, frequency, duration, total tissue exposure, location of the pathology and the neuro-musculo-immuno relationship of the condition being treated.

Theralase’s claim of providing better tissue response with deeper penetration using a narrow laser beam has one overriding and major shortcoming; a narrow beam lacks the ability to produce an extensive photodynamic effect on tissues that are widely inflamed compared to the high level of efficacy consistently demonstrated by the BioFlex arrays.
How deeply the light penetrates is just one key factor of success. If it were, as Theralase indicates, then how do we explain the phenomenon of simple exposure to full spectrum light in reversing Seasonal Affective Disorder by stimulating the brain’s production of the neurochemicals responsible for a positive mood? This is just one example of many that explains the success of BioFlex Laser Therapy.

To not take into consideration the many pertinent factors, except penetration, demonstrates a marked deficiency in the understanding of the application of light/laser therapy.

Just as there are studies to state the effectiveness of 660 nM and 905 nM, there are even more studies to demonstrate the benefits of using 800 to 850 nM. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that 905 nM is superior. Moreover, according to a number of respected, independent authors, much of the 905 nM wavelength is absorbed by water in the tissues, where it has no healing effect. One must also take into consideration that with the application of bio-photo therapy, the genetic difference of each individual patient must be considered. Some patients require longer exposure while others do not.
BioFlex’s software driven programs allows not only for standardized applications but also for individual customization which is a major factor in obtaining maximum effect.

It should also be noted that the BioFlex software driven program consistently delivers precise dosages with respect to all of the therapeutic parameters reflected in the protocols. Theralase, on the other hand, has minimal ability to accomplish this highly specific requirement.

The BioFlex array is completely capable of treating multiple areas simultaneously and this is highlighted both in their software and Clinical User’s Manual. As a Laser Medicine practitioner treating a high volume of patients over the past 15 years, to the best of my knowledge no other manufactured device can deliver comparable therapeutic effects to the BioFlex products.

Sincerely,

Dr.Benjamin Yuen
165 Hammonds Plains Road
Bedford, Nova Scotia B4A 4C7
Tel: 902-835-6699 Fax: 902-835-7771

Len Rudnick Postulates:

THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH OR PERHAPS NOT QUITE THE TRUTH

In October 2016, Theralase sent a questionnaire (I am being kind in calling it that) to BioFlex practitioners. In my opinion, it was an act of desperation to use bribery to get a provider’s attention. Frankly, I was embarrassed for Theralase in reviewing this document.

In an effort to provide truth and transparency, I can state categorically that I have used BioFlex equipment exclusively for the last 20 years. Previously I had used the products of many other manufacturers (too many to name) and since switching to BioFlex, I confess that I do have a LOVE relationship with all aspects of the company’s principals and functions. This includes Dr. Kahn, Slava Kim and the entire staff including their service department, and yes, all equipment requires occasional servicing.

I have always been of the firm belief that the measure of a company and its product(s) is how you are treated after you have paid for the equipment. I would use BioFlex as a role model for this criteria in every respect.

Theralase mentions approximately 25 scientific articles showing that their laser diodes are superior to LED’s. I can show even more objective scientific peer-reviewed articles that state an opposite view. In fact BioFlex, at one of its international conferences, had a keynote speaker from Sweden whose book picks apart that and other peer-reviewed research. As always, those conferences were educational, timely and well-received by a community that required unadulterated information. Theralase asks what amount of time is necessary for treating while using BioFlex equipment. The correct answer is this depends on the pathological condition, its severity, the age of the patient, the pigmentation of their skin and the morphology of the cells. Theralase is incapable of considering any of those factors or adjusting for them. In healthcare, one size definitely does not fit all.

In addition, one should be aware that BioFlex has preset protocols for most diseases and has the ability to customize as required, taking into consideration the above mentioned criteria. Moreover, it is primarily a therapy that does not require constant attendance, freeing the practitioner to perform other duties while still providing Laser Therapy for those under treatment. The description of the BioFlex equipment using primarily LED’s and a single laser diode is consistent with Theralase’s policy of presenting anything but the truth. BioFlex in fact historically has made available three different single laser diodes and individual probes which incidentally can be modulated with regard to many parameters. They consist of the LDI 75, LDR 100 and the LDI 200 mW; each has its specific use. Again, one size does not fit all with BioFlex equipment or their patients. Before the probes were available, I simply used the LED-based treatment arrays with excellent results; better than most manufacturer’s equipment that utilized poorly engineered and manufactured laser diodes. In fact, clinically there is no difference when using LED’s compared to using just laser diodes. Utilizing the arrays and diodes in proper sequence is the most effective method of applying effective treatment and this is what separates BioFlex products from others, aside from their thorough understanding of cellular pathologies.

The truth about the basic science guiding application should be based on clinical outcomes rather than the size or power of the device. I know from personal professional experience as I was one of the first to use the Microlight, Omega, Q1000 Erchonia and other laser diode devices. I actually obtain superior results with more disease entities using BioFlex equipment. I can unequivocally state that BioFlex Systems are the devices of choice.

At the fourth annual International Laser Therapy Conference in Toronto, Canada, in 2006, one of the presenters was Dr. Chukukah Enwemeka. His bio stated among other things that he was the author at that time of 50 research papers, monographs and he had written many chapters in books on Laser Therapy. He has presented over 200 seminars, symposium workshops including 80 invited international presentations in 28 countries. Worldwide, Professor Enwemeka was then and still is one of the foremost authorities on lasers and light-based treatment technology. During a question and answer session after his initial presentation, I stated that it was my observation from experiencing clinical outcomes that patients had better results using red and infrared treatment arrays in sequence then combined wavelengths. His response was that it wasn’t just my observation and that there exists a preponderance of scientific evidence that multiple wavelengths delivered simultaneously interferes with the physiology of the healing process once they penetrate the dermis.

By the way, yes the BioFlex Professional System can treat two different areas simultaneously. I would be interested to know if Theralase has had a clinical research facility for more than 20 years and I would also like to know if they, at their research facilities, have collected patient treatment data on several hundred thousand patients. I would like to know further if they regularly update their equipment protocols based on the findings from that data, if it exists.
I know from long-standing personal experience that the answers to the above questions are absolutely yes on all accounts for Meditech and their BioFlex products. The principals at Theralase should take note that prevarication, disinformation and inappropriate criticism of the leading company in the Laser industry are not the keys to success.

Leonard Rudnick, DC
Laser Therapeutics
Tucson, Arizona

Dr Nathan Cheung States:

During the course of my educational process, I had some exposure to Laser Therapy devices manufactured by a variety of companies. None appeared to be overwhelming from a therapeutic perspective.

In early 2014, I enrolled in the Certification Course at Meditech and was fascinated by what I saw, heard and learned by attending the Meditech Rehabilitation Clinic for a number of weeks. Although I was initially a skeptic, I quickly learned that there was no deception involved and was thoroughly impressed by the assessment process and practice at the clinic and even more so by the treatments applied. As a result, I joined a Laser Therapy clinic and the results achieved continue to amaze me, along with the gratitude expressed by patients.

I was therefore astounded to receive the Theralase questionnaire in October 2016, along with a generous bonus of free Starbucks coffee. Immediately I sensed two problems; disinformation and deception, not appeased by the Starbucks products. In view of this, I wish to independently set the record straight for those who are not acquainted with either Theralase or the wonderful BioFlex System.

I interpret Theralase’s efforts to discredit Meditech as designed to boost their minimal sales and further confuse practitioners who do not fully understand the complex area of physics, cellular pathology, etc. Below you will see the real answers to the misleading questions posed by Theralase and their contrived answers.

Question 1
In certain circles the debate of utilizing superluminous diodes versus laser diodes remains controversial. The degree of coherence, between these two types of light, is continually being exploited to falsely claim that one is ultimately more effective than the other. In the treatment of biological tissue using LEDs, coherency is not lost but only reduced after dermal penetration; laser speckles are still formed in tissue (Hode et al, 2009). This clearly supports the use of superluminous diodes as being equally efficient in the treatment of cells. The singular difference, with laser diodes, is that the power output is generated in a confined area resulting in deeper penetration. However, the combination of LEDs in large treatment arrays and laser diodes in proper sequence allows for a wider range of varying penetration depth and absorption by cells.

The Bioflex Laser Therapy systems utilize both superluminous diode (LED) arrays and laser diodes from 660 to 840 nm wavelength. These systems are carefully engineered and require specific light-emitting diodes capable of delivering an accurate and reproducible photon stream with every treatment session. LEDs utilized are explicitly customized and only available in the Bioflex treatment arrays. In addition, Meditech has always believed in the co-operation between the patient and the clinician. This very important interaction allows for the development of individualized treatment protocols that are specific to each patient and each health issue. This innovative method of laser therapy permits us to consistently achieve a high level of relief in the majority of patients treated.

Hode T., Duncan D., Kirkpatrick S., Jenkins P. and Hode L. (2009) The importance of coherence in phototherapy. Proc. SPIE 7165, Mechanisms for Low-Light Therapy IV, 716507 (February 18, 2009); doi:10.1117/12.809563

Question 2
The Bioflex Laser Therapy systems use scientifically proven wavelengths to reduce inflammation, accelerate healing and stimulate the regeneration of cells. Studies have shown that optimal healing can only be achieved when laser therapy is applied specifically within the 613.5-683.7 nm range for red light and 812.5-846 nm range for infrared light (Karu and Kolyakov, 2005). In addition, a recent study has proven the depth penetration of light at 810 nm through muscle and skin and is greater than superpulsed light transmitted at 904 nm (Anders and Wu, 2016).

Karu T.I. and Kolyakov S.F. (2005) Exact action spectra for cellular responses relevant to phototherapy. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. 23(4), 355-361.

Anders J. and Wu X. (2016) Comparison of light penetration of continuous wave 810nm and superpulsed 904nm wavelength light in anesthetized rats. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery. Vol. 34, No, 9: 418-424

Question 3
Bioflex treatment protocols have been carefully developed over the past 25 years by incorporating research, scientific knowledge and clinical expertise. The duration of treatments are specific to the area and the injury and have been developed to allow for optimal photon saturation; shorter treatment times are unable to generate the same effect.

Question 4
The Meditech Duo System can treat two areas at the same time. By using multiple systems, up to four areas can be treated on any patient simultaneously.

Question 5
All Bioflex Laser Therapy Systems come with a standard 2-year warranty. In addition, Meditech offers clinical and technical support 7 days per week from experienced clinicians, laser therapists and engineers. Access to marketing resources are readily available on the website. Additionally, with the purchase of a Bioflex Laser Therapy System you will have the option of listing your clinic on the website as a certified Bioflex Laser Therapy provider.

Dr. Nathan Cheung

The Theralase questionnaire states that it wants to be fair. I think that anyone who has the capacity to read understands that is the last thing they want to be, even if they were able to comprehend such an approach.

BioFlex uses large surface LED arrays which deliver both red and infrared light in sequence. Subsequently as clinically indicated, two laser probes are provided, one red 100 mW followed by an infared laser probe 200 mW. These again may be used in sequence in order to provide optimal healing capability. All arrays and probes can be widely adjusted with regard to power settings, duty cycle and other modulations which are somewhat complex. Protocols are provided in standardized form for most disease entities and the customization mode permits a wide range of individualized protocols, in order to facilitate the desired outcome.

The LED’s utilized in all BioFlex Systems are manufactured to our specifications by a company that performs this exclusively for Meditech. Our diodes, both LED’s and the Laser variety, are comparatively expensive however, at Meditech no sacrifice is too great in the interest of quality and all treatments are designed to provide maximum benefit. Most manufacturers use inexpensive, off-the-shelf equipment, particularly Laser diodes that are vastly inferior in quality and output. Moreover, they are highly degradeable. I stress that these factors are of extreme importance.
BioFlex Systems use wavelengths including 660, 830 and 840 nM and these have been found to be most effective from the clinical perspective. An extensive number of basic research and scientific articles have been produced by individuals such as Dr. Tiina Karu, Dr. Mary Dyson, Dr. Chukuka Enwemeka and others with regard to these matters. These have been referenced previously, as you will recall, Dr. Tuner, in his article previously submitted, indicates that a 905 nM wavelength is of minimal value, as the majority of light is absorbed by water, a significant component of all tissues.
BioFlex Laser Therapy Systems can be configured to treat multiple areas simultaneously and current prototypes will improve that aspect of delivery. Using several systems, multiple body areas can be treated at the same time.
A small percentage of patients will improve with most treatments of brief duration, no matter what power settings are used. If they do get better, rest assured that it is solely the result of the organism’s natural healing propensities and should not be attributed to anything else.

No LED or laser diode can force cells to heal and the application of inappropriate wavelengths of whatever power for short periods of time is of minimal benefit to tissue healing. The Arndt-Schulz law confirms compilation of proper dosages.

A significant body of clinical research based on studies conducted on cells both in vivo and cell cultures indicate without equivocation that duration, wavelength and other modulations must be carefully selected for optimal cell recovery.

It should be noted that at Meditech, we continue to provide high percentage cure rates for spinal stenosis, non-healing wounds, etc. in the majority of cases treated. In addition, during 2016 we have treated over 500 patients suffering from cerebral concussion, both chronic and acute, with an unparalleled level of improvement/cure rate.
As with the four preceding questions, the final question is also false but only by 350%; better than the answers provided to the other four.

Meditech/BioFlex offers a standard two year warranty and makes available an extended warranty for five additional years.

In summation, all the questions posed are inappropriate, are posed in a deceitful manner, demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of Laser Therapy and have no relationship to scientific fact.

Undoubtedly they are designed to attempt to boost Theralase sales, which are minute compared to BioFlex Systems.

The latter are currently being utilized in over 60 countries worldwide and the company provides an educational program to over 1000 healthcare professionals annually through certification seminars, webinars, etc.

BioFlex Therapy Systems are designed by clinicians for clinicians in conjunction with engineers who are qualified in many disciplines.

Meditech officials welcome any further queries with regard to the questionnaire that you received last October and is prepared to forward independently sourced scientific literature to confirm the truth in all matters stated.

dr kahn signature 2015-01

Fred Kahn, MD,FRCS(C)

Obituary: Oliver Sacks – (July 9, 1933 – August 30, 2015)

05/24/16

Obituary: Oliver Sacks – (July 9, 1933 – August 30, 2015)

Norman Doidge, MD, recently wrote a 9000-word homage devoted to Oliver Sacks in the form of a eulogy. The article explains Sacks’s monumental achievement in restoring the individual patient to his rightful place as the primary focus of all health care services. In today’s climate to achieve this objective in a realistic way may however be problematic.

Dr. Doidge also explains how Sacks transformed himself into becoming one of the most empathetic physicians and medical writers of our time. It is distinctly a portrait of a man going beyond his own limitations.

It would appear that we can all learn from Oliver Sacks on how to live a full and rewarding life and even how to gracefully exit from that state.