RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Sorry about that last one !I hate to keep beating you over the head Bencro....I've never said TLC is crappy. It's just not superior to many other devices and is not at all the revolutionary pain relief device you and your Dr. Google buddies boast about. Hence, sales will not be sky high because it's the same old same old as TLC 1000, just double the power. And please don't spew double the power means double the results BS. Look up the dose response papers to understand why. By definition, LLLT has to be under 500 mW per diode so anything under that is athermal and will give results. Wonder why the third L in LLLT has been changed from Laser to Light? Cause the source of the light isn't always critical to results. LEDs and broadband light can also be used for LLLT - not just lasers. Of course, lasers provide energy deeper to tissues to a maximum depth.
Red light barely penetrates the epidermis so is really only useful for superficial conditions and irradidating the blood contained in the suprefiical tissues.
BTW, I read all 3 of those papers and this statement does NOT appear in any of the papers. Your quote is from TLT and not the research:
Experimental data clearly supports the use of 660 nm and 905 nm laser light as the best choices
And my point which you just can't seem to comprehend, is that action spectra of CCO has several peaks, 904/5 is NOT one of them. According to Karu (please research her and learn a little), the range of peaks are: 620-680, 760-830 with well pronounced maxima at 620, 680, 760 and 820 nm. So what soes this mean? It means, light that is absorbed in these wavelengths will stimulate CCO optimally - thereby maximizing LLLT effects. Of course, 904/5nm will also stimulate CCO, but too a lesser degree. Why Bencro? Cause, photospectroscopy doesn't lie and the action spectra has been scientifcally researched and stated for all to see and understand.