Does Low-Level Laser Therapy Work for ADHD? A Warning about Photobiomodulation.

Dr. Russell Barkley, a well-known and respected ADHD expert, offers a detailed critique of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT), also known as photobiomodulation (PBM), as a treatment for ADHD in his latest video. His commentary sheds light on the lack of scientific evidence behind the claims made by proponents of this therapy, many of whom are chiropractors or functional neurologists. In his analysis, Barkley emphasizes the need for rigorous scientific trials and warns against the premature promotion of LLLT as an effective treatment for ADHD. He highlights several concerns, specifically the unsubstantiated claims made by advocates and the therapy’s limited scientific backing.

Overview of LLLT for ADHD

Low-Level Laser Therapy involves the use of laser or light energy to penetrate the skin and purportedly stimulate brain cells or tissues. According to its proponents, including Dr. Josh Matson, a chiropractor who practices functional neurology, LLLT can penetrate the skull and activate critical areas of the brain associated with neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD. They claim that this non-invasive therapy can improve brain function with minimal to no side effects.

Barkley begins his critique by referring to a video from Dr. Matson, who explains that photobiomodulation works by using light to alter biological processes in the body. According to Matson, the therapy has been around for decades and is supported by substantial research. He also argues that the therapy has been proven effective for various conditions, including ADHD and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and presents it as a revolutionary new treatment for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Barkley's Refutation

Dr. Barkley directly challenges the claims made by proponents of LLLT. First, he corrects Matson’s assertion that the therapy has been used for over 70 years, noting that it was actually discovered by accident in 1967 by a Hungarian physician who was researching light's effects on damaged cells. Barkley emphasizes that while LLLT may have potential applications in some areas, such as wound healing or certain skin conditions, the evidence for its efficacy in treating ADHD is almost nonexistent.

Lack of Scientific Support

Barkley is particularly critical of Matson’s claim that LLLT has more research supporting it than any other therapeutic strategy. He calls this assertion "nonsense" and points out that evidence-based treatments for ADHD, such as medication and behavioral therapies, have far more robust scientific backing. He stresses that ADHD has well-established treatments based on decades of controlled clinical trials, whereas LLLT lacks similar rigor in its research.

To underscore his point, Barkley shares the results of his own literature review, conducted using Google Scholar. He notes that there is very little research on LLLT for ADHD, and what exists is of poor quality. Specifically, Barkley highlights a study published in the World Journal of Neuroscience titled “The Efficacy of Photobiomodulation for ADHD: Case Studies,” which he dismisses as anecdotal. The study involves only eight cases, with no randomized controls, placebos, or blinding to ensure the validity of the results. Barkley argues that this type of research is merely a collection of personal testimonials, not rigorous scientific evidence.

Functional Medicine and Pseudoscience

Another significant concern raised by Barkley is the field of functional neurology, within which LLLT is commonly promoted. Barkley explains that functional neurology is a subfield of functional medicine, which is often criticized for being rooted in pseudoscience. He refers to a Wikipedia entry on functional medicine that describes it as a form of alternative medicine encompassing various unproven or disproven methods. Barkley points out that alternative medicine is essentially synonymous with treatments that lack a solid scientific basis, as legitimate treatments would fall under the umbrella of evidence-based medicine.

He further notes that in the U.S., functional medicine practices have been ruled ineligible for course credits by the American Academy of Family Physicians due to concerns about their potential to cause harm. Barkley implies that LLLT, as promoted by functional neurologists, falls into this category of unproven and potentially misleading treatments. He labels it "snake oil" and warns that such therapies should not be taken seriously without proper scientific validation.

The Business of LLLT

Barkley also highlights the commercial interests involved in the promotion of LLLT. He reveals that Dr. Matson’s clinic, Infinity Functional Neurology, not only offers LLLT as a treatment for ADHD but also sells the lasers used in the therapy. This, according to Barkley, raises questions about the objectivity of the claims made by Matson and others who stand to profit from the sale of the equipment.

The Need for Rigorous Research

Barkley stresses that the effectiveness of any new therapy should be proven through scientifically sound research, particularly randomized, placebo-controlled trials. These trials should include sham treatments—where patients are led to believe they are receiving the treatment but are not—to control for placebo effects. Additionally, researchers should use objective measures to assess whether the therapy truly improves ADHD symptoms, rather than relying on subjective reports from patients or clinicians.

Barkley concludes his analysis by reiterating that, as of now, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support the use of LLLT for ADHD. He urges the ADHD community to remain skeptical of such unproven treatments until they are validated through proper research. Until then, he argues, LLLT should be considered an unproven and potentially ineffective therapy for ADHD.

Final Thoughts

In summary, Dr. Russell Barkley’s critique of Low-Level Laser Therapy for ADHD highlights significant concerns regarding the lack of scientific evidence supporting its use. While LLLT is being promoted by some practitioners, particularly in the field of functional neurology, Barkley argues that the therapy has no credible scientific backing for treating ADHD. He dismisses the current research as anecdotal and calls for more rigorous studies before LLLT can be considered a legitimate treatment. In the meantime, he warns that LLLT appears to be more of a commercial venture than a scientifically validated therapy for ADHD.

Barkley’s overall message is one of caution: until randomized, controlled trials are conducted and prove the efficacy of LLLT for ADHD, the therapy should be regarded as an unproven treatment with little to no basis in scientific fact.