I truly appreciate what you're saying, just would have appreciated it more if you had framed it differently. We're all here for the same goal, and I certainly don't want to make enemies. I know this is a sensitive topic for everyone, and I'm just trying to review evidence to support various therapies to help my father, and decide which to focus on.

I don't think that this therapy will be a cure-all, and I doubt it is regenerative in the sense that the dopaminergic cells that have been lost will most likely not come back. However, based on the preliminary research I have collected, Infrared therapy looks to be very promising.

A scam is something that is completely based in fantasy. I understand why you would believe the claims are too good to be true, but please take a moment to review the following literature:

The impact of near-infrared light on dopaminergic cell survival in a transgenic mouse model of parkinsonism
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06899313011840

Non-invasive infra-red therapy (1072 nm) reduces β-amyloid protein levels in the brain of an Alzheimer's disease mouse model, TASTPM.
http://stevekbaker.com/wp-content/up...ouse-model.pdf

Low-level light therapy of the eye and brain
http://www.collegeofsyntonicoptometr...-and-brain.pdf

Enhancement of cutaneous immune response to bacterial infection after low-level light therapy with 1072 nm infrared light: a preliminary study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21955546

Evaluation of the efficacy of low-level light therapy using 1072 nm infrared light for the treatment of herpes simplex labialis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23731454

Emotional responses and memory performance of middle-aged CD1 mice in a 3D maze: Effects of low infrared light
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...74742707001153

Probing the differential effects of infrared light sources IR1072 and IR880 on human lymphocytes: Evidence of selective cytoprotection by IR1072
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...11134405001077

Photobiomodulation with IR1072nm in the murine CNS: in vitro and in vivo studies
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?u...l.ethos.519104

"Long-term chronic in vivo IR1072 treatments in CD-1 mice, consisting of biweekly 6 minutes sessions spanning a 5 month period, increased expression of selective HSPs, notably HSP27 in cortical and hippocampal regions. Following chronic IR1072 treatment, a profound reduction of AMPA receptor binding sites in CD-1 mice, and reduced total A?1-42 expression and small amyloid plaque counts (in cortex and dentate gyrus) in TASTPM mice, was observed. Overall, this thesis reveals new mechanisms of photobiomodulation with IR1072 which involves restoring cellular homeostasis for optimal functional operation of a neuron."

Exploring the Effects of Non-Thermal Infrared Irradiation on an AlzheimerG
http://www.physoc.org/pi3k-like-prot...20Soc%2021PC34

Using Visible and Near-IR Light to Facilitate Photobiomodulation: A Review of Current Research
http://euroessays.org/wp-content/upl...4/EJAE-170.pdf

A randomised double-blind study comparing the effect of 1072-nm light against placebo for the treatment of herpes labialis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...B0E96B3.f02t03

Near infrared light mitigates cerebellar pathology in transgenic mouse models of dementia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...04394015001512

A review of the lit on intranasal LED from the owner of a company that sells intranasal devices, with citations:
http://beta.asoundstrategy.com/sitem...%20therapy.pdf

Not peer-reviewed, but interesting:
http://blog.mediclights.com/wp-conte...s-Abstract.pdf

As well as the following interesting hypothesis:

Did human hairlessness allow natural photobiomodulation 2 million years ago and enable photobiomodulation therapy today? This can explain the rapid expansion of our genus's brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703782

While I am aware that $15,000 is a lot of money, the LEDs that operate at 1072nm are very expensive, each running at around $400. For 20 LEDs, that would be $8000--just for the LED lights with no helmet. Not to mention the cost for time spent doing evaluations (pre & post QEEGs, a brainscan using EEG, run anywhere from $500-900), followups, troubleshooting, biofeedback mentoring, crunching data, administrative overhead, publishing, lecturing, etc. I really doubt Berman has anything to gain financially from this, since it would be more profitable to focus on his neurofeedback practice.

I am fully aware of how big a research commitment this is because I work in the field of neurofeedback, and I have seen Dr. Berman contribute to the biofeedback forums for several years now. The only person who would want to take on such a project is someone who is excited about publishing the results with their name attached to it. Dr. Berman has much more at stake than money; he is staking his professional career on this.

Hope this helped to shed light on the potential of this therapy, and I welcome any question/criticisms.

Sincerely,
Jonathan