As I see it, we can make a device easily. The problem for me is, I can make a device but I have no way to qualify or quantify if it's working. I don't have Parkinson's or Alzheimer's issues, but I have a medical and an electronics background. What I don't have is a parent or relative who has a neurologic issues. I certainly can't make it and then give it away since it would make me legally liable. You see what a mess this would be. Others don't have the electronics background, but have health issues.

I have been trying to figure out a way of testing it's efficacy on a normal subject. Clearly I don't have access to a MRI or better yet a PET scan, which would tell me something about brain activity. I could test myself on a random memory function test administered on a computer. Let's say it's something simple like guess where the matching card is placed. The more you test your ability, the better you tend to do on the test, since part of measurement is the learning of visual clues and simple practice. So simply improving your scores, unless dramatic, would not prove anything. Then clearly we would need to have many many subjects reporting their findings, but how would we know that they all were truthful, had the same test, had the same length of exposure, intensity of light, same wavelength, etc.

From the patent, and from articles to date, it sounds like they dissected mice brains and saw new neuronal growth. In the last posted video article, he states that he saw a slight improvement in his father or father-in-law based on a cognitive score (only two points). What would be more telling would be to see what parts of the brain lights up showing glucose utilization on a PET scan, and therefore see if there is more brain activity. Coupled with that we need to see a battery of memory tests showing an increased amount of scoring across short and long term memory, cognitive function, reasoning, etc.

The small increase would be significant if the patient was really advanced in their Alzheimer's disease. I would hope that catching it earlier would have a much higher score change. Realize that while it is miraculous to see any new growth or improvement in memory, it's not simply going to make the disease go away. In Alzheimer's their are a series of neurofibullary tangles created (damaged areas) that still would be there. The only difference is that there is some repair in some areas. What is interesting in the "nun study", is that in many cases, the nuns while scoring significantly better, had just as many neurofibulary tangles as some patients who performed poorly. No one knows for sure what this means.

I also quoted the heal spur website, even that manufacturer discounts the efficacy of using the LEDs for neuro therapy. The cheaper heal spur devices would act as a good base model to modify by simply substituting the 1072 nm LEDs for the ones supplied by the manufacturer. That way the circuit board would have an existing power supply wired in.

The water experiment sounds very cheap and doable, but unless we figure out a way to measure the wavelength(s) of light produced, we have no idea if anything will result from it. Clearly from the helmet patent, only two peaks of infrared light had any effect, benefit, and penetration into the skull.

Now we have to switch gears to Parkinson's. When I watched the short video clip, he said something about non-placement of the LEDs in the occipital region(back of the head). He stated that the skull is relatively thin in the parietal (top sides), frontal (front) and temporal (temple) regions. He wasn't concerned with LED placement in the occipital regions since these areas are for visual and motor use. Obviously for Parkinson's disease, we DO want to illuminate these areas since the main brain damaged areas that are important for dopamine are located in the brain stem, which is located in the aproximate area of the occipital area.