We offer intravenous laser and photodynamic therapy. We also think the marketing around it, industry-wide, has run considerably ahead of the evidence. Both of those can be true, and a patient deciding whether to spend money on this deserves the second one said out loud.
The distinction almost every page blurs
There are two very different things being called laser therapy.
Surface photobiomodulation puts a light probe on your skin over the target tissue. This is what nearly every meta-analysis in the field studied. It’s non-invasive, and it has a good safety record.
Intravenous laser irradiation of blood (ILIB) places an optical fibre into a vein to irradiate circulating blood. This is a different intervention. It requires venous access. It carries risks that shining a light on your skin does not — infection, vein irritation, bleeding.
When a clinic cites meta-analyses of surface laser therapy on a page selling intravenous treatment, the evidence being shown to you is not evidence about the thing being sold.
Worth noting: the World Association for Photobiomodulation Therapy publishes detailed dosing tables for this field. They contain no dosing guidance for intravenous delivery at all. Every recommendation is for light applied through the skin at specific points.
What the intravenous evidence actually contains
We looked for sham-controlled randomized trials of intravenous laser therapy in orthopedic and autoimmune conditions. We did not find any.
What exists:
-
A 2022 study of 76 patients with musculoskeletal pain reporting improvement in pain and sleep — retrospective, with no control group, which its authors list first among their own limitations
-
A 2025 systematic review concluding intravenous laser has positive effects on musculoskeletal pain, sleep, pulmonary disease and long COVID cognitive impairment — while stating in the same abstract that the research has small sample sizes, lack of large-scale randomized controlled trials, and non-standardized dosage parameters. Its long COVID conclusion traces back to a six-patient uncontrolled study by the same authors.
-
In autoimmune disease: one uncontrolled cohort from 2001, and one single-patient case report. That case report used a Weber Medical device supplied free of charge by the manufacturer, and the patient was simultaneously on tocilizumab — a drug that alone plausibly explains the improvement.
An uncontrolled before-and-after series in a pain population over 30 treatment sessions cannot separate treatment effect from placebo, natural history, regression to the mean, or everything else the patient was doing. That’s not a criticism of the researchers. It’s what that study design can and cannot tell you.
The photosensitizer question
Photodynamic therapy adds a light-activated compound — methylene blue, riboflavin, curcumin. Three things are worth separating.
Established: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy works as an adjunct for localized, light-accessible infection — periodontal disease, infected root canals, corneal infection. That evidence is real.
Frequently misrepresented: methylene blue plus light is genuinely licensed for pathogen inactivation — of blood products in a bag, during processing, outside the body. That is a manufacturing process, not a patient treatment. Citing the licensure to imply the latter is misleading.
Not supported: the idea that systemic photodynamic therapy clears viral persistence or treats chronic fatigue. Those claims come from laboratory studies showing photosensitizers inactivate viruses in a dish. Photodynamic reactions need the compound, light and oxygen in the same place — and red light penetrates tissue by millimetres. You cannot illuminate a systemic viral reservoir.
This hypothesis has actually been tested in people. In 2001, hypericin — which had strong antiviral activity in vitro — was given systemically to patients with hepatitis C. No patient had a meaningful reduction in viral load, and phototoxicity was dose-limiting, affecting six of seven patients at the higher dose.
We could find no clinical trial of photodynamic therapy in ME/CFS, chronic fatigue or post-viral syndrome. Not weak trials. None.
Safety, specifically
If you’re offered intravenous methylene blue anywhere, ask two questions before consenting.
“Have you reconciled my full medication list?” Methylene blue is a potent MAO-A inhibitor. Combined with SSRIs, SNRIs, MAOIs or opioids it can cause serious or fatal serotonin syndrome — that language is from the FDA prescribing information. People with long COVID and chronic fatigue are disproportionately likely to be on exactly those medications.
“Have you screened me for G6PD deficiency?” It’s a contraindication, not a caution, because of hemolysis risk — and the hemolysis can be delayed by a day or more.
You should also be told about sun avoidance, that it will turn your urine blue-green, and that it interferes with pulse oximetry readings. Our own screening protocol is described on the service page.
Where that leaves us
We think this is a reasonable thing to investigate in selected patients who understand it’s investigational. We don’t think it’s reasonable to sell it as established. That’s why we’re documenting our cases systematically rather than adding another list of treatable conditions to the internet.
References
-
Chang CC, Li YH, Chen HH, Sun SF. Clinical applications and molecular mechanisms for intravenous laser blood irradiation: a systematic review. Lasers Med Sci. 2025;40(1):416. doi:10.1007/s10103-025-04668-5. PMID: 41065846
-
Fu CM, Wang NK, Cheng YY, Chang ST. The adjuvant therapy of intravenous laser irradiation of blood (ILIB) on pain and sleep disturbance of musculoskeletal disorders. J Pers Med. 2022;12(8):1333. doi:10.3390/jpm12081333
-
Timofeyev VT, Poryadin GV, Goloviznin MV. Laser irradiation as a potential pathogenetic method for immunocorrection in rheumatoid arthritis. Pathophysiology. 2001;8(1):35–40. PMID: 11476971
-
Chiran DA, Weber M, Ailioaie LM, et al. Intravenous laser blood irradiation and tocilizumab in a patient with juvenile arthritis. Case Rep Med. 2014;2014:923496. doi:10.1155/2014/923496. PMID: 24715926
-
Gholami L, Shahabi S, Jazaeri M, Hadilou M, Fekrazad R. Clinical applications of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in dentistry. Front Microbiol. 2023;13:1020995. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.1020995
-
Jacobson JM, Feinman L, Liebes L, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and antiviral effects of hypericin, a derivative of St John’s wort plant, in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(2):517–524. PMID: 11158743
-
Seltsam A. Pathogen inactivation of cellular blood products — an additional safety layer in transfusion medicine. Front Med. 2017;4:219. doi:10.3389/fmed.2017.00219
-
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PROVAYBLUE (methylene blue injection) prescribing information, 2023.
Reviewed by Dr. Alvin Philipose, B.S., B.S., DC, ICCP, Venturis Clinic, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Last reviewed: August 2026.
Important information: Intravenous laser therapy, photodynamic therapy and the photosensitizing compounds discussed are investigational for the conditions described and are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment, cure, mitigation or prevention of any disease. Methylene blue is FDA-approved only for acquired methemoglobinemia; any other use is off-label. Nothing here is a claim of efficacy, and no outcome is promised or implied. Individual results vary. This article is educational and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.