UV and Laser Blood Irradiation (UVBI, ILIB)

What it is and how it works

In classic ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI), a small amount of blood is drawn from an arm vein, made incoagulable, passed in a thin layer past a UV lamp and returned. Haematogenic oxidation therapy (HOT, after Wehrli), well known in Germany, additionally foams the blood with oxygen; this mainly enlarges the irradiated surface, and the effect is supposed to come about as with UV irradiation. In intravenous laser blood irradiation (ILIB) the blood stays in the body: a thin optical fibre is placed in the vein through a cannula, and weak laser light irradiates the blood flowing past. Originally this was exclusively the red light of a helium-neon laser at 632.8 nanometres; today other wavelengths are also used. There is also a variant in which the light is applied from outside through the skin onto a blood vessel (Díaz 2025). Related, but without light, is ozone autohaemotherapy, which we assess under ozone therapy.

Why this should work is explained differently for the two procedures. For UV light, the review by Wu, Hu and Hamblin names several pathways: it damages the genetic material of bacteria and viruses, while body cells can repair such damage; it is said to activate phagocytes, slow down lymphocytes and act via oxidation of fats in cell membranes, that is, as a mild oxidative stimulus. The authors stress that killing germs alone cannot explain the effects described in blood poisoning, because only a small part of the blood is irradiated. For red laser light, the principle of photobiomodulation applies, which you know from red light therapy: light is meant to stimulate energy production in the mitochondria. Reported effects include better flow properties of the blood, better oxygen loading of red blood cells, effects on the immune system and less inflammation and oxidative stress (Chang 2025).

That light can actually change blood is not a fringe idea: extracorporeal photopheresis, in which blood cells are treated with UVA light after administration of a light-sensitive agent, is widely used in T-cell lymphomas of the skin and in rejection reactions after stem cell transplantation. However, it tends to dampen the immune system, whereas UV blood irradiation is supposed to stimulate it (Wu 2016).

From Seattle via the Soviet Union to the clinic

Ultraviolet blood irradiation goes back to Emmett Knott in Seattle. After experiments on dogs, a human was treated for the first time in 1928, a woman with severe streptococcal blood poisoning who recovered. In the 1940s, US physicians reported series of pneumonia, blood poisoning and asthma, in New York for instance 110 cases. With antibiotics, the procedure largely disappeared in the West from the 1960s; today it is called “the cure that time forgot” (Wu 2016).

It was developed further mainly in the Soviet Union and in Russia. Laser blood irradiation also originated there: in 1981 the Soviet scientists Meschalkin and Sergiewski introduced it for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, using the red light of a helium-neon laser. The research was published mostly in Russian and long remained unknown in the West (Momenzadeh 2015). In the German-speaking countries, Havlicek was already treating patients with UV-irradiated autologous blood in the 1930s, and in 1946 Wehrli combined the irradiation with oxygen to create HOT. In its 2001 report, the Federal Committee listed a long range of indications named in publications, from circulatory disorders and skin diseases to infections and immune deficiencies. Today, prevention and longevity clinics mainly offer laser blood irradiation, with the promise of strengthening mitochondria, the immune system and regeneration.

What the studies show

Díaz 2025 – 8 randomized trials on laser blood irradiation

The review included randomized trials in which laser blood irradiation via the vein or from outside through the skin was compared with sham, placebo or standard care. The 8 trials with 340 participants covered very different conditions: cardiovascular disease, diabetic nerve damage, knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, chronic endometritis, cellulite and dental anxiety in children. Less pain, lower inflammatory and oxidative markers and better quality of life were reported. The risk of bias was low in 4 trials, with some concerns in 4. The authors call for standardized light doses and longer studies.

Su 2024 – knee osteoarthritis, double-blind

17 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to laser blood irradiation or control. After one month, pain on the WOMAC scale was significantly lower in the laser group than in the control group. The inflammatory messenger IL-1beta fell after 3 days, one month and three months, IL-13 after 3 days and three months. The advantage for pain was seen at the one-month time point, no longer after three months.

Chang 2025 – systematic review

The review collected studies on musculoskeletal, pulmonary, cardiovascular and neurological diseases. Positive effects are described for pain, sleep disorders, lung diseases and concentration problems after long Covid. The authors name the limitations themselves: small sample sizes, no large randomized trials and no uniform dosage parameters.

Bühring 1992 – haematogenic oxidation therapy, double-blind

18 patients with intermittent claudication who regularly took part in vascular exercise groups received either the real treatment or a sham treatment in which the UV lamp stayed switched off. Walking distances on the treadmill did not change in either group. The authors themselves called the result disappointing. In 2001 the Federal Committee rated the study as the best available evidence and concluded that HOT at least has no large effects, but that small effects cannot be ruled out.

Kuenstner 2015 – UV blood irradiation in hepatitis C

A phase II study with nine patients, conducted for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a device modelled on Knott’s. All participants received the treatment. Viral load fell by an average of 21.5 percent by the end of the study and by 44.9 percent at its lowest point; liver values improved. There was no placebo group. For comparison, the authors themselves cite modern hepatitis C drugs with sustained cure rates of 94 percent.

What users report

A retrospective analysis from Taiwan recorded self-rated pain and sleep in 76 patients with muscle and joint pain who received several treatment series with red laser light in the vein. The mean pain score fell from 5.35 to 2.2 on a ten-point scale, and the sleep quality index improved from 8.97 to 5.53 (Fu 2022). These are self-reports without a comparison group: they show why patients value the procedure, but they do not prove efficacy, because pain often improves over time and with the attention that comes with a treatment, even without a laser.

Where the data stop

The studies are small, in the Díaz review a good 40 participants per study on average, and they are spread over so many diseases that there is no robust result for any single one. Wavelength, power, duration and number of sessions differ from study to study, and the variant applied from outside is lumped together with the intravenous one. Many endpoints are laboratory values such as inflammatory messengers, not symptoms or disease courses. On October 15, 2026, ClinicalTrials.gov lists 14 registered studies on laser blood irradiation, the largest with 72 planned participants, none of them on ageing or life expectancy.

For ultraviolet blood irradiation the situation is even thinner. The extensive Soviet and Russian literature was published mostly in Russian and is still considered controversial in the West (Wu 2016), and the only double-blind study on HOT was negative. And for what longevity clinics advertise, strengthening mitochondria, stimulating the immune system, slowing ageing, there is not a single study in healthy people.

Status, approval and legal

In Germany the procedures are self-pay services. The directive of the Federal Joint Committee explicitly lists in Annex II, the methods that may not be provided at the expense of statutory health insurance, ultraviolet irradiation of the blood (number 32) and haematogenic oxidation therapy, blood washing according to Wehrli (number 33), plus treatment with low-level laser (number 5), to which laser blood irradiation technically belongs. On HOT, the Federal Committee decided in 2000 that a benefit had not been shown for any of the indications named; the decision has been in force since March 23, 2001. We found no guideline recommending UV or laser blood irradiation, neither in the German AWMF register nor at the British NICE.

The devices are medical devices and require CE marking in the EU. This confirms that a device meets the safety and performance requirements for the purpose stated by the manufacturer; it is not a benefit assessment as for a medicinal product, nor approval for reimbursement. In the USA, the hepatitis C study ran as an approved investigation of a medical device. In July 2025 the FDA objected that a US manufacturer of devices that treat blood with ozone and UV light was marketing them without marketing authorization, and listed deficiencies in its quality management.

Safety

No serious side effects were reported in the randomized trials on laser blood irradiation (Díaz 2025), and in the hepatitis C study the authors described the UV treatment as safe. These are, however, small groups over a short time. Side effects are not recorded systematically, and there is no registry for incidents. The laser variant adds the usual risks of venous access, such as bruising or vein irritation.

In UV irradiation and HOT, blood is drawn, processed outside the body and returned. This entails the same hygiene requirements as an infusion or autologous blood therapy. Excessive UV doses can damage blood cells and cancel out the hoped-for effects (Wu 2016). Anyone who wants to use the procedure should clarify beforehand who performs it, with which device, and whether single-use material is used. For people on anticoagulants, with serious concomitant diseases or during pregnancy there are no specific safety data.

Sources

• Wu X, Hu X, Hamblin MR, J Photochem Photobiol B 2016 – review of ultraviolet blood irradiation: history since Knott 1928, mechanisms (PMID 26894849)
• Momenzadeh S et al., J Lasers Med Sci 2015 – review of intravenous laser blood irradiation, introduced in 1981 by Meschalkin and Sergiewski (PMID 25699161)
• Kuenstner JT et al., Int J Infect Dis 2015 – ultraviolet blood irradiation in hepatitis C, phase II study with 9 patients (PMID 26092299)
• Chang CC et al., Lasers Med Sci 2025 – systematic review of applications and mechanisms of intravenous laser blood irradiation (PMID 41065846)
• Díaz L et al., Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2025 – review of 8 randomized trials with 340 participants (PMID 40324571)
• Su YC et al., Int J Mol Sci 2024 – double-blind randomized trial in knee osteoarthritis, 17 patients (PMID 39769371)
• Fu JC et al., J Pers Med 2022 – retrospective analysis of pain and sleep in 76 patients (PMID 36013282)
• Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurance Funds (Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen), March 30, 2001 – summary report on haematogenic oxidation therapy (HOT), including the assessment of the Bühring 1992 study
• Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) – Directive on methods in outpatient care (Richtlinie Methoden vertragsärztliche Versorgung), Annex II, version in force since September 9, 2026
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Warning Letter of July 7, 2025 (CBER 25-668840) – devices treating blood with ozone and UV light without marketing authorization