The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And in recent years, there have been some just beautiful examples that exist, not only in the realm of skin biology, but in the realm of neurobiology whereby red light and near-infrared light can actually be used to enhance the function of the cells that, for instance, allow us to see better and indeed cells that allow us to think better.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And these are the data that I referred to at the beginning of the episode from Dr. Glen Jeffery at University College London, who, again, is a longstanding member of the neuroscience community, working on visual neuroscience, and who over the last decade or so has really emphasized the exploration of red light and near-infrared light for restoration of neuronal function as we age.
whereby red light and near infrared light can actually be used to enhance the function of the cells that for instance allow us to see better and indeed cells that allow us to think better.