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.
if the particular light therapy that you're considering involves very local application rather than illuminating broad swaths of skin, and if it has no involvement with the eyes, meaning there's no delivery of UVB or red light or the other light therapy to the eyes, it's probably not going to be as potent a treatment as would a more systemic activation of larger areas of skin and the eyes.
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.