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.
Red light of the sort used in these studies was able to reduce the amount of reactive oxygen species in the rods and cones and to rescue the function of this particular cone type, the short wavelength and medium wavelength cones, which if you think about the study, is a little bit surprising, because it was red light and near-infrared light, not short wavelength light, that was used in order to create this improvement in cellular function.
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.
Red light of the sort used in these studies was able to reduce the amount of reactive oxygen species in the rods and cones and to rescue the function of this particular cone type, the short wavelength and medium wavelength cones. The important takeaway here is that viewing red light and near infrared light at a distance at which it is safe for just a couple of minutes each day allowed a reversal of the aging process of these neurons.