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.
So if you've heard of red light or near-infrared light therapies designed to heal skin or improve skin quality or remove lesions, or get rid of scars or unwanted pigmentation, that is not pseudoscience, that is not woo science. That is grounded in the very biology of how light interacts with mitochondria and reactive oxygen species.
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.
cells in the epidermis I should point out contain things like mitochondria for which red light has been shown to be beneficial why red light and near infrared light phototherapy has been shown to reduce reactive oxygen speed species and thereby to improve mitochondrial function in cells
That is not pseudocience. That is not woo science. That is grounded in the very biology of how light interacts with mitochondria and reactive oxygen species.