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.
Um it was simple to do and all we did was we starve bumblebees overnight. Gave them a standard blood glucose test. So you know lot >> sounds a lot harder than working on humans. >> No it's not. You just give them a little bit of glucose cuz they haven't and they go and their blood glucose goes up. you've gave them red light or blue light. We give them red light and their blood glucose does not go up as much.
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.
We give them blue light and their blood glucose goes very high. >> So, they're using more of the energy. >> Yeah. So, >> in the red light condition, >> in the red light condition, in the blue light condition, we're slowing their mitochondria down and so the uh there is more glucose flowing around.