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.
the uses of the phototherapy for treatment of skin conditions and improving the quality of skin are wonderful and point to the fact that phototherapy can indeed improve the appearance of skin in conditions like acne can accelerate wound healing can improve the youthfulness appearance of skin but these effects tend to be somewhat mild to moderate when they occur
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.
when we look at this literature I think it's fair to say that there is now substantial evidence for the use of phototherapy y for improving the quality of skin and in some cases for reducing the symptoms of acne reducing the symptoms of psoriasis basically any condition where improved blood flow lowered inflammation fewer or reduced oxygen species improved mitochondrial function delivery of nutrients anytime some or all of those things are going to be involved phototherapy makes logical sense
why this would be the case isn't exactly clear but there are number of different logical interpretations such as reduced inflammation improved mitochondrial function all Downstream of reduced reactive oxygen species improved blood flow to that particular area because of the effect that long wavelength light can have on vasod dilation of expansion as opposed to contraction of blood vessels and capillaries