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.
That study was repeated, turns out, there is no extraocular photo reception in humans. Whatever somebody tells you that light to the skin or light to the wherever is beneficial for your health, we can talk about that, but there's no way that light information is setting your clocks, you need these cells in your eyes to perceive or to see light at the particular times of day that I'm referring to.
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.
Every cell and organ in your body needs light information, and the way to get that light information to all those cells, because you have a thick skull and the inside of you is dark inside your skin, there's no sunlight getting in there, is by viewing sunlight with your eyes at the two times of day that I'm referring to, okay? That's the only route.