<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Taranis wrote</title><author_name>Taranis (npub1pt…wzmdd)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1ptxgfkr22q27uf7wccvm6cezaa2vakhnegl9rv9ehuc8jr6x83zq3wzmdd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>There are so many variables at play &#xA;&#xA;These are low level experiments&#xA;&#xA;None of them are blinded nor repeated on a large scale &#xA;&#xA;There’s so many things you could justify with low level testing as such &#xA;&#xA;How do you not know in the first study that it’s in fact green light that improves your circadian rhythm?&#xA;&#xA;Also the fact people in the second study weren’t wearing glasses induces a placebo effect.&#xA;&#xA;“The fact the levels of hormone were about the same” - what does that even mean? How is the hormone of a group measured ? Are they roughly the same age and if so, that doesn’t mean they’ve the same level of hormones &#xA;&#xA;99% of research nowadays is incredibly poor. Researchers are incentivised to get valid results to get more funding…there’s never been a good study on blue light and I doubt it’s even possible to carry out in the world we live in today </html></oembed>