Evan Bernstein

I'll give you a couple of examples.

Stanford Medicine says the evidence is fairly robust for hair regeneration and wrinkle reduction, but the other applications, such as enhanced athletic performance,

Fat reduction, fat burning, they describe it as less well-supported.

That means it's wanting.

Even the American Academy of Dermatology, where dermatologists say, yeah, we use red light therapy, but it's a complementary therapy.

It's not a replacement for standard treatment.

It's just something that you use in addition to other treatments.

So how do you really suss that out of what is doing the work here?

Where are you getting the real results from?

Is it from the red light therapy product or is it from the other things that your doctor is asking you to do for yourself?

And these home devices are so wild and variable.

Different products, how much light are they putting out?

What are the doses?

What are the protocols?

There may be a signal there, but there's a standardization problem.

And one mask that you're wearing is not necessarily like another mask.

And of course, whatever you're being told, they're going to oversell it.

They're going to hype it.

And Scientific American recently noticed about that very problem.

It's the hype machine.