Do you agree with this opinion (or maybe it's fact, I dunno) on Blue Wave Light?

Have they factored in iris constriction to those statements?

Theoretically iris constriction could mean that you actually receive less blue light from brighter sources; hence why non UV filtering sunglasses is a bad idea - under the less bright conditions of sunglasses the iris is less constricted allowing more harmful UV into the eye, than without wearing sunglasses.

But who cares Apollo tells you how it is on their website:

‘BRITEWAVE combines 10,000-lux light with BLUEWAVE and is ideal for those who prefer bright sunlight, but also want the benefits of BLUEWAVE. Both technologies are more effective than conventional full-spectrum light therapy, but because BRITEWAVE products produce larger treatment fields, they may also be considered for children or those with more severe symptoms.’

Doesn’t that imply that BRITEWAVE is more effective than BLUEWAVE? Despite Apollo’s marketing spiel BRITEWAVE is no more than standard fluorescent tube technology – I owned and took apart a BRITEWAVE product. When will patent pending become patent issued for Apollo technology - never, because there is nothing patentable about BLUEWAVE (blue LEDs) or BRITEWAVE (compact fluorescent tubes) existing technology. However, Apollo did get a patent issued for the BLUEWAVE goLITE in July last year, of course not for the technology, but for ‘the ORNAMENTAL DESIGN for a light therapy device, as shown and described.’

Apollo, or whoever owns them now, don’t appear to be planning to conduct a trial to compare bluewave to 10,000 lux in the treatment of SAD. One might assume that is because they know that the outcome will be detrimental to their big marketing money spinner.

Following are abstracts from two goLITE studies for the treatment of SAD that I was sent by Apollo. The latter is the one that I assume Apollo refer to for the effectiveness of the goLITE in treating SAD, but I can see why they don’t even put a copy of either up on their website. It is a shame that I couldn’t post the results graph of study 2, because red light looks quite effective in reducing SIGH-SAD scores.

NB: Remember that depression ratings scales are not linear, and there are multitudes of combinations of different items to achieve the same score; thereby invalidating the current use of statistical analysis using them. Each item could at least be analysed separately, or multivariate analysis could be used on all items for more comparable and valid results.

Study 2

Light Therapy for Seasonal Affective Disorder with Blue Narrow-Band Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs)
Gena Glickman, Brenda Byrne, Carissa Pineda, Walter W. Hauck, and George C. Brainard

Background: While light has proven an effective treatment for Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)), an optimal wavelength combination has not been determined. Short wavelength light (blue) has demonstrated potency as a stimulus for acute melatonin suppression and circadian phase shifting.

Methods: This study tested the efficacy of short wavelength light therapy for SAD. Blue light emitting diode (LED) units produced 468 nm light at 607 p w/cm^2 (27 nn half-peak bandwidth); dim red LED units provided 654 nm at 34 pw/cm^2 (21 nm half-peak bandwidth). Patients with major depression with a seasonal pattern, a score of >=20 on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-SAD version (SIGH-SAD) and normal sleeping patterns (routine bedtime between 10:00 pm and midnight) received 45 minutes of morning light treatment daily for 3 weeks. Twenty-four patients completed treatment following random assignment of condition (blue vs. red light). The SIGH-SAD was administered weekly.

Patients were not excluded from the study if they were taking psychotropic medications as long as dosage had been stable for >=6 weeks and there were no dosage changes for the duration of the study. Four subjects in each group had been taking antidepressants.

Eleven subjects completed light treatment with the blue light condition (9 females, 2 males), and 13 completed the dim red light condition (10 females, 3 males). Of the two patients not completing the study, one did not begin light treatment, reporting schedule conflicts for using the light box in the designated time frame. Another patient withdrew from the study after one week without improvement in symptoms. Both of these patients had been assigned the blue LED light condition.

‘The light units designed and produced for this study each consisted of an LED array of 276 LEDs mounted behind a plastic lens diffuser, housed within 20 by 24 cm panels (Apollo Light Systems, Orem, Utah).’

*That sounds nothing like the goLITE s that I have seen or owned*

Results: Mixed-effects analyses of covariance determined that the short wavelength light treatment decreased SIGH-SAD scores significantly more than the dimmer red light condition (F = 6.45, p = .019 for average over the post-treatment times).

Conclusions: Narrow bandwidth blue light at 607 p w/cm2 outperforms dimmer red light in reversing symptoms of major depression with a seasonal pattern.

*That should be potentially outperforms, but requires a much larger sample size to produce statistical meaningful results for the valid assessment of statistical significance, let alone clinical significance*

*All the hype from Apollo’s goLITE is based around an unscientific trial with only 11 people using a bluewave device much larger than a goLITE, which only compared to red light and not antidepressant drugs, placebo, CBT, 10,000 lux or any other existing treatment for SAD.*

The other advantage of the LEDs is that they won't need replacing at vast expense every year or two!

My comments are a bit old – some stuff I resurrected from my archives.

I am not actually trying to criticise LED units as such, but I am, as ever, criticising Apollo’s marketing technique and dubious claims – only we have conducted clinical trials to prove the effectiveness of our technology…blah, blah, blah…BS

If you perceive that a treatment helps you, for whatever reason that it actually does; and the benefits outweigh the costs, then who are any of us to criticise it.