eyecharger-
Device no longer available but Jeffrey tested it and it’s approved by him but for “longevity” kind of like rapamyacin
he quotes:
this time I am not aware of any such studies (the company claims it has been approved by the ethics committees of Moorfield's and UCL, and is not being commercialized marketed as a therapy, only as an anti-aging agent). Are there biological mechanisms that indicate that red light therapy is not safe, in adults and/or in children?

Safety of light generating devices depends on energy and wavelength. In general, longer wavelength devices are much safer at the same energy than short wavelength devices. I don't have a commercial relationship with the two companies (Eye-power and Eyecharger), but I tested their prototypes because it was important to me that there was something I knew was safe. Both products operate at energies and wavelengths for which I have received ethical approval from Moorfields Eye Hospital and also from University College London. This confirmed that they are well within safe range. However, they do not have a clinical safety seal. Obtaining this can be a lengthy process. I have told both companies that we would strongly disapprove of any attempt to claim that their devices are officially clinically approved, and I support this.