reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The St. John Breber School in Niles, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, was the subject of a study when, in 1963, the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service in Atlanta reported an unusually high rate of leukemia among the children attending the school—the highest rate of any school in the country, five times the national average. Numerous national cancer agencies, both public and private, investigated this situation, yet no positive explanation for the unusually high leukemia rate was found. Until an explanation is available, every possible clue should be explored, and with this in mind, a visit to the school was conducted to learn interesting details not previously uncovered. From records reviewed, it was learned that the leukemia cluster developed shortly after the teachers in two classrooms were transferred to the school and began to keep the curtains closed at all times because of glare from the large areas of glass used in constructing the building. This practice effectively meant keeping the high-intensity fluorescent lights on continuously. At the time of the high leukemia incidents, the lighting used was the Deluxe Warm White fluorescent tube, described as the pinkest of the standard tubes used for ordinary lighting purposes. Further review of the available records showed that the leukemia cluster emerged in this pattern after the two teachers were assigned to these rooms and began the routine of keeping the curtains closed regardless of weather conditions and leaving the fluorescent lights on all the time. The cluster’s disappearance occurred shortly after these same teachers were transferred to other schools. Coincidentally, during the same period, all of the Deluxe Warm White tubes were old and were replaced with Cool White tubes, which, while not a full-spectrum type of tube, do represent less distortion than the Deluxe Warm White when compared to natural sunlight. These observations suggest a temporal association between the peculiar classroom environment—closed curtains reducing exposure to outdoor light, combined with continuous use of a particular type of fluorescent lighting—and the occurrence of leukemia in this school cohort, with a noted reversal following the shift to different classrooms, staff, and newer lighting.

In a study, twenty-six premature babies in an NICU were connected to grounding wires. The heart rates of the grounded infants stabilized. Their vagal tone, a critical measure of infant health, increased by sixty-seven percent with grounding.

The video argues that removing LED bulbs from homes is important because LEDs contribute to health issues on a daily basis. It contrasts LEDs with traditional light sources, stating that the sun, fire, and incandescent bulbs emit infrared light, which “actually boost cellular energy and repair.” In contrast, LEDs are described as exposing people “only to blue light.” The speaker cites studies claiming that prolonged exposure to this blue light accelerates aging, disrupts neurotransmitters in the brain, and impairs mitochondria. These effects are presented as reasons why many people feel constantly tired and drained when indoors. Another point made is that LED bulbs flicker at high speeds that are “too fast for your eyes to notice, but enough to stress your brain and your nervous system.” This flicker is presented as an additional risk associated with LED lighting. To mitigate these issues, the speaker shares a personal precaution: wearing blue light blocking glasses “anytime I can’t control my environment and the lighting.” The overall message emphasizes a link between LED lighting and adverse health effects, drawing a contrast with traditional light sources and recommending the use of protective eyewear in situations where lighting cannot be controlled.

Speaker 0 discusses Dr. Jack Cruz and claims about blue light from screens. They say the impact grew out of CIA and FBI experimentation that began with mind control and electrodes on monkeys' brains, and that they realized they could create the same impact with blue light. They claim that when choosing screen colors, blue was chosen over red because it makes you more lethargic, apathetic, and easier to control. They also mention that red light saunas would have the additional benefit of exposure to red light on the opposite side of the spectrum.

The speaker describes a new device used to measure the spectrum of light, noting that under full sunshine it reveals all seven colors—“just like the rainbow”—and that this natural spectrum is straightforward. When measuring incandescence, the speaker highlights a “beautiful red hue” and claims there is “really none of the other stuff to make you go blind,” implying that incandescent light presents a safe, simple spectrum in comparison to other sources. The speaker then discusses LEDs, stating that they are “super weird to have LEDs” because they “cause blindness, cataracts, dizziness, headaches, fatigue,” and references “that color spectrum” as part of the issue. Fluorescence is described as being almost identical to LEDs in this respect. The speaker also mentions “full moonlight” in this context, implying a comparison between the spectral qualities of LEDs/fluorescent light and moonlight. A key point emphasized is that LEDs and fluorescent bulbs seem to mimic moonlight, which the speaker notes as a source of behavioral or perceptual effects, claiming that this similarity to moonlight is what contributes to people going nuts. The overall message centers on a contrast between the spectra of different light sources—sunlight with its full seven-color spectrum, incandescence with a prominent red hue and fewer problematic elements, and LEDs/fluorescent lighting with problematic health and perceptual effects and a moonlight-like quality.

Red light therapy, or photobiomodulation, is described as the body responding to light it is biologically designed to respond to, especially red light and near-infrared light. Jonathan Otto explains that the technology has historical roots, with Nobel Prize context in 1903 for light therapy (Niels Ryberg Finsen) and early work by John Harvey Kellogg; red light therapy as known today was advanced by Andre Mester in the 1960s and further developed with LED technology funded by NASA, enabling high power delivery with minimal heat. Key evidence and claims: - In major clinical studies, red light therapy is being explored as an alternative or adjunct to palliative chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery in cancer. The Lancet Oncology published a trial with 413 men in which the red light group did almost 400% better than the non-red-light group; only 6% in the red light group required surgery versus 30% in the non-red light group, a claimed 500% difference in that aspect. - In a lymphoma pilot study (PubMed, 2006), three patients achieved complete remission within a week after photodynamic therapy with methylene blue, with no side effects reported and pain easily managed. - University College London conducted studies showing 49% remission in a red-light group versus 13.5% in a non-red-light group in a prostate cancer context when combined with a photosensitizer; separate eyesight research with 6, seven 0-nanometer parameters demonstrated immediate improvements, with larger long-term effects reported in various other conditions. - Red light therapy is claimed to impact a broad range of conditions: eyes (macular health, myopia in children), autoimmune diseases (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, autoimmune thyroiditis), hair loss (androgenic alopecia), skin conditions (acne, eczema, psoriasis), chronic pain (arthritis, back pain), depression and anxiety (rapid improvements noted within hours in some studies), and post-stroke or neurodegenerative conditions (mood, cognitive function, overall energy). - Specific eye-related findings include a large trial where 41 clinical trials in children showed the therapy stopped vision worsening in many cases; in the UCL eyesight study, 70–80% near-infrared penetration targets deeper tissues, with evidence of rapid improvements in vision when light was delivered in the morning or near the eyes at 670 nm in LED form. - In thyroid and metabolic contexts, there are reports of thyroid medication reduction and remission in chronic autoimmune thyroiditis with certain dosing regimens (e.g., 20 minutes twice a week for five weeks in a trial cited), and a Hashimoto’s thyroiditis study showing substantial medication reduction. - Hair growth is reported to respond to red light therapy due to stimulation of hair follicles and scalp stem cells; anecdotal reports include improved hair density and delayed graying in some individuals. - The therapy is claimed to affect fat loss via photonic lipolysis and to modulate mitochondrial function, with mitochondrial chromophores described as light receptors in about 25% of cellular organ content, generating reactive oxygen species and ATP to drive cellular energy. - A long-COVID study by the European Society of Medicine reported four sessions of 64–84 minutes each yielding total remission of all symptoms in 60 of 62 participants within one week; two others improved with the same protocol. - Dosing guidance and safety: thousands to millions treated with red light therapy have reported minimal adverse effects; overexposure can occur, but the majority of clinical experience indicates a favorable safety profile; a dark period and sleep in darkness are noted as important to maximize benefits. - Delivery devices: panels that deliver broad-spectrum light (including multiple wavelengths such as 630 nm, 660 nm, 670 nm, 810–860 nm, 1060 nm) are preferred for broad organ coverage and deeper tissue penetration; these devices aim to deliver high irradiance (e.g., over 200 milliwatts per square centimeter at about three inches) to accelerate healing and support whole-body photobiomodulation. - Practical use: exposure parameters vary by condition, with some studies showing immediate or rapid improvements (e.g., eyesight within 24 hours in some trials; depression or anxiety improvements within hours; autoimmune symptoms over weeks), while others report improvements sustained for months if therapy is continued, though some benefits persist beyond cessation in certain conditions. Historical and practical context: - The interview frames red light therapy as a natural, noninvasive modality that aligns with the body’s use of light for healing, contrasts it with more invasive conventional therapies, and positions it as having broad clinical study support across multiple journals (including The Lancet Oncology, British Medical Journal, and other major journals). It’s presented as a scientifically backed, broadly applicable therapy that can be used at home with high-quality devices. Applications mentioned: - Cancer and tumor-targeted approaches (photodynamic therapy), eyes and vision, autoimmune thyroid disease, skin conditions, hair growth, wound and tissue healing, pain and inflammation, mood disorders, long COVID, and metabolic effects such as fat reduction and thyroid regulation.

Speaker 0 describes an experiment in which young white rats were placed directly in front of a TV set for the same time periods as bean plants and children exhibiting tired child syndrome symptoms. Using semi time lapse photography, partially speeding up the action, the results show that the young rats on the left, protected only with black photographic paper, became aggressive and more difficult to manage. In contrast, those on the right, protected with a lead shield, remained perfectly normal and docile. Autopsies were performed on all of these animals, revealing brain tissue damage in the rats protected only with the black paper, but not in those protected with the lead shielding.

Speaker 0 states that children who sleep in rooms with a nightlight or dim lights are much more likely to develop myopia (nearsightedness). Conversely, children who sleep in very dark rooms, whether due to very dim nightlights or complete darkness, have a significantly lower probability of developing myopia.

The speaker is at a customer’s house to demonstrate a test about which light bulbs people should put in their house “for health,” not for energy efficiency. They note there is no smart meter on the house and claim LEDs would save money only in some contexts; they say with a smart meter, calculations of amps and voltages show that people save no money on utilities. They further state that the “worse” part is health effects, and they demonstrate this using an oscilloscope showing a typical 60-hertz cycle. They first turn on a “traditional light bulb made by Edison,” saying it should match the expected 120-volt 60-hertz cycle. The speaker describes the result as a “perfect sine wave,” with 120 volts, “no noise,” and no jagginess. They then use a spectrum analyzer and describe the incandescent/halogen spectrum as “more smooth,” with low in the blue and only a small bump, calling it a “normal spectrum.” The speaker claims this is why eyes “won’t be damaged” by incandescent or halogen bulbs: the spectrum is more consistent, like the sun, which puts out energy more evenly. They then assert that dominant blue light in the 450 nm area is “extremely toxic” and will “damage your eyes.” Next, they turn on “light bulbs that supposedly saved the polar bear” (described as hot, with heat claimed as beneficial in wintertime). The speaker then “grab[s] all the old CFLs,” including those that contained mercury and were marketed as lasting 10–15 years. They claim the CFLs are made in China and demonstrate that the sine wave becomes jagged with “noise,” and that the bulbs are “not running at 120 volts.” After that, they use the spectrum analyzer on the CFLs and claim there are spikes from flickering “millions and millions of times a second,” which they say makes people sick. They then return to LEDs, calling them “super energy efficient” and saying they don’t have mercury. The speaker demonstrates an “old LED” they call one of the “better ones,” describing the sine wave as noisy and stating that if a house has 30 of them, the noise would be even worse. They again use the spectrum analyzer, claiming the LED is “pulsing” and has “a lot of blue” that acts like a beam. They say LED light-emitting diodes “actually put out a beam,” and that the blue light helps damage eyes and also “pollinating bugs.” They repeat the comparison by turning off the tested bulbs and returning to the original Edison bulb, stating the result is “quiet,” with a “more evenly” spread pattern and less pulsing. The speaker concludes that some other incandescents do better but states “you should never buy an LED,” and ends by telling viewers to do the opposite of what they are told on TV.

When kids have focus issues in school and no one can figure out why they can’t focus, the lights above their heads are the cause. Doctor John Ott put shielding over the lights because they had fluorescent bulbs at that time in the school, and once he shielded the lights, the children began to be able to focus. The lights are what is making the children not be able to focus. It is suggested that not only are they wasting eighteen years of their life in a Rockefeller prison school, but also the lights are making them not be able to pay attention at the same time. What Doctor John Ott did was put shielding over the lights; he noticed that the children could focus. Kids shouldn’t even be learning in a prison system if you think about it. Kids should be outside in nature learning in nature. You could have a board. You could bring it outside. You could have a little sun. They can run around. Once they run around, then you can sit and teach. That’s how school should be. It shouldn’t be where they’re locked in a prison system getting forced vaccines and all this garbage. This is presented as a phenomenal book by Doctor John Ott: Light Radiation in You, and I highly recommend it.

In the discussion, LED light bulbs are described as toxic and advisable to carry a warning label. The speaker presents two specific warnings about LED lighting: - Warning 1: The flicker effect. LED lights flicker at a frequency that is unperceptible to the eye but claimed to be brain-disrupting, potentially leading to sleep disturbances, migraines and headaches, brain fog and fatigue, and harm to the health of the eyes. - Warning 2: Unhealthy levels of blue light. LED lights are said to emit high levels of blue light, which can disrupt the circadian rhythm and affect mood. The speaker asserts the following factual contrasts to incandescent and halogen lighting: LED lights drain energy and life from the body, whereas incandescent and halogen lighting contain a full spectrum of light and infrared light that supposedly adds energy and light to the body, making people healthy. A call to action is issued to switch out lighting, with an optimistic note that the 2022 ban on incandescence and halogens might be reversed in 2025. The message emphasizes that these symptoms and effects can be life-altering for some individuals, and it ends with a request to share the video.

In another experiment, time lapse cameras were used in a standard first grade classroom and several hyperactive children may be noted, especially the boy in the immediate foreground. Ninety days after the regular cool white fluorescent tubes were replaced with the new type full spectrum fluorescent tubes with radiation shields, there was a marked improvement noted, and the extremely hyperactive boy has voluntarily moved up to the front row. He raises his hand for recognition and is now up at the blackboard taking part in classroom activities. Prior to the time that this new lighting was installed, this particular boy had an extreme learning disability problem, but quickly learned to read within ninety days after the new lights were installed. There was further noted a general average improvement in both the behavior and academic achievement of the entire class.

Researchers recruited 22 individuals and randomized them into two groups: control and experimental. Both groups had a baseline color contrast test, which assesses visual function. Participants worked in a building with abundant artificially lit LEDs and fluorescent lighting, a spectrum with a big spike in blue light and very low red light and zero infrared light. After two weeks of working under these conditions—described as conditions the participants had experienced for the last two years—there were zero improvements in color contrast in the control group. In the experimental group, researchers added two desk lamps, each equipped with a 60-watt incandescent bulb. The incandescent bulbs provided a spectrum that added abundant infrared light, introducing longer wavelengths similar to sunlight. After two weeks of this infrared light supplementation, color contrast tests were retaken. The experimental group showed a 28% improvement in protan thresholds and a 24% improvement in tritan thresholds. After the incandescent lights were removed, improvements persisted four weeks later and six weeks later, with no other changes to the lighting. The mechanism behind these results centers on retinal energy metabolism. The retina is rich in mitochondria, requiring substantial energy. The electron transport chain in mitochondria handles energy transformation. Two scenarios are described: shining red and infrared light on mitochondria versus blue light. - Blue light: Absorbed by porphyrins in the mitochondria, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Excess ROS reduce ATP production, diminishing energy available to retinal cells and impairing function. - Red and infrared light: Absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase and by nano water around ATP synthase. Absorption releases nitric oxide, allowing oxygen to enter and form water. The longer wavelengths are also absorbed by nano water around ATP synthase, reducing viscosity and enabling the rotor to run faster, generating more ATP and providing more energy for retinal cells to function properly. The speaker attributes the observed improvements to these mitochondrial light–energy interactions, particularly the enhanced ATP production from red and infrared light. A practical takeaway is proposed: add incandescent lighting to the environment.

A speaker at an educational seminar stated research indicates children are smarter when their eyes see a lot of green. The speaker connected this to children traditionally spending time outside. They believe children's brains, bodies, and eyes develop better with equal physical and mental activity, such as running, jumping, climbing trees, and riding bikes. The speaker advocates for keeping children and adults outside as much as possible, claiming our brains are deteriorating too young.

Time-lapse cameras in a first-grade classroom showed several hyperactive children, particularly one boy in the foreground. After replacing regular cool white fluorescent tubes with full-spectrum fluorescent tubes and radiation shields, a marked improvement was observed within 90 days. The hyperactive boy voluntarily moved to the front row, participated in class, and his extreme learning disability improved, allowing him to read. A general improvement in behavior and academic achievement was noted across the entire class. Other factors must be considered, but the biological effects of light and radiation, as observed through time-lapse photography, have implications.

This is what exercise does to your brain. The bottom image is the scan of the brain of the person that was walking for twenty minutes; there’s a significantly higher amount of brain activity. In 02/2009, Chuck Hillman from the University of Illinois decided to run a test to see if this meant exercise could make somebody smarter. 20 test subjects were evaluated on three areas. What they found was that the individuals that walked for twenty minutes had a significantly increased level of performance in reading comprehension. The results also indicated an improvement in response accuracy in addition to better performance in academic achievement tests, all of which was seen after twenty minutes of aerobic exercise. And so the authors concluded that this could potentially improve the cognitive control of attention within preadolescence.

John Ott presents time-lapse photography revealing the impact of light on plant and animal life. He shows a primrose plant dancing to music by synchronizing light, temperature, and moisture. A banana plant produced fruit without pollination, and pumpkins yielded different sex blossoms based on fluorescent light type. Morning glories required red wavelengths filtered out for proper blooming. Tomato plants recovered from a virus under full spectrum sunlight. Chloroplasts streamed normally under full sunlight but clumped under filtered light. Animal studies showed mice developing tail lesions under pink fluorescent light, reversed by natural daylight. Blue plastic improved mink breeding, while pink plastic led to aggression. Blacklight UV improved fish health in aquariums. Rats bred under full spectrum fluorescent lights showed better parental instincts. A school with high leukemia rates had teachers keeping curtains closed and using pink-toned fluorescent lights. C3H mice lifespan was longer under full spectrum light. Experiments showed Mimosa pudica anesthetized by ether and reacting to wavelengths beyond visible light in a coal mine. Bean plants near TVs showed stimulated growth, while rats became aggressive. Hyperactive children improved when TV sets emitting X-rays were removed. Geraniums grew better near the center of full spectrum fluorescent tubes. Time-lapse of slime mold sporulation depended on cool white fluorescent light. Chelated iron improved gardenia growth. Fertilizer did not alter root growth patterns. Temperature affected black spot spores on roses and insect metamorphosis. Cancer cell division occurred after chilling. Fungi in nasal discharge and pollen activity were captured. Radar affected aphids. Tungsten filaments became rough with use. Sperm were attracted to eggs. Red blood cell clumping was reversed by full spectrum light.

I demonstrated how our EMF shield reduces radiation from electronic devices. By using an electromagnetic radiation detector, we tested a television in standby mode. With the shield in place, the radiation dropped to 0, but when removed, it spiked to over 1000. The shield effectively reduced radiation to 0.

The interview discusses red light therapy—its popularity, why it is being challenged by “the medical world,” and how investigative journalist Jonathan Otto says it works and why people are adopting it widely, including through consumer devices like masks. Otto frames the therapy as “photobiomodulation,” describing it as the body responding to designed-for light. He contrasts modern mainstream medicine with what he portrays as an alternative approach. Otto says public interest has surged, citing everyday adoption (including references to women using masks and his anecdote that his son’s acne breakout could have led to scarring and even temptation to take Accutane). He argues that red light therapy is threatening to pharmaceutical and clinical systems because, in his view, it has become an alternative in major cancer-related studies and photodynamic therapy research. He cites a randomized control trial referenced as published by *Lancet Oncology* involving 413 men, claiming the red light group did “almost four hundred percent better” than the non-red light group, with 6% requiring surgery in the red light group versus 30% in the non-red light group. He also claims that many outcomes matter because surgeries can lead to complications such as impotence, and he argues that people are seeking “less invasive, more selective therapies” targeting tumor cells. When asked what led him to take red light therapy seriously, Otto describes his earlier work producing a cancer-focused documentary series about 12 years ago, including interviews with medical practitioners and treatment centers. He says he encountered results under “photobiomodulation” and mentions combining therapies, including methylene blue, which he describes as requiring activation by red light for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and antiparasitic effects. Otto gives historical context: he references a Nobel Prize awarded in 1903 to Niels Ryberg Finsen for light therapy reversing chronic disease, uses incandescent bulbs as the historical technology, and describes later developments. He attributes modern versions to work by Dr. Andrey Mester and says NASA-funded LED research enabled high-power delivery into the body, emphasizing that LEDs deliver power with less heat and do not flicker like older options. He claims a large body of studies supports red light therapy across conditions, listing eyesight problems, chronic back pain, autoimmune conditions (including arthritis, lupus), macular degeneration, post-stroke outcomes, and dementia. He also discusses cancer and chronic disease mechanisms through mitochondria: he says mitochondria contain “mitochondria chromophores” (light receptors) and that light induces reactive oxygen species and adenosine triphosphate, which he says target circulating tumor cells and senescent circulating tumor cells. He also connects red light to “shutting down unhealthy cells” and promoting creation and differentiation of healthier stem cells, including in bones and organs like kidneys. On which conditions respond best, Otto highlights pain (arthritis, inflammation), skin issues (eczema, acne, psoriasis), sleep/energy/recovery, autoimmune-spectrum conditions, and chronic eye conditions including myopia in children. He cites clinical trial information from University College London about prostate cancer and eye studies, asserting remission differences between red light and non-red light groups and claiming a morning-only benefit for myopia parameters. He says a study used 670 nm LED light delivered directly into the eyes for three minutes, and he describes reported improvements and the idea that exposure timing matters. He proposes mechanisms and timing for symptom relief: depression studies show changes within one hour, fibromyalgia studies average around four weeks with results maintained for months, and cancer studies can run for two years. He also includes a pilot study claim (three people with cutaneous B-cell lymphoma) describing complete remission after one or two photodynamic therapy sessions with methylene blue and red light, with no side effects reported. For hair loss, Otto says red light therapy for androgenic alopecia has studies supporting stimulation of hair follicles and stem cells in the scalp. He also claims effects on thyroid function and weight loss, linking red light to “photonic lipolysis” and describing organ-function improvements. On safety and frequency, Otto says people can “overdo it,” but describes minimal adverse effects reported across large clinical use. He emphasizes dark occlusion for sleep and suggests that short daily exposures can be sufficient, citing examples such as fifteen minutes per day for general use and thyroid studies involving limited weekly sessions. He states that more light does not necessarily mean better outcomes for eyes. Toward buying guidance, Otto recommends high-quality panels or devices delivering multiple wavelengths, claiming broad-spectrum coverage reaches shallow to deep targets within organs. He explains wavelength ranges he uses or discusses (including around 480 nm, 630–660 nm, and near-infrared up to around 1060 nm) and describes the role of irradiance and distance, suggesting benefits even at roughly a foot away depending on the device and condition. He also compares whole-body approaches (head-to-groin) with localized masks. Otto concludes by encouraging research on specific conditions, promoting the idea that light therapy can be preventative and substitute for other spending, and ends with an emphasis on devices being affordable compared with clinic sessions.

Time lapse cameras were used in a 1st grade classroom to observe hyperactive children. After replacing the fluorescent tubes with new ones and radiation shields, there was a significant improvement. The hyperactive boy moved to the front row, participated in classroom activities, and learned to read within 90 days. The entire class showed improved behavior and academic achievement. It is important to consider other factors, but the biological effects of light and radiation, as observed through time lapse photography, are evident.

Two twins with severe autism and nonverbal communication are described; their microbiome is identically the same, with the same groups of microbes. After you correct their microbiome, you flip that formula to becoming good microbes high, low bad microbes down. And those kids are speaking and fully verbal, fully reading, that's the gold. Because now you know, well, have clinical significance, but I also have a microbiome assay that tells me that my kid has improved. The speaker emphasizes 'the gold' as the result of these changes and references a microbiome assay to demonstrate improvement. This is presented as significant.

In the video, the speaker discusses the book "Health and Light" by Dr. John Ott, focusing on the topic of children paying attention in class. The speaker shares their personal experience of being a distracted student and highlights a particular observation from the book. It is mentioned that fluorescent bulbs can affect a certain percentage of children's ability to concentrate. However, when lead shielding was placed in front of the bulbs, one specific child immediately became more attentive and moved to the front of the class. The speaker emphasizes the significant role that lights play in our thinking abilities and suggests that this book prompts a reevaluation of their impact.