Valkee's research
NOTE: This page is outdated, important negative trials have appeared. More to come in April/May 2014.
Still, no proof for the claimed effects was published. No peer-reviewed publication of Valkee's earlight efficacy studies is existing, meaning that no independent 3rd party has ever accepted the earlight research as quality science. Because this is crucial, Valkee has tried to fake a peer-reviewed publication at least four times (#1 and #10 below as "buddy-reviewed" papers, and #3 as an supplement abstract).
The University of Oulu has never confirmed to have been involved. It has removed stuff linking it to Valkee from it's website after the scam was busted. All information regarding the earlight studies is coming from Valkee. The following list is complete per September 2013.
The company undertook 4 clinical trials in Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD):
1. A pilot study with 13 patients. Used for the false claim that Valkee's earlight can cure 9 of ten persons. Published in Medical Hypotheses, no peer-review.
2. A placebo-controlled efficacy study with 60 patients. Halted for unknown reasons.
3. A placebo-controlled efficacy study with 89 patients. No difference between earlight and sham treatment found. The placebo group was declared as active treatment, after the study was completed, to conceal the fail. Unpublished.
4. A controlled efficacy study with 60 participants. Started under public pressure in Finland in winter 2012/13. Unpublished.
One additional clinical trial was underway as of Sep 2013:
5. A controlled study testing acute effects on anxiety.
Marketing trials in healthy volunteers:
6. A study with Oulu's Kärpät ice hockey team. No effective blinding. The results were mostly negative. Published 2014 in Frontiers in Physiology, after being rejected for years by quality journals. No independent peer-review.
7. A marketing trial with students. No effective blinding. Used to claim positive effects in healthy individuals. Unpublished.
Valkee uses a further paper for advertising (not a scientific study):
8. An user survey of light therapy devices in Finland. Not designed as a comparison between earlight and bright light therapy.
Low-level lab research, unrelated to the earlight treatment, was conducted:
9. A protein with unknown function found in human cadavers' brains. The protein was not even named correctly (OPN3 is the gene). Used to claim that the brain is light-sensitive. Unpublished.
10. A fMRI trial. Used to claim that the brain is activated by light. Published as a fake "peer-reviewed" article in a pay-for-publication journal.
There are further unrelated lab studies by the group (see explanation on the Sources page).
Sources / References: with the respective study pages.