Response to The untold saga of chromotherapy in dentistry

Peer-reviewed correspondence in the Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, DOI 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2479_22 verified directly against the Crossref record (published-print February 2023, pages 417-418, publisher Medknow, sole author Thomas J. Wheeler; title confirmed as a response to The untold saga of chromotherapy in dentistry). Directly fetched article text (PMC10114550, though note the mechanical verify-quotes fetcher hit a bot-protection challenge on that URL when re-checked, so long quotations from it are paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim in this bundle): chromotherapy's claim to treat internal organs with colored light is baseless because visible light can only penetrate the outer few millimeters of skin; claims for charged or chromatised water lack any physical basis because absorbed visible light would only produce temporary vibrations of the water molecules, not a stored source of healing energy; and the piece warns that endorsing chromotherapy risks patients delaying necessary medical treatment and paying for what is essentially a placebo. Wheeler is responding to a 2022 dentistry-journal article that uncritically endorsed chromotherapy, including Ghadiali-descended color-organ-attribute claims. Used as a second, independent, current (2023) peer-reviewed expert critique of chromotherapy's present-day claims, alongside point-skeptical-inquirer-danger-chromotherapy-2017.