Evidence and Safety

Many of the article’s research claims lack enough methodological detail for full evaluation. Future VR, biometric feedback, and addiction reconditioning applications are described as design possibilities rather than proven clinical protocols. Several mentioned studies omit key details such as sample sizes, controls, blinding, statistical methods, diagnostic criteria, and publication status. Some resonance and coherence mechanisms are treated as conceptual framing unless backed by specific empirical evidence. The strongest safety caveat concerns acute brain injury and the possible risk of visual stimulation when bleeding or hematoma is present. Technology is not presented as eliminating the need for nutrition, movement, sleep, and breathing.