Ultra violet irradiation

I just received my first treatment.  It cost 95.00.  I will get 10 and I received them in Tulsa Oklahoma. Any one else had them?  I

[meki]

Belle - what are you taking it for?

[JennyPenny]

Snake Oil!! This is a bad idea. Please reconsider it.

[Upbeat]

In 2005, Energex Systems, Inc. conducted a successful trial of this technology by reducing viral loads in patients with Hepatitis C. Under investigational device exemption status granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the trial subjects all had significant viral loads who had previously received Interferon/Ribavirin therapy without a sustained response to treatment.

Researchers extracted three to four percent of the patient’s blood, exposed it to exact amounts of UV light for 20 to 30 minutes, and then returned the irradiated blood to the patient. In each subject, this procedure was repeated five times over a 16-day period. Measured ten weeks after completion of therapy, the results were as follows:

· Three subjects sustained viral load reductions of 90 percent or more
· Eight subjects sustained reductions of 50 percent or more
· Two subjects had no change

While no treatment-related complications from this trial were reported, critics of UBI claim that exposing viruses to UV light can cause genetic mutations. Since a mutation of the Hepatitis C virus would render it even more resistant to therapies currently in development, UBI therapy has remained a fringe alternative therapy in the United States.

[Trinity4]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how even reducing the viral load by 90 percent can make a difference long term.  The virus has to be irradicated from the body or eventually viral load will climb back up.  Can anyone comment on this?
Thanks,
Trinity

[HectorSF]

Probably better to take a trip to Cancun. It least you might get your money's worth and can find some maryjane for your side effects. ;-)

Percentage means nothing. Maybe you have heat-stoke? What's 99% of a viral load of 5,000,000? You still have live virus causing your immune system to attack the virus and inflame your liver which over time causes more and more liver damage.

Enjoy your Tulsa OK glow while progressing to cirrhosis!

Cheers!
Hector

[fretboard]

Wow!  I had to think about this for awhile, so I did.  If I were a non-responder and I came across a tx that could make me feel better, even just for a short time, I think I would do it.  I think I'd be more than willing to give it a try, if just for a few weeks I could take my mind off this virus and everything that goes with it.  Maybe I would even know that it's not gonna clear the virus, but it may get my mind off the funk or whatever I was feeling at the time.  So in concluding I have to say, Bellestar I hope it makes you feel better, and to me that's all that matters.  Also, just to make it clear I am not promoting the use of anything else but the SOC.  However, with that said, it just doesn't work for some of us.  God Bless  

[HectorSF]

November 22, 2004
"When you consider that we are treating non-responders; the average viral load reduction of the 1st three participants was in excess of 81% in just a 17-day period, and there have been no adverse events, (no positive results either) I believe it goes a long way in validating our belief that our Hemo-Modulator technology will soon become the treatment of choice for Hepatitis C and other RNA type viruses" said Thomas J. Fagan, President of Energex Systems.

Wait there is more....
Energex Systems, Inc announced that it has completed several studies of its Hemo-Modulator technology. The studies were designed to determine the safety and effect of the therapy produced by the Hemo-Modulator on Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) viruses. RNA viruses include, but are not limited to, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, SARS, and West Nile. There was a significant, direct effect on inactivation of the virus in all the studies. In the SIV study there was more than 99% inactivation of the virus.

A fourth study, designed to determine safety, analyzed the effect the therapy had on the components of the blood, body tissues and organs. An "animal model" was used for that study. The conclusion of the study was that there was no evidence of any negative effect and there should be no concern with respect to the safety of the therapy.

I think I smell a rat!

So we are all cured now?

Cheers!
Hector

[mayday557]

Was the rat BBQ'd or slow roasted ?

I did some reading up on the uv deal and didn't really care for what I read.  'Spose its one of things that ya have to way out pro vrs con.

[HectorSF]

Maybe Energex should have just drained ALL the blood out of the rats? (But then they would have a tough time getting a patent on this). Rats! There goes our profits! Then they could claim 0 vl! The only contraindication they would need to mention in a very very small 2 point footnote would be the death of the "animal model". But no other lasting nasty side effects like that Peg and Ribiviron!!!

Hey, there's always plenty more rodents to be had anyway. (I think one is the Prez of Energex Systems, Inc.).

Google Thomas J. Fagan of NJ. Someones giving this guy more money than he know what to do with. See RNC connection. Maybe he's testing his newest "cures" at Gitmo?

Hector ;-)

[Bellestar]

Well, I have to say everyone has their opinions and mine was that as a nonresponder twice, if I could reduce my virus with little to no side effects, I might not have to go back on the interferon for the 3rd time like my dr. wants me to do  right away. He wants to give my liver a break but I don't want to do the treatments again. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work but several people have said that it reduced their virus load and that is all that the interferon does but the side efects are horrible.  Belle Star

[HectorSF]

Sorry to tell you this after 2 unsuccessful treatments (I thought you would know), but reducing vl is NOT the objective of treatment. It's the elimination of the virus that will stop the advancement of liver disease that is important. Reducing the vl will NOT stop the advancement of liver disease.

It's your life . Your free to choose.

Hector

[nygirl7]

That's alot of money to spend on absolutely totally nothing.  You'd be much better off trying to find a trial to get into that might actually do something.  Nobody here is trying to be mean or rude but do you realize how quickly your viral load can go right back up? 50% is nothing whatsoever.

Why not channel your energies into trying to find a medication that might work for you?  I realize as a non-responder it SOUNDS like a good idea but it's an absolute waste of time for you.

[fretboard]

As I am fairly new to this forum I just thought that you would be paying the money in the hopes of feeling better.  After reading your most recent post I can tell that I was wrong.  You are getting the ultra violet treatment in the hopes that you don't have to get the SOC.  According to your post; "if I could reduce my virus with little to no side effects, I might not have to go back on the interferon for the 3rd time like my dr. wants me to do  right away".  There have been a number of non-responders on this forum, who have opted to try the clinical trials and have been successful in clearing the virus.  Also, it's your decision and I can respect that, whatever you decide is yours.  Here's the link, you are watched closer at a trial site.  If you don't even want to look at it that is totally up to you.    God Bless     www.clinicaltrials.gov

[mayday557]

OMG way way to funny LMAO =^,^=

Thats a lot of cheeze dude !

[Dora82_05]

I haven't looked at the UV. But from all I read on this site, you all are pushing the chemo. I myself don't find 40/60 odds good enough to make myself half dead. I already struggle everyday, so really tx ? I may as well, sell out and finish riding this hell out. Trade one for another, at least this one I can still somewhat function and work. I for one would not EVEN consider going thru tx for a 2nd or 3rd time. INSANE. FOR WHAT? I have geno 1B and going for a biopsy mainly to see what the damage is (Stage and grade). THEN, I will make a FINAL decision. But honestly, reading what everyone has to say about tx, and my odds for my geno type, it may not be an option. All I have done is weigh every scenario out. No job=no ins, no tx, no home, no life. Either way I lose......Wouldn't it be a bite if that UV treatment actually worked and she did it with little or no side effects:) I pray it works. And Oh yeah, I have been real angry  over all this, I am sorry if I offend anyone that is not my intention. Just sometimes reads alittle pushy. Good Luck and God bless everyone....

[meki]

Dora - the reason why we are "pushy" is because the current SOC is the ONLY thing PROVEN to work.

When it works...

The reason for failure rates are UNKNOWN.

Could be many reasons --- and I can't even begin to pinpoint them.

I also can't pinpoint HOW MANY people suffer side effects... Or don't.

You're looking at a very small handful of people out of MILLIONS here on this forum who have banded together.

WHo have reached out online to discuss problems they've had...

What about the other hundreds of thousands that had NO PROBLEMS?

The ones that just got headaches --- or slight nausea?

What about them? THEY JUST DON'T GO ONLINE TO RESEARCH SIDE EFFECTS and stumble on to this website --- Because they DON'T HAVE SIDE EFFECTS.

How can you be so positive that YOU are going to be one of those people?

TX changes you.

But so does learning you have this disease.

You're angry - but stop being angry that there is something out there that gives you the opportunity to kill this disease.

40/60 is better than NONE.

And 81% of the virus being reduced is NOT cured. It leaves 19% of the virus to replicate and continue damaging the cells of the liver.

You can continue to be angry - but the only person you can really be angry with is yourself.

Most of us DO go through an "ANGER" phase...

The Why me... the why this... The screw that phase.

So you're not abnormal.

But you have literal facts in front of you -- THE SOC can and DOES work.

But you have to know that it can be hard...

Some people don't have sides that aren't manageable.

But who knows until you try it if you will.

Who knows if you don't try it -- if you're going to be one of the 40%?

Who knows?

You don't.

But if you don't try it --- You don't even have that 40% chance.

I admire your anger Dora - but I think instead of being angry -- find more information about this treatment...

Find more information for your peace of mind about the trials.

There are new cures coming.

But you have to know where you stand in line.

And Dora --- before you get too upset.. I want to suggest something for you to do.

I want you to take a few moments and research END STAGE LIVER CANCER

I want you - if you can - visit a hospital/nursing home/hospice --- and observe the actual decline and pain of the patients...

I want you to read what they went through --- how they feel as their liver slowly stops functioning...

And then come back and tell me that 40% is bad odds.

40% odds are better than NONE.

I'm sending you strength and love - because under all that anger --- at least for me --- was a lot of fear... and it was hard. Just as hard as the treatment.

But I survived through all of this.

And if I --- one of the weakest people I know ---- if I can make it through TX -- then so can you.

Why do I push TX? Or why am I more pro TX? Because I went through it... And I came out on the other side SVR.

I KNOW IT WORKS. And until something else comes out that kills this disease - I can't promote it --- because I KNOW THE SOC WORKS.

Meki

[HectorSF]

Meki, I couldn't have said it better myself. 40% is way better than zero % - $$$. I've got cirrhosis. This disease is no joke, believe me. Sometimes you have to suffer a little to win big!
Yeah, END STAGE LIVER Disease with or with out cancer, talk about suffering. Now THAT can ruin more than 24 or 48 weeks! :0

Meki, Thank you for the dose of reality. Have a great day!

Cheers! :-)
Hector

[JennyPenny]

Super post. You go girl!

Susie

[Xenigma]

After your 10th tx of it belle, let us know what your vl is.
I have read about this alternative tx, and have wondered if it works to lower a very high vl before using SOC tx.  Alone, it just ain't gonna work, but I'm very curious about what your results will be.   Let us know how you make out....
enigma
PS  If it doesn't work maybe you could try this...
http://www.doctoryourself.com/hepatitis.html

[eureka254]

It's easy for us to presume that UV treatment is a bad choice and a waste of dollars -- it's not SOC -- but I remember not too long ago when mention of 'supplements' was hosed down similarly, until someone like HR recommended it, and people tried it, and some came back with some incredible results.  In reading this thread, I don't see that anyone here has tried the UV.  (Not that I'm suggesting anyone do so, either, just playing devil's advocate.)

Certainly for almost anyone w/HCV, cure is the objective --- but at what valuation?  Anybody who has spent any time on this forum knows that there is no one answer.  There are those who have no symptoms and choose to treat, regardless of stage.  There are those who want to treat, whose docs recommend they wait, and vice versa.  There are those who treated who regret that they did. There are those who are approaching end stage and symptomatic, who refuse to treat.  And so many variations thereof.  So for those who don't, or won't, or can't treat... (or have to wait)... can we fault them for trying to improve their liver?

There's no doubt that end stage liver disease and/or cancer is not pretty.  I know firsthand, my husband had to have his left lobe removed due to HCC, and even with cardiac complications, he is thinking about treatment -- SOC that is --but it's only because his docs have suggested that even if he were to treat and NOT reach SVR (very likely to happen, too, as he's geno 1), the lowering of VL might help in staving off further cancer.  

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but if there was something, anything, that could produce a healthier liver with no side effects, I'd be chasing it down, even if it didn't mean SVR.  (I'm almost certain that there are others who feel that way too... I believe many people treat and retreat fully aware that they may not reach SVR, but even if they don't, it's worthwhile if it reverses some damage, or improves the bloodwork results.)

If Bellestar does continue the UV, I hope we still get feedback --- either first-hand confirmation of what most of you have said, or perhaps some new data if it's contrary to what's been threaded here.  

Respectfully,
eureka

[HectorSF]

Eureka, first and most importantly I would like to say I am sorry to hear about your husbands HCC. I wish you both all the best in your fight against his liver disease and it's complications.

If I might comment on a few things you said...

"can we fault them for trying to improve their liver?"
No I don't fault them for improving their liver. I fault them for wasting their time and $$. I would like to "improve" my liver too believe me. I have cirrhosis myself. The issue I see with this reasoning about VL is...There is NO correlation between VL and extent of liver damage and HCC! (see below). That is why most of us have a biopsy performed when we already know our VL?

Uses of Viral Load Test Results:  
from http://www.janis7hepc.com/Viral_Loads.htm

Viral load test results have many uses, such as confirming active HCV infection, and predicting and measuring HCV treatment response before, during, and after therapy. Higher HCV viral loads may be associated with a greater risk of HCV transmission, particularly transmission from mothers to infants during pregnancy or birth. Viral load has not been correlated with the risk of sexual transmission. Furthermore, a correlation between HCV viral load and disease progression has not been shown!!!

"the lowering of VL might help in staving off further cancer." How? In the vast majority of cases HCC only occurs in patients with cirrhosis. HCC develops out of cirrhosis NOT VL levels. Therefore to avoid HCC you want to elimate the cirrhosis not the VL.

"if there was something, anything, that could produce a healthier liver with no side effects." I think we are all in agree here. Just give me a pill that I can take once to kill the virus off for good. Many things in life would be great if they were true. If I were born wealthy. If I looked like Cary Grant and had the brain of Einstein. Unfortunately we all have to live in the real world. If your main concern is healthy livers without HCC, you might be interested in new experimental treatments to reverse fibrosis and inflammation.

...Again all my best regarding your husband's liver disease.
Hector

I have attached a link to a video below from my doctor at UCSF that you both might find helpful. It discusses the latest developments in treating patient with cirrhosis.
"Management of Hepatitis C in the Pre-Transplant Patient with cirrhosis (compensated and decompensated)"
(UCTV #14086; 39 minutes; March/6/2008)

Dr. Norah Terrault (Director of HCV at UCSF)
This video program from UCSF is part of an annual update for physicians who care for liver failure/transplant patients. UCSF is a national leader among abdominal organ transplant programs. This video segment covers antiviral therapies for management of Hepatitis C in patients with both compensated cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis in the pre-transplant patient. And the chances for reaching SVR.

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=14086

[viaduk]

I tried it several years ago, after relapsing from the peg/riba clinical trial.  It did not significantly affect viral load, but my liver function tests were moderately improved.  I definitely felt better while doing it, and it relieved some autoimmune issues  and oher problems that I have (psoriasis, joint pain, etc.).  It was quite costly, though.

[meki]

I don't disagree Eureka --- at all with what you are saying...

My commentary wasn't truly about the Ultraviolet treatments themselves - but more that Dora is going through some major anger stages --- Which we all understand...

I only hope that she can give herself a break from the anger - and focus on treatment or getting healthier. She's a smart gal going through some very rough moments right now.

And anger at having only a 40% chance because of her genotype.

But I am hoping --- praying --- that she can overcome the anger ---- because 40% is better than no percent.

And also she needs that reality check.

Now --- whether the stuff on here works --- I dunno. I haven't tried it --- BUT -- if I were trying SOC -- and it wasn't working --- YOU ARE DARNED TOOTIN' RIGHT that I'd be out there trying it out.

And 81% lowering --- maybe with SOC -- it might work...

But I want facts --- I want trials --- I want truth...

I can't see how it could be bad...

But I don't see it actually doing anything.... Doesn't mean it can't help --- cause I'm learning that supplements actually might work as well - and we've all seen Centrum as a normal part of life --- or Ensure --- etc.

So why not supplements aimed specifically for healthier liver functioning?

Hmmm?

I'm not against trying anything --- I am against snake oil cures tho...

Does that make any kind of sense? LMAO -- I just got back from a hike out to the park and a big bonfire --- my nose is still cold... and dripping... LOL --- but saw this and thought I should clarify -- -that I'm not against trials --- not against trying out things and seeing if they work (WITH DOCTOR'S VERIFICATION --- etc.) and I'm not against hope.

And I certainly hope Dora finds some much needed hope and love...

Cause I'm sending her my love.

Meki

[eureka254]

Thank you for your kind words and well wishes, as well as the video link.  I am always grateful for more data and for more information :).

Just a comment in reply to:
"In the vast majority of cases HCC only occurs in patients with cirrhosis. HCC develops out of cirrhosis NOT VL levels. Therefore to avoid HCC you want to elimate the cirrhosis not the VL"
-------------
The fact that the majority of patients who present with HCC also have cirrhosis is not surprising.  Considering HCC's average incidence of occurence (detection?) is between 20-30 years after initial infection, it's almost expected.  

But consider that HCC DOES occur in the absence of cirrhosis.  Medical literature readily admits that the pathology of HCC is poorly understood, but recent data and research seems to point to HCV's RNA mechanism itself (VL, perhaps?), rather than cirrhosis, as the culprit -- hepatocytes undergo viral-initiated gene mutation and/or tumor regulation suppresion as the precursor to tumor development and growth, and NOT cirrhosis as precursor.  (I have to admit I'm not well-organized enough quote an exact source, or biochemistry-lingo conversant enough to have necessarily depicted that correctly :P, but, if you're interested, there are several articles in 'Hepatology' & 'Journal of Hepatology' over the last two years that point to this.)  

[HectorSF]

Eureka,

Thanks for the info you shared. I admit it may not be as clear cut as I had thought. My reference point is cirrhosis caused by HCV as that is my own person experience. Thanks for the education.

Here are a few link to liver cancer you might find helpful.

Links to HCC info:

http://janis7hepc.com/liver_cancer.htm
Liver Cancer 2008

http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/liver/patients/topics/LT-livercancer.html - Who's%20at%20Risk?


http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hcsp/articles/Sherman-1.html

SCREENING FOR HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA
Morris Sherman MB BCh PhD FRCP(C)

Patients who have chronic hepatitis C have a risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer). This form of liver cancer is different from cancer that starts elsewhere in the body, and spreads to the liver. Hepatocellular carcinoma starts in the liver. Not all patients with hepatitis C have an increased risk of cancer. Patients who have advanced disease, namely cirrhosis get liver cancer with a frequency of about 5%/year. Patients who do not have cirrhosis rarely get liver cancer.

http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/online/monograph/hepc/screening.htm

The presence of chronic HCV infection leading to cirrhosis is the necessary precursor in the natural history of HCC. Several series from the United States, Italy, Japan, and France reported annual rates that ranged from 1.2% to 6.9%, although cirrhosis appears to have been the common denominator in most of these cases.188 There are rare reports of HCC presenting in hepatitis C patients in the absence of cirrhosis.189


http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/types/liver/
Great looking info!

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/hepatocellular/Patient/page2

Having hepatitis or cirrhosis can increase the risk of developing liver cancer.
Anything that increases the chance of getting a disease is called a risk factor. Having a risk factor does not mean that you will get cancer; not having risk factors doesn't mean that you will not get cancer. People who think they may be at risk should discuss this with their doctor. Risk factors for liver cancer include:
· Having hepatitis B or hepatitis C; having both hepatitis B and hepatitis C increases the risk even more.
· Having a close relative with both hepatitis and liver cancer.
· Having cirrhosis, which can be caused by:
o Hepatitis (especially hepatitis C).
o Drinking large amounts of alcohol for many years or being an alcoholic.
· Eating foods tainted with aflatoxin (poison from a fungus than can grow on foods, such as grains and nuts, that have not been stored properly).

http://www.usclivercancer.org/howlivercancerdevelops.html

In patients with HCV, risk factors for the development of HCC include the presence of cirrhosis, older age, male gender, elevated baseline alpha feto-protein levels (a blood test used in determining liver cancer), alcohol use

Best to both you and your husband!!!

Hector

[moahunter]

Do you think it would help to use a treatment like this, just before starting SOC? I seem to remember that a high initial viral load is an indicator of whether to carry on with 48 weeks, rather than 24 weeks if you are UND at 4 weeks. So, if this treatment could reduce the initial viral load, would that increase chances of SVR? Just a thought - probably not worth it I guess.

[eureka254]

You're right:  there's no doubt that the virus causes cirrhosis -- but the viral activity is also what causes HCC.  It's not the cirrhosis that causes the cancer, as was theorized for years (I notice some of your links are 2002 and earlier -- don't get me wrong, it's good info -- I personally treasure the Janis site :) , but perhaps not up-to-date) -- it maybe more appropriate to say cirrhosis is the "preferred environment", providing the optimal conditions for the development of tumor:

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v31/n4/full/ng0802-339.html

It's also interesting to note that though cirrhosis is present in 90% of HCV-HCC patients, the numbers are much lower in the HBV-HCC population: cirrhosis in about 50-60%.

I would theorize that the reason "patients who don't have cirrhosis usually don't get liver cancer," and why we usually see HCC accompanied by cirrhosis is because of the effects of viral activity in promoting BOTH conditions over long periods of time, and the risk of HCC increasing with decreasing liver function.  Sort of the fuel (cirrhosis) for the lit fuse (altered hepatocyte), if you will.  Just a theory.

(And in listening to your link/video...since there is some evidence that starting treatment with lower VL is more effective... if nothing else, isn't lowering VL, by whatever method, improving chances for SOC to work? ... I can't help but think there's lots more to be understood about VL and its significance, just that it has yet been to be interpreted? ...  I mean, geez, 15 years ago this V didn't even have a name...)

As far as screening/surveillance, my husband is followed closely: CT-Scan every 3 months (we had to push for that, oncologist wanted every 6 months :P, but hepatologist agreed 3 months), afp/liver function/metabolic panel & exam every 3 months.  We are aware that there's little data about tx relative to HCC, (and, acutely aware that tx -- though rarely -- could cause decompensation of what little liver is left), there are glimmers of hope that maybe, just MAYBE, Interferon has some effect on reducing risk:

http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/hep/livercancer/cancerprevention.html

(especially check out paragraph 2)

Thanks for your good wishes and good discourse :) .  

P.S.

" Eating foods tainted with aflatoxin (poison from a fungus than can grow on foods, such as grains and nuts, that have not been stored properly). "
------------------
. o O ( Maybe it's all really because my husband didn't realize he married a nut that hadn't been stored properly...)

[Dora82_05]

I do realize your trying to help. I have watched first hand what cancer does to a person, I watch the chemo and the rad, I watch the life drain from someone I love dearly. I have had friends and co workers do chemo, only to have it come back in a different form or die from a weakened organ. So, I put NO hope in tx or drs. It would just be a gamble. A roll of the dice. I have NO doubt end stage is very painful and most likely makes you wish you were dead. I am a realist, I do read and listen, but I am not naive and I don't put much trust in words. I do thank you for thought and opinions. I will know more after the biopsy and only then will I make a final decision. Take Care everyone and God Bless you all....

[merryBe]

I think the "do no harm" part of the  physician's code of ethics is what I would question here.

we all need hope...and certainly "light" sounds harmless enough.

but if you go to    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

you will get a primer, and check out the links and the immune suppression/cancer causing effects.  reference 8 and 9 especially.
even in cases where it does help certain skin issue, that is ONLY possible because the
melanin produced in the skin offers some protection...however the blood has no such defenses.
according to one researcher DNA is substantially damaged...that would include all the lymphatic conglomerate as well.

I used to use infrared in treatment therapy for some of my clients, but refused to ever use UV light....because even  30 years ago it was known that UV caused mutations.

I could find no current viable pubmed research on any HCV ultraviolet benefit....
yet another red flag.
so other than the 2004 piece quoted above there is no mention  worldwide in the research community???...Shouldn't that seem odd?
Obviously it has been in use in hospitals and labs for umpteen years now...to sterilize both air and water, etc....but not used in LIVING organisms....and for good reason.

If something were showing any real promise in living organisms...then you would see double blind trials etc by now. More than one.

Actually the alternative community tried this on AiDS patients as well....15 years ago I read about it...it did not pan out then...but did relieve many of dollars they badly needed.

Boy, I really hate to sound like a joy killer here, but if it looks too good to be true.
Not all forms of light therapy are good....some forms of light can harm or fry you in an instant, examples  being x-rays and lasers for instance. In some cases millseconds of expsure can make a diffenece between a beneficial or harmful outcome.

ask yourself why these doctors  claiming this helps do  not just filter all the blood out, zap it with UV and back in again...if it's so great.....then why not do the entire blood stream......answer....because they'd be zapping out your entire immune system. And they know it. They know the damage being done, but aren't telling you      .
the person who said the whole idea is to get ALL the virus has it right.
Unless one finds a substance capable of suppressing THAT virus from replicating in it's entirety, then any tx is only a temporary fix.

I'd have to disagree that there are no side effects....unless one doesn't consider carcinogenic stimulus a side effect...or the immune system needful.

my question becomes, are you going to get CBC's and complete liver panels done by your regular hepatologist. I would do this if NOTHING else....because you need someone you can trust that does not have a monetary motive to read your labs for you and tell you what is happening not just to your PCR but to all your immune components in the blood. I would not trust just anyone to do this....get an outside nautral source and neutral lab to confirm what this man is telling you, because the goal is to see you well, not more damaged.

obviously we would all love to see a drug or therapy that could kill the virus and harm no cells in the body but only effect the virus. That is the goal of all new drug research to narrow the spectrum and arrive one day at a specific and non-toxic vehicle. Unfortunately UV therapy is not that vehicle, and  current SOC, while far from where  we would like it to be, is still the only current mode of transportation to get to SVR known to exist and proven in trials and using the scientific method.
maryB