My personal opinion, it's very shady what went on here, I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about the whole thing.

My other thoughts, no I've had no horrible ob's etc HOWEVER I only ever had one big ob after my primary but was on meds 99% of the time and the ob was when I was off the meds. I have had some minor symptoms since I stopped the meds which was also when I tried Imulux. Today I do notice a very, very, small spot that is surely an ob, even if just a minor one. Do I think this is so minor because of Imulux....no, I think it's just my body. But if I never get a big ob again I'm happy no matter what the reasoning is.

I unfortunatley will probably never really know if Imulux made my symptoms milder or non existent or if it's just my own body's way of dealing with this. I don't have any plans of going back on the meds unless something huge were to change. But if this is as bad as it gets, I'll take it And no, I wouldn't do the Imulux again for any reason only because if it was going to work it should work the first time, right? And no, I don't have multiple strains etc so I have no reason to continue the therapy.

I promised to go through this process open and honestly and hope I did just that for all who were following. I wish I could say more things that are black and white, but it would just be misleading.

Thanks for asking though!!!

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

I thought u said before that there was a direct correlation between Imulux and no symptoms. But u still have symptoms and your outbreaks just were not that bad before? I wanted to believe this would make a difference.

Rajah, does the treatment make any sense from a medical perspective, that this light would increase the antibody response?

Let's take a look at Dr. Stoneburner's open letter that he posted here on this forum in several threads and on other discussion forums elsewhere. Dr. Stoneburner's words are in green.

My name is Dr. Jon Stoneburner, President and owner of Imulux Ltd.. I was appointed to the position of Professor of Energy Medicine at the Institute of Progressive Medicine in 2005 by its founder Dr. John Martin and have co authored published clinical trials that appear in Principals of Molecular Pathology. I have been appointed the position of “clinical investigator” buy the IRB (Institutional Review Board) under an IND (Investigational New Drug) permit granted by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in April of 2006.
The Institute of Progressive Medicine is a part of Progressive University. The institute doesn't appear to have it's own web site. Take a look at their website at http://progressiveuniversity.org . The domain name is registered to a residential address and the listed phone number is a cell phone. Clicking on the "About Us" link provides no information. The same is true of the "Contact Us" link. Actually that seems to be true of most of the links on the university home page. Where the Doctor says, "buy the IRB", I'm wondering if that's a Freudian slip since the IRB for that IND seems to be connected to his friend Dr. Martin at the "Center for Complex Infectious Diseases". For additional information regarding the people and organizations involved with Imulux, I suggest you also take a detailed look at http://imulux.googlepages.com

Regarding what an IND actually represents, Howl, back in August posted in part:

I checked out the FDA's website for relevant information
here

An IND can be filed for anything that meets certain criteria. As far as I can tell a company that wants to legally move a medical product across state lines MUST submit an IND. they have to start a clinical trial process, but (here's the catch) you can have an IND without having an effective product. They just have to have an ongoing study of the product. . .

On another page here the FDA says "The IND is not an application for marketing approval."

We can't assume an IND equal an effective product. I think they filed the IND to go through the motions, but I think their trials will fail because the science is total crap. Polarity of viruses . . .

Addendum: I can't find a searchable database of INDs. Maybe they are considered proprietary? Note: The FDA does say that INDs are, indeed, considered proprietary.

My questions about the university itself would be: What is the address of the campus and what is its phone number? With what accreditation body is the university accredited and when was it first accredited? How many undergraduate and graduate students currently attend classes? How many degreed professors are in the faculty?

I was interested in the clinical trials that are said to appear in the "Principals of Molecular Pathology", but googling that publication didn't return any hits other than a link to our Imulux thread here. Similarly, I googled for "Principles of Molecular Pathology", with the correct spelling of principles and discovered a book with that title written by Anthony A. Killeen of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Perusing the covers, table of contents, and index produced no references to Imulux, Ultra-violet light or Stoneburner. I don't believe that this is the publication mentioned.

There has been a lot of talk in the herpes community regarding Imulux. I would like to clarify our claims and position on the Imulux protocol so that there is no misunderstanding.
Great!

IMULUX CLAIM
No one on the face of the planet can claim to have a "cure" for herpes but we at Imulux feel that we might have the closest thing to it.
Unfortunately a number of products and "protocols" claim just that, but I'm glad that Imulux doesn't.

- We claim that the Imulux protocol kills viruses allowing the body to form antibodies. Your immune system is what protects you from that point forward.
Actually live viruses cause the immune system to vigorously produce antibodies moreso than dead viruses, witness the successful live virusvaccines in use today such as the chickenpox vaccine.

ADDITIONAL INFO:
Science will agree with the following facts:

· ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT IS “HAZARADIOUS TO THE HEALTH OF VIRUSES”, they do not survive well in its presence.
Ultraviolet light is hazardous to a lot of organisms including human tissue, witness UV blocking sunscreens, etc.

· IF MEDICINE INJECTS DEAD VIRUSES INTO THE BODY THE BODY WILL FORM ANTIBODIES. (EXAMPLE; A FLU SHOT)
Some vaccines also use modified live viruses. Per my comment above, the live virus causes vigorous production of antibodies to a greater extent than dead ones. Bill Halford's research, reported here on HHP elsewhere, bears out that an attenuated live vaccine is very effective in studies he has done involving mice.

Scientists at Imulux have found a solution that allows ultraviolet light to pass through the skin unaltered in wavelength or intensity. We call this solution a “photon lending substance”. The substance involved is not a drug, medication, or strong chemical with hazardous side effects. In fact it is classified by the FDA as a class one Medical Device. This substance is readily absorbed by the virus and when exposed to ultraviolet light causes damage to the virus killing it. The light alone would damage the virus but the photon lending substance allows the light to enter the virus directly killing it. This is simply a form of energy medicine, no different than cold packs placed on an injured ankle. The cold helps the pain and swelling. (“Energy medicine”)
This is very interesting. I did some searching for “photon lending substance” and got no hits, although eventually this thread may show up for that term. I then searched for “photon lending” and discovered another of Dr. Stoneburner's websites http://www.phototherapyforherpes.com billing itself as: "THE WORLDS FIRST HOMEOPATHIC APPROACH TO PHOTOTHERAPY FOR HERPES." While I'll admit I'm not an expert on homeopathy, I fail to see how this treatment is related to the basic principles of homeopathy as I understand them.

On that phototherapyforherpes.com website, as well as other places, if I recall correctly, a patent is mentioned. It's patent #6,368,637 and is available to view online at http://patft.uspto.gov . In that patent documentation we learn the nature of the solution that is applied. Interesting reading. It's amazing what the USPTO will issue a patent for nowadays. You can get a patent on almost anything and don't have to prove it can actually work.

Published clinical trials have proven the following; (http://www.imulux.com/news.html)
I've taken a quick look at this news release. I was gratified to see that it is a pier review article. I'm assuming that means that someone took it down to the dock to read. (Pier, as in the nautical sense.)

Seriously, I'm sure that it was a typo and should have been typed as "peer review article". Peer reviewed articles are published in recognized journals such as the "Journal of the American Medical Society" or some other scientific publication where the articles are reviewed by the submitter's peers, meaning other experts in the field, prior to publication. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review for a detailed explanation of peer review. Try as I may, I've not found this article appearing anywhere in any journal.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

And no I did not still have symptoms up until yesterday when I noticed a very minor outbreak. Today I can barely tell that it is there. Is that because of Imulux? I cannot say without a doubt either way. I will say that I did not have one symptom until now since stopping the meds and doing Imulux but you can take that for whatever it is worth. Again, I had my primary then started suppressive therapy. I stopped it once and about a month off, maybe 3 weeks I did get a typical outbreak i.e. blisters etc. I went back on the meds and had no obs. I went off the meds and did Imulux and this has been the first sign of anything since.

And Rajah, no I don't feel as if anything was directed at me, no worries there. Thank you for letting me post my experiences as I went along I appreciate it.

One more note. My partner is HSV2 positive as well, he has had it much longer but still got obs and can recognize the symptoms much better then I can. He too did Imulux and has had no obs but has had some prodome. Again, for whatever thats worth it's been his experience thus far.

Hope this helps!

The journal is Experimental and Molecular Pathology.

If the link above doesn't work, go here and do a search on Martin. The paper reprinted on the Imulux site is one of quite a few he's published in that journal. here

I'm jumping in here because I found this forum by googling Imulux. I've been following the discussion with interest -- I'm very appreciative to have the company's claims vetted in this way.

My hope is that ultimately things will wash out as the product gets more attention and the company's claims are either validated or discredited via clinical trials, as obviously onesey twosey anonymous testimonials aren't worth much, nor are self-reported symptoms. Ideally the studies would utilize regular PCR-based testing of people previously diagnosed with herpes, who have been treated using this protocol in a supervised setting. I should think PCR tests would also put to rest the "multiple strains" angle, as presumably various strains could be distinguished by their DNA (dunno for sure, though -- educated guess here based on rudimentary understanding of PCR).

That said, I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. This is by no means a defense of this company but so far the main problem, it seems to me, is that things "don't quite seem just right." Nobody's found the curtain with the guy standing behind it, yet. Everything that I've seen so far *could* be explained by a lack of experience in running a professional corporate organization (e.g. not automatically prompting a U.K. customer to purchase an adapter for the light) not to mention lack of experience running frickin spellcheck.

Even the stuff about the institute, etc. -- it's not clear to me that this indicates a malicious intent to deceive. Being associated with an "institute" is -- obviously -- an attempt to legitimize the company, including the so-called million dollar challenge, but this sort of image manipulation goes on all the time -- e.g. the ADD group CHADD is partially funded by the pharmaceuticals

Article link here.

Is that wily marketing or deception? Some see it one way, some another. Your interpretation will be based on whether you think drugs like Ritalin are a medical godsend (& the pharmas are ministering selflessly to the masses by spreading information about them); or a cynical attempt to make money by persuading people to drug misbehaving children.

Of course the big pharmas are more sophisticated. They aren't going to send CHADD emails from the same ISP that's used by their corporate marketing departments

What fascinates me most about this personally is that I believe blind hogs do get acorns once in awhile. I recently read a review of a new book out about the discovery of sulfa drugs, The Demon Under The Microscope, By Thomas Hager. The book tells how originally the medical researchers who "discovered" sulfa didn’t realize it was sulfa that was curing bacterial infections. They were experimenting with a dye recipe used by wool-dyers; they thought it was the dye that could kill bacteria; they used the recipe because it incorporated sulfur to help the dye "stick" to wool and they thought the same action would promote the dye's theoretical efficacy as a bactericide. Much to their disappointment, someone else later tried just sulpha without the dye and it worked just as well. No patents for anyone that day

So yes, people can blunder onto clinically valid treatments, even without understanding them completely. Is it likely that Imulux will prove to be some such discovery? Odds are against it, for sure. But paying attention isn't *quite* as feckless as believing in fairy tales, either.

Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I appreciate the tone maintained by the moderators of this forum a great deal & plan to check back in often to see how this all plays out. Thanks to all who've contributed their impressions & experiences.

Note from Rajah: I edited the links in this post to make it more readable so we didn't have to scroll sideways to read each line. Nothing else was touched.

As I've disclaimed, I'm not a molecular biologist, or anything of the sort, but I can read and understand the scientific method. I've also learned to recognize the common red flags. I think the thrust of what's been discussed here is that there's nothing to indicate that this product actually is of benefit in any meaningful way and that the way the product is presented along with the lack of gravitas, if I may use that word, of the organizations involved, makes a lot of people intuitively skeptical.

The description of how it works seems to be fraught with hocus pocus and incorrect statements. Yes, I've seen the abstracts of Dr. Martin's articles, but it's not clear to me that the journal referenced is actually a real peer reviewed journal. I am troubled by some of the terminology that is used, such as Alternatative Cellular Energy (ACE) and it's description. It just sounds too much like "New Age" pseudo-science, without firm scientific basis.

I do generally agree with your premise that people do sometimes stumble onto valuable scientific information unexpectedly. My problem in this instance is that it's been rushed into being a business without validation.

The infamous "Million dollar challenge", to me is one of the larger red flags. It's not a credible way to establish validity since it is asking that a negative be proved. If they have the money to throw around, then spend it on doing the proper studies to prove that it works.

Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Stay tuned for the next installment.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

After I posted, the question about whether the journal is in fact peer-reviewed crossed my mind, also, so I checked, and it is, according to the author guidelines.

http://authors.elsevier.com/GuideForAuthors.html?PubID=622825&dc=GFA

Your points are all good ones. And yeah, I'll definitely be staying tuned

W. John Martin, and Jon Stoneburner

Center for Complex Infectious Diseases, 3328 Stevens Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, USA

Abstract

<snip>
The mechanism of healing is thought to involve an interaction between neutral red and alternative cellular energy pigments (ACE pigments) present within the viral lesions that enhances responsiveness to ultraviolet light energy. The healing effects are not restricted to the treated lesions and may involve transmission of a biological energy throughout the body. Beyond its obvious clinical and diagnostic utility, this model system may help usher in a new era of energy-based medicine.

Keywords: Neutral red; Ultraviolet light; Herpes simplex virus; Herpes zoster virus; Human papillomavirus; Alternative cellular energy pigments; Energy medicine"

Then there's this mysterious and unproven "transmission of a biological energy throughout the body". If that's not sounding like New-Age pseudoscience, I don't know what is. Let's see some scientific studies that show this is something that actually exists rather than conjecture.

Regarding the publication, I looked at your link and see that peer-review is mentioned on that page. I wonder who the reviewers are and what they said?

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Aren't I just soo helpful?

I will not being using the Imulux again personally and will say that it does speed up healing but obviously doens't prevent future ob's.

Sorry

Stoneburner actually provided me with the kit and a refill for free. I will keep you posted, but I am unfortunately not optimistic....

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Paraphrased from Mark Twain