Opportunity can come from ideas that are correct but not generally accepted as correct.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783265/

If it were to work it would be a useful new modality. I am not promoting it, but it's on my "watch list" due to efforts by AYTU at Cedars Sinai.

In my experience the commonest current mainstream use of this is for Sezary Syndrome / mycosis fungoides (cutaneous T-cell lymphoma). See for example:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/8493-mycosis-...

Opportunity to give people leukemia. These ideas are at a prehistoric level of biology. We're way beyond this silliness now.

I am talking about work being done in clinical trials at reputable medical clinics. They may be mistaken but I don't think it's "silliness." Here is a recent clinical trial evaluating UVBI https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2331205X.2019.1...

Of course there are many other mainstream treatments that came from somewhat oddball ideas: Sister Kenney's treatments for polio, the Nobel prize winning discovery by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that ulcers were caused by bacteria (H. Pylori), the use of leaches for treatment of venous congestion after surgery, and the use of maggots for wound debridement.

It should never have been signed off on by an IRB. It is irresponsible and horrific that this has been trialed on people in this century.

I suspect this may be a case of "the dose makes the poison."

You may be generalizing from a specific experience or specific experiment and rejecting a modality that may have significant efficacy.

It's hard to tell what you are basing your assertions on because you offer no specifics. My "watch list" interest is based on the number of positive experimental results and ongoing investigations of the technique.

Any specific objections to the research links provided?