Archive for the ‘Treatment’ Category

“D-Day” and the Diagnosis That Changed Everything

https://www.lymedisease.org/diagnosis-changed-everything/

“D-Day” and the diagnosis that changed everything

Oct. 21, 2026

By Darlene DiBara O’Connor

A door closed. Then another swung wide open.

Wait.What?

You mean I might not really have ALS? I am not going to die a slow, painful death in my forties? And will still be here to raise my two young sons?

So, wait. Even after seeing 22+ practitioners, undergoing dozens of diagnostic procedures, and having numerous negative Lyme disease tests, I could still have it?

And it could be what is killing me right now?

These were the frantic questions, fraught with confusion and exhausting emotions that swirled in my brain or out of my mouth in that doctor’s office on October 16, 2013. The day after my mother’s funeral. That day that changed the course of my life–and my family’s lives–forever.

That day was what I now call my D-Day. The day that I was finally, properly diagnosed and then, successfully treated, by a brilliant and caring doctor from Connecticut. That visit saved my life, my sons’ lives, and many others in our family and beyond. This altered the course of my life. Forever.

Earlier that week, in the middle of the night, I bellowed the most guttural sobs while I prayed, on my hands and knees on my cold, kitchen floor. I vowed out loud to God, my dying mother’s mother, and the blessed St. Anne, that if WHATEVER “it” was that I really had, and was killing me, was truly revealed to me, I would beat it. And IF, whatever it was, was shown to me, I promised that I would dedicate the rest of my life to helping others with ‘it,’ also.

Oh, it was absolutely revealed to me. And I did get better. A lot better. And I kept my promise. (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

Yet another misdiagnosed Lyme/MSIDS patient who got well after getting the proper diagnosis and treatment.

Here’s some more:

I could go onto infinity with stories of misdiagnosis. Sadly, we are no better off than we were when it was first ‘discovered’ in the 80’s.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Ticks, Transmission, Treatment

What Modern Light Bulbs Are Doing to Us

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-modern-light-bulbs-are-doing?

What Modern Light Bulbs Are Doing to Us

Decades of forgotten research show natural light is an essential nutrient, and the bill to bring back incandescent bulbs just cleared its first vote

A Midwestern Doctor

Oct. 29, 2026

Story at a Glance:

•Sunlight is one of the most important things for our health (e.g., avoiding it makes you 60% more likely to die), yet all we ever hear is how important it is to avoid it.

•Energy efficient light bulbs emit a narrow, blue-heavy spectrum that disrupts sleep and metabolism, while lacking the infrared our mitochondria depend upon.

•Decades of forgotten research (now being confirmed by modern studies) show unnatural light is a root cause of many inexplicable physical and behavioral illnesses.

•The eyes and the blood conduct light throughout the body, and when this process is disrupted (e.g., by glasses), significant illnesses can develop.

•In 2022, incandescent bulbs were effectively banned because their infrared was scored as “waste.” The Senate bill to bring them back has now cleared its first committee vote.

The Importance of Sunlight

Prior to dermatology’s war on the sun (which is immensely misguided as dangerous skin cancers are due to a lack of sunlight exposure), the value of sunlight was widely recognized in medicine. For example, in the early 1900s, heliotherapy (sunbathing) was used with great success for treating many otherwise incurable conditions such as the 1918 influenza1 and tuberculosis.1 The existing data in turn shows sunlight provides an immense degree of benefit:

•A large study found high solar UVB exposure halved one’s risk of breast and prostate cancer.1

•A 20-year study of 29,518 women found that avoiding the sun made one 60% more likely to die, with the greatest benefit of regular sun exposure being a reduced risk of dying from heart disease.1 Likewise, in a 2024 analysis of the UK Biobank, both measures of UV exposure that were examined were associated with a lower risk of dying from any cause, from cardiovascular disease and from cancer,1 and when 88,905 participants wore light sensors for a week, those with brighter days and those with darker nights were each less likely to die over the following 8 years.1

•Sunlight is critical for mental health, and many workers suffer immensely without it (e.g., in hospital night shift workers, a lack of sunlight exposure was linked to worse mental health1).

Note: I really got this point once, where after a long period of hospital night shifts under fluorescent lights, I noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me). I went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better.

Typically, sunlight’s benefits are attributed to vitamin D. However, I have long suspected that many of the benefits of vitamin D are not due to the vitamin itself but rather that its elevation indicates the body is having regular sunlight exposure. For example, when 24 healthy volunteers were exposed to UVA (which does not produce vitamin D) at a dose equivalent to about 30 minutes of summer sun, their arteries dilated and their blood pressure dropped, as nitric oxide stored in the skin was released into the circulation.1 Similarly, a meta-analysis found that spending an hour or more a day in the summer sun was associated with a 16% lower risk of breast cancer, whereas simply living somewhere with more ambient UV was not.1 (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

Excellent article that I can not recommend enough.

The importance of light pertains to all, but especially those of us in the Northern Latitude, like Wisconsin.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Psychological Aspects, research, Sleep, Treatment

The Daily Pills That Stop Cancer

https://justusrhope.substack.com/p/the-daily-pills-that-stop-cancer

The Daily Pills that Stop Cancer

AI Refines the Root Detox™ Protocol

Justus R. Hope

Apr 02, 2025

∙ Paid

Revised Protocol Risk Reductions

Thursday Dr. Paul E. Marik and I announced an all-supplement daily cocktail that reduced cancer risk by some 60%. We improved on this with Metformin, Ivermectin, and Mebendazole to reduce risk to the 70 to 80% range.

Today we announce revisions accomplished over the past few days with the assistance of AI.

Without this time-saving help, these revisions would have taken months. But we do not have months to spare as the world is dealing with an unprecedented uptick in cancers. Everyone needs this information now.

We will begin at the beginning, starting with our first 3-Supplement AI search on Cancer Risk that established the baseline. We will end with the 90 to 95 percent Optimal Cancer Risk Reduction Protocol, that we display above and once again, with analysis, at the conclusion. (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

I learned something new. (Well, to be fair I’m always learning something new!)

I learned that it’s important to take enteric capsules of berberine, for the same reasons your proteolytic enzymes need to be enteric: to protect the supplement from stomach acid, allowing it to be dissolved in the intestines to enhance absorption and effectiveness. Berberine also outperformed Metformin.

Users in berberine clinical literature consistently report effects on energy metabolism and AMPK activation beginning to appear at the 6-8 weeks mark with consistent daily use. The most significant observations typically occur in the 6-12 week window. Source

Enter the Root6™ OTC Protocol:

Root6™ is nothing more than our basic four + Berberine and Sulforaphane. But because of synergy, the Cancer Risk Reduction is magnified, which is why cocktails of repurposed drugs work so well against cancer (very similar to how effectively they work against HIV compared with monotherapy).

Keep in mind the Root6™ is all OTC. Source

Category:

Cancer, diet and nutrition, Herbs, Inflammation, research, Supplements, Treatment

New US Customs Rules Threaten Your Access to Natural Health

https://anh-usa.org/new-us-customs-rules-threaten-your-access-to-natural-health/

New US Customs Rules Threaten Your Access to Natural Health

By The ANH Team

10/15/2026

New US Customs Rules Threaten Your Access to Natural Health

Stronger border checks for personal imports can protect Americans from unsafe foreign products, but the same rules could also shrink consumer access and choice. Action Alert!

THE TOPLINE

  • New customs requirements could mean higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer natural health choices for consumers buying products from overseas.
  • Stronger scrutiny can protect consumers from unsafe products, but added costs and paperwork could also drive responsible small suppliers out of the U.S. market.
  • We support practical, risk-based import procedures that target illegal products while preserving access to compliant products from reputable companies.

Consumers who buy natural health products from overseas could soon face higher prices, delayed deliveries, and fewer choices. A new Customs and Border Protection (CBP) rule that comes into force on October 22, 2026 adds hurdles that may discourage smaller companies from supplying American customers. Our concern is that responsible businesses could be caught alongside sellers of unsafe or illegal products. Additionally, patients who import life-saving medications for personal use that are not currently manufactured in the US may find there are delays or even barriers at US borders which could endanger lives.

What’s Changing

Low-value packages (under $800) imported for personal use previously benefited from a customs exemption that simplified their entry into the United States. The new CBP rule removes that exemption for international mail and adds stricter requirements for mailed products overseen by agencies such as FDA.

CBP offers an electronic option for some shipments, but it still requires detailed information, someone legally responsible for the import, and a financial guarantee called a customs bond. Suppliers may need specialist help, adding costs that consumers could ultimately pay.

The rule does not itself ban all imported medicines or abolish FDA’s personal importation policy. But administrative barriers can make an established supply route unusable. (See link for article)

Category:

Activism, Supplements, Treatment

Evidentiary Review: Mebendazole, Fenbendazole and Ivermectin for Astrocytoma

https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/evidentiary-review-mebendazole-fenbendazole?

EVIDENTIARY REVIEW: Mebendazole Fenbendazole and Ivermectin for Astrocytoma

Evidence as of October 12, 2026

James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Article Excerpts:

Mebendazole has reached human brain-tumor trials, while the astrocytoma case for fenbendazole and ivermectin still rests chiefly on preclinical research. It then explains why current molecular diagnoses matter, especially the distinction between IDH-mutant astrocytoma and IDH-wildtype glioblastoma, and traces the experimental rationale from the original benzimidazole observations to newer studies in IDH-mutant and pediatric glioma models.

The clinical appraisal examines five mebendazole reports, separating dose-finding from efficacy testing and identifying what missing control groups, historical comparisons, post-treatment selection, and mixed diagnoses prevent us from concluding. The laboratory appraisal distinguishes fenbendazole from flubendazole, includes the published figure correction, and examines ivermectin’s mitochondrial and autophagy findings without treating a molecular mechanism as a clinical outcome. The final argument connects drug exposure, neurological and hepatic safety, disclosure, reproducibility, and meaningful endpoints to a concrete research program. The conclusion calls for controlled, independently auditable studies that can earn a therapeutic claim or retire it.

Doctors are being peppered with questions about a new category of drugs for use in cancer. A patient who asks whether mebendazole, fenbendazole, or ivermectin might help treat astrocytoma has asked a legitimate scientific question. The answer requires considerably more care than a declaration that these are antiparasitic drugs, because a molecule’s original indication does not determine every biological action it can exert. It also requires more care than a collection of favorable laboratory results, because an effect in cultured cells must survive a demanding sequence of tests before it can support a claim about a person with a brain tumor. The published record contains enough substance to justify serious investigation, and enough unresolved questions to make confident therapeutic promises premature.

The evidence reviewed here does not establish that institutions suppressed an effective astrocytoma treatment. It does establish that the decisive treatment comparisons remain incomplete. We should direct criticism toward that demonstrable gap and ask who will close it. Public and philanthropic funding can support trials whose value lies in answering a clinical question even when the eventual product offers limited commercial reward. Funding decisions should account for disease burden, biological plausibility, and the information a study can produce. Investigators and advocates should disclose relevant patents, equity, product sales, and referral arrangements, while sponsors should commit in advance to reporting unfavorable results.

A defensible next program would begin with molecularly characterized patient-derived models and independent replication across laboratories. It would test each candidate separately, then justify each proposed combination with concentration-response and interaction experiments. The investigators should include normal neural and hepatic systems to examine selectivity, use exposure ranges that a human development program could realistically investigate, and report failures alongside successes. For mebendazole, formulation and polymorph require explicit characterization. For every candidate, the relevant question concerns active, sustained exposure at the tumor site, which requires evidence beyond an administered dose or a transient concentration in plasma. (See link for article)

_______________

For more:

Category:

Cancer, research, Testing, Treatment