Now that you know that Lyme disease presents a regular risk for you and your family due to its worldwide spread, rapidly increasing tick populations due to a warming climate (ticks reproduce faster at higher temperatures), and lack of accurate testing, what are the most common Lyme symptoms, aside from the telltale rash, that you should be looking for to suspect an infection?
Signs and Symptoms of Lyme Disease
There are six major signs and symptoms that allow the Medical Detective to suspect an infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease:
(1) It is a multisystemic illness. Although it is possible to just have one joint that hurts and may be swollen as your primary symptom, this is not the usual manifestation that I have seen among the 13,000 chronically ill individuals I have diagnosed and treated. A broad range of body systems is usually affected, including the heart, musculoskeletal system, along with neurological, psychological, hormonal, and even immunological consequences, including immune deficiency.
So if you have a multisystemic illness, with many of the symptoms listed below, and your doctor has sent you to specialist after specialist looking for answers, that is a telltale sign Lyme disease may be present.
(2) Symptoms of Lyme disease tend to come and go with good and bad days. In many other chronic illnesses, symptoms tend to be daily without huge variations in intensity or frequency.
(3) The hallmark symptom of Lyme disease is migratory pain. Migratory joint pain, migratory muscle pain and/or migratory nerve pain (neuropathy, which is usually experienced as a burning, tingling, numbness or stabbing sensation) lets the Medical Detective know that a diagnosis of Lyme is likely. (There are only seven diseases that cause migratory pain.)
(4) Symptoms of Lyme disease usually get better or worse with antibiotics. This would not be the case with a chronic fatiguing, musculoskeletal, cardiac, neuropsychiatric illness due to a pure viral infection (which can be the case in CFS/ME, FM, and/or long Covid). Symptoms that can get better (lowering the load of the bacteria) or worse (known as a Herxheimer reaction, which is an inflammatory reaction due to killing off of the bacteria) include the following:
*Muscle and joint pain (which can be migratory in nature)
*Severe fatigue
*Tingling and/or numbness/and/or burning and/or stabbing sensations (neuropathy, which can be migratory in nature)
*A stiff neck
*Headaches
*Light and sound sensitivity
*Dizziness
*Memory and concentration problems
*Mood disorders such as depression and/or anxiety
*Difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep
*Fever and/or chills
*Gastrointestinal issues
*Chest pain with palpitations
*Shortness of breath…and more.
*(I’ll have more details about symptoms in my next article.)
(5) Women usually have a worsening of Lyme disease symptoms around their menstrual cycle: before, during or right afterwards. This is because when estrogen levels drop, the bacteria can become more active.
(6) Finally, there are clues on blood tests that you have been exposed to Lyme disease and associated tick-borne infections, but it is important to know that standard two-tiered testing (STTT), using an ELISA followed by a Western blot–one of the primary ways doctors try to diagnose Lyme disease–is highly insensitive, with the accuracy of about a coin flip.
Insensitive testing
For early Lyme disease, doctors may use a version of the STTT, called “Modified two-tiered testing (MTTT),” where two enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are used instead of the traditional Immunoblot. (Although in one Canadian study it was 25% better at diagnosing some early cases, it is still an imperfect test, and other studies have found the MTTT to be more or less equivalent to the STTT.)
Which means that, ultimately, Lyme disease is a clinical diagnosis. An EM rash, the classic rash of Lyme disease, is proof of exposure and does not require a positive blood test. But if you did not see the rash, you need to know that negative testing with a STTT and/or a MTTT does not rule out exposure.
Clues that you have been exposed are Borrelia specific bands in your blood, such as the 23 kDa (Outer surface protein C, i.e., Osp C), 31 kDa (Osp A), 34 kDa (Osp B), 39 kDa and the 83/93 kDa bands. The exception is the 31 kDa band on a Western blot may cross react with viral proteins or reflect an autoimmune process. The 31 kDa band on an Immunoblot, a test that uses recombinant DNA, is however specific, which is why we prefer using Immunoblots as our first line test.
Standard treatment for Lyme disease
Because testing and treatment can be so complicated, there’s much more info to come….
For now, know that if caught early, the standard treatment for Lyme by some infectious disease doctors is a 14-day course of antibiotics, usually doxycycline or amoxicillin. For an EM rash, some doctors will prescribe antibiotics for up to 30 days.
However, if you have multiple EM rashes, or an EM rash with peripheral nervous system (PNS) involvement (tingling, numbness, burning, and/or stabbing sensations of the arms and legs) and/or central nervous system (CNS) involvement with nerve palsy like Bell’s palsy (where your facial muscles don’t work properly) with associated neuropathy, cognitive difficulties with memory/concentration problems, light or sound sensitivity, dizziness, sleep disorders, new or exacerbated psychological symptoms–short courses of antibiotics will not clear the infection, and you will go on to the chronic form of the disease.
When symptoms persist–Stephen’s story
If symptoms persist, brace yourself! You could find yourself at the mercy of the bacteria that will make your life a misery. Like Stephen.
When Stephen came to see me in March 2020, he told me he’d had to drop out of his first semester at college because he couldn’t function anymore. He’d been suffering for 10 years—no, that is not a typo!–from a strange disease that had brought his life to a halt, going from one doctor to another trying to find a cure.
When I asked him to describe his symptoms, he took a deep breath. The list was long. “Well, I’m tired all the time, no matter what I do,” he told me. “My joints and muscles always ache. I get these sharp stabbing pain in my hands or legs or chest. Sometimes it’s a burning pain.” He shook his head, confused. After all these years, he still couldn’t understand why this was happening. It didn’t make sense.
Working on a theory, I asked if he experienced shortness of breath or night sweats. He did. But then, carefully avoiding my eyes, he confessed to the worst symptom of all. “Sometimes —not always—I see or hear things that aren’t really there.”
My heart went out to him. This bright young man with such a promising future had suddenly developed auditory and visual hallucinations when he was 18 for no apparent reason. A psychiatrist decided he was schizophrenic, and prescribed an antipsychotic that came with serious side effects. Once Stephen had this diagnosis, no doctor had ever listened to him the same way again. Until now.
An important piece of the puzzle
“Have you ever been around cats?” I asked him.
“Not lately,” he said. Then he remembered that, growing up in rural Pennsylvania, he’d had a cat. Inevitably, she had scratched and bitten him more times than he could remember.
“How about tick bites?”
“Sure,” he said. “But that was years ago…”
As I questioned him, the pieces of the medical puzzle started to fall into place. I’d seen the same series of infectious and environmental assaults in patients with this illness for decades. I thought it might also stem from the same infections.
When I asked Stephen to stand up for the physical exam, he felt dizzy. I checked his pulse. It had jumped more than 30 beat per minute and stayed high for several more minutes.
That was a clear sign of POTS (Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome), a dysregulation in areas of the nervous system that controls our blood pressure and pulse rate. I see this problem regularly in my chronic Lyme disease patients, those suffering from long Covid, as well as those with problems due to environmental toxins like mold.
When he lifted his shirt so I could listen to his lungs, Stephen muttered, apologetically, “Oh, I have a rash…” That was an understatement. Spreading across his entire middle and upper back was a distinctive purple rash that looked like horizontal stretch marks.
I smiled. “I need to confirm it with blood tests, but I think I know what’s causing your symptoms.”
Stephen was stunned. “What is it?”
“A parasite,” I told him. “It’s called Babesia. It’s a protozoan, like malaria, that can cause sweats, chills, shortness of breath. And I also strongly suspect you have contracted a bacterial infection called Bartonella, often transmitted through cat bites and scratches.”
When we got his laboratory results back, they confirmed my suspicions. “Bartonella could’ve caused all of your neuropsychiatric symptoms—and the rash!” I told him.
Other factors
That said, a condition as extreme as Stephen’s is not just about parasites and little-known bacterial infections. There were a lot of contributing factors. He’d been exposed to environmental toxins like mold, along with vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and this had exacerbated and compounded his symptoms, preventing his immune system from clearing away any lingering infections and making it difficult for him to detoxify and improve.
With so many things going on, it was clear that Stephen didn’t just have Lyme disease. He had Multiple Systemic Infectious Disease Syndrome (MSIDS). He had multiple overlapping sources of inflammation with downstream effects making him ill.
When I started Stephen’s treatment, using dapsone combination therapy for chronic Lyme disease and Bartonella, he soon felt like a completely different person. For the first time in over a decade, his pain was gone. His joint and muscles didn’t ache. The stabbing, burning nerve pains had disappeared. No more night sweats (we will devote an entire article to Babesia in the future). No fatigue.
Even the hallucinations were almost gone. After struggling to regain his health for so long that he had nearly given up hope, Stephen was almost completely back to normal — in months — after finally getting the right treatment.
And you can get the right treatment too.
More to come
In upcoming articles, I’m going to talk much, much more about MSIDS, and the 16-point treatment plan that I used my Medical Detective skills to develop. It’s a treatment plan that works for not only chronic Lyme disease, but many other chronic illnesses which share overlapping biological processes with the three I’s: multiple infections, inflammation, and immune dysfunction.
Coming up next, I’m going to share the Lyme questionnaire, taken from my book. How Can I Get Better? and published in the International Journal of General Medicine. We validated this questionnaire in 1,600 individuals, both healthy and sick, with help from researchers at the State University of New Paltz. I know it’s going to help if you worry at all that you or someone you know might have Lyme disease. Then, in future articles, we are going to dive into the broad range of testing available to help diagnose early and late disease.
This article was originally published on Substack by Dr. Richard Horowitz.
Dr. Richard Horowitz has treated 13,000 Lyme and tick-borne disease patients over the last 40 years and is the best-selling author of How Can I Get Better? and Why Can’t I Get Better? You can subscribe to read more of his work on Substack or join his Lyme-based newsletter for regular insights, tips, and advice.
FLCCC Co-Founders Join AAPS Lawsuit Against ABIM and Board-Certifying Organizations for Censoring Physicians
Washington, D.C. (November 12, 2024) – The FLCCC Alliance announced that its co-founders, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik, are seeking by motion to join the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Educational Foundation’s federal lawsuit against the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and other board-certifying organizations as well as the Biden Administration. This lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Galveston, TX, seeks to hold accountable entities that have not only censored but retaliated against physicians, including Drs. Kory and Marik, for advocating evidence-based approaches to patient care that are contrary to public health agency directives. Drs. Kory and Marik asked the court to join the suit after ABIM’s unprecedented decision to revoke their board certificationsfor their public advocacy despite their expertise acquired through long and distinguished careers.
FLCCC Co-founders Dr. Paul Marik and Dr. Pierre Kory
The lawsuit alleges that ABIM engaged in tortious interference with their efforts to engage in a national debate over repurposed drugs and concerns about mRNA vaccination. The suit alleges that ABIM infringed on their freedom of speech, contractual due process rights, and includes defamation claims on behalf of Drs. Kory and Marik.
“Consensus-Driven” Medicine Cited as Rationale for Decertification
Since May 2022, when the ABIM first issued a Notice of Potential Disciplinary Action, Drs. Kory and Marik have tirelessly defended their efforts on the part of FLCCC’s positions, providing substantial medical and scientific evidence to support their recommendations for early COVID-19 treatment and critiques of vaccine risks. Despite these eminent physicians’ submitting over 170 references in a comprehensive 60-page response in January 2023, the ABIM chose to dismiss these scientific contributions in favor of a narrow, “consensus-driven” narrative—a rationale used as grounds for the revocation of their board certifications.
The AAPS case against ABIM and its co-defendants was originally dismissed by the District Court but was reinstated against the board defendants by the Fifth Circuit in its opinion that expressed strong concern about the suppression of medical viewpoints.
In response to their recent decertifications, Dr. Marik underscored the pressing need to protect medical freedom and accountability in healthcare:
“True progress in medicine depends on the free exchange of ideas and the courage to challenge established norms. Without open scientific debate, we risk losing the opportunity to discover effective treatments and provide the best patient care.”
“This fight is about more than just our right to speak—it’s about protecting the future of healthcare and putting these organizations on notice. When doctors are silenced for questioning the prevailing narrative, we all lose,” said Dr. Kory.
“We must ensure that medical decisions are guided by expertise and evidence, not by fear of reprisal.”
A Stand for Free Medical Speech and Patient Care
The lawsuit contends that board-certifying organizations, including the ABIM, the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), and the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG), have acted in concert together and with the federal government to suppress and retaliate against physicians with dissenting viewpoints, thus infringing upon First Amendment rights. President and Chief Medical Officer of FLCCC Dr. Joseph Varon highlighted the critical need for organizations like FLCCC to stand behind medical professionals facing such reprisals.
“The FLCCC Alliance firmly believes that the essence of medical science lies in the open dialogue, exchange of ideas, and rigorous debate of differing perspectives. However, the actions of the ABIM reflect a troubling trend towards censoring any opinions that challenge the status quo. This censorship stifles innovation, limits treatment options for patients, and ultimately harms the doctor-patient relationship.”
Seeking Justice and Accountability
This case represents a broader fight for the integrity of healthcare, protecting physicians’ right to practice honest medicine based on clinical experience and scientific evidence. The FLCCC Alliance remains steadfast in its mission to advocate for healthcare providers’ autonomy, ensuring that the voices of Drs. Kory and Marik, and other medical professionals, are not silenced. This lawsuit is a pivotal step toward safeguarding medical integrity and patient care freedom for practitioners and patients around the world.
About the FLCCC Alliance
The FLCCC Alliance, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, was formed in March 2020 by a group of highly published, world-renowned critical care physicians and scholars with the academic support of allied physicians worldwide. Known for its lifesaving protocols for preventing and treating COVID-19 in all stages of illness, including “long COVID” and post-vaccination syndrome, the FLCCC has expanded its work to include treatment guides for various other conditions, such as sepsis, metabolic disease, cancer, and depression. The organization is dedicated to Honest Medicine™ that prioritizes patients above profits and emphasizes long-term wellness and the empowerment of both physicians and their patients. For more information, visit flccc.net
About AAPS
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country.
Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine. www.aapsonline.org
Will You Support Honest Medicine?
Your support is vital to advancing our mission. As the ABIM situation continues to unfold, we need your support to defend doctors and uphold your right to healthcare free from harmful influences.
By contributing to the Honest Medicine Movement, you’re not just donating—you’re becoming a crucial part of our effort to transform healthcare. Your support helps us expand our network of experts, amplify our global advocacy, and drive impactful initiatives.
Together, we can enhance patient care, reform broken systems, and champion the cause of transparent, evidence-based medicine. Every contribution fuels our key initiatives and brings us closer to a future where honest, reliable healthcare is accessible to all.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2024/09/25/ama-lyme-disease-a-clinician-toolkit-part-2/ In short, the CDC gave the AMA 5M in taxpayer dollars to come up with an IDSA Toolkit to improve care for patients with prolonged symptoms and concerns about Lyme disease.Hopefully you can see the inherent problems with this. Once again, the wolf is being asked to take care of the chickens. How can a medical ‘professional’ organization that has done nothing but monopolize medicine, persecute doctors who are actually helping patients, and discount persistent/chronic Lyme/MSIDS do anything to help patients? Answer: they can’t.
How Red Light Therapy Benefits Neuropathy, Myopathy and More
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
November 18, 2024
Story At-A Glance
Photobiomodulation, using specific wavelengths of red and near-infrared light, shows promise in treating neuropathy, myopathy and myopia by reducing inflammation, improving cellular function and slowing eye elongation
Red light therapy has demonstrated effectiveness in slowing myopia progression in children, with studies showing reduced axial eye elongation and improved vision compared to conventional treatments
Photobiomodulation therapy alleviates neuropathic pain by boosting mitochondrial function and reducing oxidative stress. It’s particularly effective when combined with other treatments like exercise or electrical stimulation
The optical window for light therapy ranges from 600 to 900 nanometers, with nearinfrared light (around 800 to 810 nm) being especially beneficial for deep tissue penetration and mitochondrial health
Red and near-infrared light exposure stimulates ATP and melatonin production in mitochondria, improving overall health. A general dosage guideline is 25 joules, typically achieved through 20-minute sessions
Red light therapy, also known as low-level light therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation, is a non-invasive treatment that uses specific wavelengths of red and near-infrared light to stimulate cellular function. This therapy has gained attention for its ability to promote healing, reduce inflammation and alleviate pain in various conditions.
The benefits of red-light therapy extend to several areas of health. For neuropathy, it helps reduce pain and improve nerve function by increasing blood flow and reducing inflammation. In cases of myopathy, red light therapy shows promise in enhancing muscle recovery and reducing muscle fatigue. Additionally, research suggests it may have positive effects on skin health, myopia, cognitive function and more.
Low-Level Red-Light Therapy: A Promising Approach for Myopia
Myopia, commonly known as nearsightedness, is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide, especially among children. A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) highlights the alarming rise in myopia rates (1). According to the research, the global prevalence of myopia has steadily increased from 24.32% in 1990 to 35.81% in 2023. Even more concerning, projections suggest this number could reach 39.80% by 2050.
This trend is particularly pronounced in certain demographics. East Asian populations show a higher prevalence at 35.22%, while urban areas see rates of 28.55%. Adolescents are especially affected, with a staggering 47% prevalence rate. These statistics underscore the urgent need for effective interventions to manage and prevent myopia progression in children. This is where innovative approaches like low-level red light therapy come into play.
Low-level red-light therapy (LLRL) offers a gentle approach that may be particularly suitable for children. A meta-analysis of several studies, published in Clinics and involving 685 patients with a mean age of 9.7 years, found that LLRL therapy was associated with better outcomes in two key measures of myopia progression: spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) change (2).
Compared to control groups, children receiving LLRL therapy showed a mean difference of 0.58 diopters in SER change and -0.33 mm in AL change. These numbers might seem small, but in the context of myopia progression, they represent significant improvements that could make a substantial difference in long-term eye health.
A comprehensive review of multiple studies also found that red light therapy, using wavelengths between 635 to 650 nanometers (nm) — a unit of measurement used to describe wavelengths of light — effectively reduces axial elongation of the eye and slows the increase in myopic spherical equivalent refraction, suggesting the nearsightedness is progressing more slowly (3).
What’s particularly exciting is that these benefits were observed in treatments ranging from just four weeks up to 24 months.
A Bright Solution for the Growing Problem of Myopia
Additional studies have found that repeated low-level red light (RLRL) therapy significantly slows down the elongation of the eye, which causes myopia, and improves vision compared to just wearing glasses(4). The treatment is simple: children look into a red-light device for three minutes, twice a day, five days a week. It’s easy to do at home, and parents monitor their child’s progress through an app.
Best of all, it doesn’t have the side effects associated with other myopia treatments like atropine eye drops or orthokeratology lenses. The secret to red light’s profound effects on vision lies in how it interacts with your eyes at a cellular level.
Red-light therapy works by stimulating the production of dopamine in your retina, which acts as a “stop signal” for eye growth. It also increases blood flow to the choroid, the layer of blood vessels that nourishes your retina (5). A thicker choroid is associated with better eye health and less myopia progression.
Additionally, red light therapy reduces oxidative stress and inflammation in the eye, both of which are thought to play a role in myopia progression. By addressing these underlying factors, red light therapy doesn’t just mask the symptoms of myopia — it helps to slow down or even halt its progression. This is a crucial difference from conventional treatments that only correct vision without addressing the underlying cause of myopia.
In several clinical trials, children who received red light therapy showed significantly less myopia progression than those who only wore glasses. On average, children treated with red light L had about 0.3 millimeters less eye elongation after 12 months compared to those who only wore glasses (6).
Importantly, these studies found no serious side effects from the RLRL treatment. This safety profile, combined with its effectiveness, makes RLRL therapy an attractive option for parents concerned about their child’s worsening myopia.
Photobiomodulation Offers Hope for Neuropathy Sufferers
If you’re struggling with neuropathy, photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy, which refers to the therapeutic use of specific wavelengths of light, including red and near-infrared light, to stimulate biological processes in cells, may provide relief.
Recent research has shown that PBM is particularly effective when combined with other therapies, offering a powerful tool in managing neuropathic pain. The therapy works by boosting mitochondrial function, improving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis and reducing oxidative stress and inflammation.
These effects are especially beneficial for those dealing with peripheral neuropathy, where nerve damage causes pain, numbness and tingling sensations. Studies have demonstrated that PBM therapy helps alleviate these symptoms, offering you a drugfree alternative or complement to conventional treatments. The wavelengths used in PBM therapy, typically ranging from red to near-infrared light, target the affected nerves and promote healing at a cellular level (8).
Integrating PBM with treatments like exercise or ultrasound therapy yields superior results compared to using these therapies alone. For instance, combining PBM with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been found to significantly reduce pain scores and improve nerve function in carpal tunnel syndrome, a common form of neuropathy (9).
Another study revealed that using PBM alongside wrist splinting led to reduced pain, enhanced hand grip strength and improved functional status in carpal tunnel patients (10). These combination therapies work synergistically to promote healing and restore function.
Beyond Neuropathy: PBM’s Wide-Ranging Benefits for Neurological Health
While neuropathy relief is a significant benefit of PBM therapy, its potential extends far beyond peripheral nerve issues. Research has shown promising results in various neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. For instance, PBM has demonstrated positive effects in managing symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s (11).
When combined with exercise, PBM therapy has shown promise in slowing disease progression and improving motor function in these conditions. In regard to mental health, PBM reduces anxiety and depressive behaviors when used alongside conventional treatments or environmental enrichment strategies (12).
For stroke patients, combining PBM with other therapies like neuromuscular electrical stimulation led to improvements in cognitive function and mobility (13). This suggests PBM could be a valuable addition to your treatment plan if you’re dealing with a range of neurological issues, not just neuropathy.
PBM Is a Powerful Health Optimization Tool
Indeed, PBM stands out as one of the most powerful health optimization tools available through modern technology. It’s crucial to understand a fundamental truth about human biology: your body requires regular exposure to red and infrared radiation, ideally on a daily basis. Nature designed us to receive this through sunlight on exposed skin, but modern lifestyles and seasonal changes often make this challenging.
Far infrared saunas offer an excellent alternative, providing both the necessary infrared radiation and valuable detoxification benefits. However, don’t make the mistake of thinking this replaces your need for movement. Daily walking, targeting 8,000 to 10,000 steps, remains essential for optimal health. If you’ve been free from vegetable oils for at least six months, performing these walks with minimal clothing around solar noon amplifies the benefits tremendously.
During winter months or poor weather, combining regular walking with infrared sauna sessions ensures you meet your body’s daily infrared requirements.
While saunas and sunshine provide invaluable full-body exposure to infrared radiation, PBM devices offer unique advantages for targeting specific areas needing therapeutic attention. This targeted approach proves particularly valuable when dealing with injuries or requiring focused treatment. The beauty of PBM lies in its precision — delivering optimal wavelengths at the therapeutic energy range where they are needed.
I’m particularly excited to share that we’re in the final stages of developing what I believe will be one of the world’s finest PBM devices, scheduled for launch in 2025. This device will incorporate cutting-edge technology while addressing the limitations of current devices on the market. Our focus has been on creating a tool that delivers precise, therapeutic wavelengths while maintaining the highest standards of safety and effectiveness.
Understanding the Optical Window
More than half the wavelengths that come from the sun — 53% — are red, near-, mid- and far-infrared. Each of these wavelengths has important health benefits. Solar rays can be divided into three categories:
Ultraviolet (UVA, UVB and UVC), which account for 7% of the solar spectrum
Visible light (violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, red), ranging from 400 to 700 nanometers, which account for 39% of the spectrum
Invisible infrared (near-, mid- and far-infrared) light, ranging from 700 to 10,000 nanometers, which account for 54% of the spectrum
There’s a term in biophysics called the optical window, which ranges from approximately 600 nanometers to 1,100 nanometers; 600 nanometers is red-orange. Around 700 nanometers you get into near-infrared, which becomes invisible and tops out roughly at 1,500 nanometers.
The ideal optical window is about halfway through the near-infrared range, between 600 to 900 nanometers. Within this optical window, the wavelengths are long enough to penetrate into the body and reach deep into the tissues, but they’re not readily absorbed by hemoglobin, melanin and water.
Below 600 nanometers, the rays don’t penetrate very deep, and what does get into the body gets absorbed by hemoglobin and melanin. The optical window sweet spot is around 800 to 810 nanometers, which is classic near-infrared.
Near-Infrared Light Is Also Beneficial
One of the primary mechanisms behind the benefits of infrared exposure is the increase in ATP production in your mitochondria. Any cell that has mitochondria benefits from exposure to red and near-infrared light.
Another fantastic benefit of near-infrared exposure is melatonin production — 95% of melatonin is produced in your mitochondria in response to near-infrared light. The melatonin released by your pineal gland accounts for just 5% of the melatonin in your body.
Mitochondria are tiny organelles found in most of your cells responsible for cellular energy production, and mitochondrial dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic disease. Melatonin, meanwhile, is a very powerful antioxidant that reduces oxidative stress in your mitochondria. By mopping up free radicals created through normal cellular metabolism, melatonin reduces damage right where it’s needed the most — in the mitochondria — and helps them work optimally.
Melatonin also helps increase glutathione, which is a major detoxification agent. Importantly, none of the oral melatonin you take will ever make its way into your mitochondria. Oral melatonin helps regulate sleep, when taken at the appropriate time (in the evening, shortly before bed), but it will not do anything for the oxidative stress in your mitochondria. The only thing that will trigger that is near-infrared light on your bare skin.
In addition to increasing energy and melatonin production, other benefits of nearinfrared exposure include triggering conversion of retinol (vitamin A) into retinoids, which your body needs for vitamin D production and the hemoglobin process, and boosting nitric oxide (NO) release, which increases blood circulation and vasodilation.
Dosing Suggestions
Spending time outdoors provides natural near-infrared exposure, but many people don’t get outside on a regular basis. Red and near-infrared therapy has also been shown to improve athletic performance and recovery, and for this effect, a PBM device is far more effective than sunshine, as the wavelengths are more targeted. This is also the case for targeting health conditions like myopathy and neuropathy.
For general health, you’re looking for the Goldilocks amount of red, near- and infrared light. With too little, you don’t get a biological effect. With too much, you get into an inhibitory zone. So, what’s an ideal dose, in terms of an individual session? Most of the scientific literature uses anywhere from 5 joules to 50 joules. (Joule is a measurement of the energy delivered to the body in watts per second.)
As a general guidance, get as much full-spectrum sunlight from the outdoors as you can, and then use a dose of 25 joules, and take a day off every now and then. With a large panel, that would equate to 10 minutes on the front and 10 minutes on the back, for a total of 20 minutes.
There are no hard rules to go by when it comes to selecting a device, but in general, red is not going to penetrate as deep, and is typically more for skin disorders. Near-infrared will penetrate deeper, which is ideal for muscle recovery and cognitive enhancement. A mixed device gives you the best of both worlds, but you’ll need to spend about 50% more time using it, compared to a pure near-infrared device.
The effectiveness of PBM varies depending on factors such as wavelength, power density and treatment duration. When considering PBM for your neuropathy or other health concerns, consult with a health care provider experienced in this therapy. They can help determine the most appropriate parameters for your specific condition and guide you on how to integrate PBM for the best results.
As you explore PBM as a treatment option, keep in mind that it’s typically most effective as part of a comprehensive approach to your health. Combining PBM with lifestyle modifications, such as a balanced diet and regular exercise, may enhance its benefits and your overall health.
Sources and References
British Journal of Ophthalmology September 24, 2024
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2024 May 9;79:100375 1 2
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2024 Aug 21;13(8):31
5. 6 BMC Ophthalmol. 2024 Feb 20;24:78; 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. BMC Neurol. 2024 Mar 19;24:101
Natural light is an essential nutrient many of us do not have enough of within our bodies. Because of this, when ultraviolet light is added to the bloodstream, phenomenal health benefits emerge.
Once ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI) was discovered in the 1930s, it produced miraculous results for patients on the verge of death and was quickly adopted by hospitals throughout America. There, it demonstrated remarkable efficacy for a wide range of diseases, and the doctors who pioneered its use compiled a large body of research.
To neutralize this competition, the American Medical Association published a small doctored study that “debunked” UVBI, and before long it became a forgotten side of medicine. The Russians and Germans however recognized the value of it, and for decades have produced research showing UBVI’s remarkable utility for a variety of challenging medical conditions both within and outside the hospital. However, in America, UVBI is primarily used by integrative practitioners who need effective tools to treat complex illnesses (e.g., Lyme disease, Chronic fatigue syndrome, spike protein injuries, or migraine disorders).
In this article we will review the hundreds of studies showing UVBI’s utility for a wide range of medical conditions (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, infertility, preventing miscarriages, many autoimmune disorders, preventing complications from surgery, and treating a myriad of challenging bacterial and viral infections), explain how UVBI works, and provide the resources for those wishing to best utilize this therapy.
In this publication, I have attempted to make the case that we are routinely denied vital knowledge, treatment, and care, in order to protect the interests of the medical industrial complex (as you can only sell costly but abysmal therapeutics to people if no alternatives exist). As that is a rather extreme allegation to make, I’ve tried to show piece by piece how this is indeed the case. For example:
I’ve highlighted how many unsafe and ineffective pharmaceuticals make it to market (and sometimes are even mandated) because the panels that approved them were stacked with people taking money from the manufacturer (which I recently argued was a tactic Anthony Fauci weaponized against America).
I’ve discussed how in the early 1900s, the American Medical Association was taken over by a group of unscrupulous businessmen who decided to fund the association by unconditionally promoting anything they were paid to (which amongst other things is why there were so many AMA advertisements of doctors promoting smoking) while simultaneously using the government to outlaw each competing therapy that refused to sell out to them.
I’ve shown how American society has been methodically separated from the fundamental requirements for good health (e.g., sleep or sunlight), how damaging losing each of those is, and just how far the marketing industry often goes to ensure we never reclaim those basic requirements for health.
Assuming the first three are indeed true, it then suggests that a variety of remarkable medical innovations exist that have been buried. In this article, I will discuss one of those, ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI), both because there is a vast body of evidence for its use and because, unlike many of the other lost medical technologies, it’s still relatively accessible.
The Importance of Sunlight
A widely held view now exists that sunlight (particularly its ultraviolet component) is dangerous and something we must avoid and shield ourselves from. In a recent article, I showed how this came from a 1980s public relations campaign that the struggling dermatology profession used to rebrand themselves as cancer fighters.Treating skin cancer (by cutting it out) is both easy and incredibly lucrative, hence making dermatology the most desired specialty in medicine.
Note: to illustrate the importance of sunlight, a 20 year prospective study of 29,518 Swedish women found that those who avoided sunlight were 130% more likely to die than women who had regular sunlight exposure, and much more likely to develop a variety of medical conditions (e.g., they were twice as likely to get cancer).
In the first half of this series (which provides critical context for this article), I thus attempted to shine a light on the critical benefits we receive from sunlight, how many different illnesses result from artificial lighting and lack of sunlight, and that the same changes observed in plants and animals from unhealthy lighting are also observed in humans. Some of the key points I covered there included:
•Unhealthy light causes and exacerbates a wide range of cancers.
•Unhealthy light significantly increases the risk of a variety of infections (particularly within livestock).
•Unhealthy light contributes to a variety of behavioral disorders (e.g., ADHD or animals attacking each other).
•Healthy lighting significantly increases the health, fertility, and productivity of domesticated animals.
•The normal growth cycle of many plants and animals is dependent upon healthy light from the environment. Likewise, the circadian rhythm (which regulates sleep and healing) is heavily disrupted by unnatural lighting.
•Many organisms are extraordinarily sensitive to unnatural lighting. Additionally, many biological structures are highly sensitive to specific wavelengths of light, which is problematic because artificial lighting typically has a few narrow bands of light, rather than a complete spectrum.
•Light plays a critical role in generating circulation throughout the body and protecting the blood vessels from damage.
•Ultraviolet light is particularly critical for health. In turn, the most dramatic benefits of using light therapies are seen when appropriate amounts of UV light are administered to the body.
•Glass blocks UV light, so since much of the sunlight we are exposed to is filtered through glass, modern life prevents us from having access to that light, and hence there is a widespread deficiency of UV light in our society.
•Since the skin has difficulty absorbing UV light, we instead receive much of the light which enters our body through the eyes. In turn, when individuals where glasses that block sunlight from entering their eyes, a wide variety of health problems can ensue that resolve once the glasses are addressed.
The major challenge with light therapies is getting the light inside the body. Fortunately, methods have been developed to do just that, and for over a century, they have produced truly remarkable results.
Note: conversely, since sunlight is “free” and has no lobbyists to promote it, there was little incentive not to make it a scapegoat for every health problem in America.
Before long, the medical field concluded part of the value of sunlight was that the ultraviolet within it was a sterilizing agent, and a variety of UV devices were developed to sterilize things. For example, one of the most effective ways to prevent people from catching COVID-19 indoors was to expose the air to UV light and likewise, one of the promising approaches which was explored for treating COVID-19 was to safely put UV light inside the respiratory tract to sterilize the viral particles there (which was what Trump was actually describing during his infamous remark about putting disinfectants inside the body).
Since blood borne infections (septicemia) were a major problem, in 1927, Emmett K. Knott (who was not a doctor) decided to try sterilizing the blood by extracting it, exposing it to UV light, and then returning it to the body. Initially, when tried doing this (by infecting dogs with a lethal bacteria), he found that while the treated dogs (unlike the untreated dogs) did not have the bacteria in the blood at their time of death, they still died after about a week (from a physiologic depression and respiratory slow down).
Eventually, in 1928 an accident happened and Knott dramatically under-dosed a septic dog (he’d been irradiating their entire blood volume), after which the dog had a dramatic recovery—leading Knott to realize only a small amount of the blood should be irradiated for the treatment to work. Shortly after, Knott received a request from a doctor (and friend) whose sister was on the verge of dying from septicemia (due to an abortion) for blood irradiation. Knott consented because her infection was the same as the bacteria he’d infected the dogs with, the UVBI worked, and the woman had a complete recovery.
For the next 5 years, Knott then refined his method but did not try it on any human beings, likely due to the difficulty of finding a doctor willing to try an unorthodox therapy and the economy being in a tailspin (due to the Great Depression). Eventually, in 1933, another Seattle doctor with a septic patient on the verge of death reached out to Knott, and again UVBI resulted in a dramatic recovery.
Knott then began traveling the country with his massive machine to promote the therapy, and beginning in 1937, successfully convinced doctors at hospitals around the country (who were highly skeptical of “quacks promoting miracle cures”) to use UVBI. As the therapy, proved itself, more adopted it, and by the 1940s, a few pioneering physicians who tested it on hundreds of patients found UVBI consistently treated a wide range of conditions such as sepsis, pneumonia (including viral pneumonias—an area which conventional medicine still struggles with), kidney disorders (e.g. nephritis), asthma, polio, botulism, rheumatic fever, and viral hepatitis. (See link for article)
_______________
**Comment**
Once again we owe A Midwestern Doctor a debt of gratitude for underscoring the importance of LIGHT for health.
Years ago my amazing holistic doctor (RIP) introduced me to the work of photobiologist John Ott and his work experimenting with light. This information changed me fundamentally and I’ve never looked at light the same.
New Hampshire legislature special committee issues scathing report that eviscerates the federal and state COVID response
This new state government report points out that state and federal officials saw nothing wrong, yet nearly everyone they interviewed outside of government had nothing good to say.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives is about to publish a 38-page report created by a bipartisan committee of NH state legislators entitled, “Special Committee on Covid Response Efficacy: Report of Findings.”
I got an advance copy that I can share with you.
It’s glorious.
In this article I summarize the highlights.
In a nutshell:
If you worked for the state or federal government, everything was done right.
If you didn’t work for the government, everything was a disaster.
It was an interesting seeing how different people can view the same evidence in totally opposite ways.
Here is the minority report. It’s only really one page (with a large attachment).
They basically disagreed…..
Key messages of the 38-page report
Here are some of the key messages in the Summary of Findings section.
I quote the key statement and then provide a handy English translation to make it easier for you to understand what they are saying.
My personal favorite is #12. (See link for article, particularly the key messages)
_______________
**Comment**
When will the world wake up?
Sadly, this report is highly bipartisan. Health should transcend party politics, but sadly it doesn’t.
Kirsch’s translation of the report is hilarious but true. NONE of the COVID measures put forth by public health did anything productive and only caused harm.
It’s ironic to the core that the state motto of New Hampshire is ‘Live Free or Die.’ I guess a portion of the state has chosen death.
A House committee report revealed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ $900 million“We Can Do This” COVID campaign was flawed and claimed COVID shots prevented transmission despite FDA stating there was no such evidence
CDC’s shifting mask guidelines and reversals on recommendations damaged public trust, with changes appearing politically motivatedrather than based on scientific evidence
The government aggressively promoted COVID shots for children despite low risk levels, using emotional manipulation and fear-based messaging through the Fors Marsh Group PR firm
Clinical trial studies showed significant bias in measuring COVID shot effectiveness, with case-counting window bias making ineffective shots appear 50% to 70% effective
Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials revealed higher risks of serious adverse events than initially reported, with Pfizer showing 36% higher risk compared to placebo groups
The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee released an assessment of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) COVID-19 public health campaign, revealing it was fraught with miscalculations that set the stage for widespread public distrust.1
In December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the first COVID-19 shots, yet these authorizations clearly stated there was no evidence the shots prevented viral transmission. Despite this, the administration launched the “We Can Do This” Campaign, spending over $900 million to promote vaccine uptake and public health measures.
However, foundational issues plagued the campaign from the beginning. Past contracts and fiscal mismanagement within HHS raised red flags about the effectiveness and integrity of their public relations efforts. As the campaign aimed to shape public behavior around masking, social distancing and vaccination, the reliance on flawed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance undermined its credibility.
By allowing CDC recommendations to drive public messaging, the administration sowed confusion and mistrust. These early failures were not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of inconsistent and politically influenced public health strategies that ultimately eroded the very trust needed to effectively manage a public health crisis.
Shifting Mask Guidelines Undermined Public Trust
Initially, masks were deemed unnecessary for the general public, with prominent figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci advocating against their widespread use. However, by April 2020, the CDC had completely reversed its stance, recommending masks for everyone outside the home. This flip-flop was not just confusing but also seemed politically motivated, influenced by factors such as teachers’ unions pushing for prolonged school closures.2
The subsequent inconsistent messaging continued, with masks being recommended, then downplayed again as the shots rolled out. Each reversal rightfully fostered skepticism and resistance, while undermining the credibility of public health institutions. This erosion of trust was further exacerbated when breakthrough infections and variants like Delta emerged, proving that earlier mask guidance had been incorrect.
Overstating COVID-19 Shot Efficacy — A Critical Misstep
When COVID-19 shots were introduced, Americans were told to believe they were not only preventing illness but also halting the virus’ transmission. However, this narrative quickly unraveled, as there was no evidence that vaccines prevented transmission. Despite this, the CDC and the “We Can Do This” campaign promoted the idea that only vaccinated individuals could safely forego masks and social distancing.
This overstated efficacy became a significant issue as breakthrough infections began to rise, especially with the emergence of more transmissible variants like Delta. The administration’s insistence that vaccines stopped transmission contradicted the FDA’s original EUA terms and created a false sense of security.
When real-world data began to show that vaccinated individuals could still spread the virus, the CDC was forced to retract and revise its messaging, further damaging its credibility. This disconnect between official statements and emerging evidence betrayed the public’s trust.
Meanwhile, the report highlights how vaccine mandates became a contentious tool in the government’s strategy to control the pandemic.3 You saw federal, state and private employers enforcing COVID-19 shot requirements, often without clear, evidence-based justification. These shot mandates targeted millions, demonstrating the extent of overreach and coercion.
The resignation of top FDA officials over booster shot policies underscored the internal conflict and raised questions about the government’s motives. Even vaccine proponents like Dr. Paul Offit criticized the mandates as politically driven rather than grounded in solid public health needs. The mandates disproportionately affected younger populations who were already at lower risk of severe illness and represented an infringement on personal autonomy.
Targeting Children with Fearmongering and Misinformation
One of the most alarming aspects of the COVID-19 response was the aggressive push to vaccinate children, despite mounting evidence that COVID-19 posed minimal risk to this age group.4
The CDC and HHS launched extensive campaigns targeting parents, using emotionally charged messaging to persuade them to get COVID-19 injections for their young children. Ads featuring celebrity parents and medical professionals painted a dire picture of COVID-19’s impact on children, despite studies showing that severe illness and death in this demographic were exceedingly rare.5
By emphasizing the need for COVID-19 shots to keep schools open and protect community health, the government leveraged fear and misinformation to drive vaccine uptake. This approach not only misrepresented the actual risk but also disregarded the developmental and social impacts of prolonged masking and school closures on children.
Parents were left feeling manipulated, as the narrative suggested that vaccination was the only way to ensure their children’s safety, ignoring the broader context of low transmission and minimal severe outcomes in young populations, along with the unknown side effects of the experimental shots.
The Fors Marsh Group Was Hired to Orchestrate the Propaganda Campaign
Behind the scenes of the HHS’ public health messaging was the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), a PR firm contracted to manage the “We Can Do This” campaign. Engaging FMG, HHS aimed to craft a nationwide multimedia propaganda effort to shape public perception and behavior regarding COVID-19.6
FMG deployed a strategic mix of paid and earned media, leveraging influencers, celebrities and targeted advertisements to promote vaccination, mask-wearing and social distancing. This partnership raised significant concerns about the politicization of public health messaging. Past contracts with FMG had already been scrutinized for fiscal mismanagement, and this massive investment in a single campaign further highlighted conflicts of interest and inefficiencies. [Speaking of influencers: they are dropping like flies with many others severely maimed.]
FMG’s approach relied heavily on emotional manipulation and fearmongering, often overstating the risks of COVID-19 to justify stringent public health measures. By prioritizing persuasive messaging over transparent, evidence-based communication, FMG and HHS effectively prioritized political agendas over scientific integrity.
This collaboration not only amplified mixed messages but also deepened public distrust as the true motives behind the campaign became increasingly opaque. The use of a private PR firm to drive national health policies exemplified a troubling shift toward prioritizing image over substance, undermining the credibility of public health institutions tasked with presenting accurate information.
Data Manipulation Included Overcounting Deaths
The final blow to public trust came when the CDC admitted to overcounting COVID-19 deaths due to a faulty algorithm.7 This admission affected all age groups, including children, and exposed significant flaws in the data tracking system. The recalculation led to a 24% decrease in reported pediatric deaths, revealing that the initial numbers had been significantly inflated.
This revelation shattered any remaining credibility the CDC had, as it became clear that the pandemic response was built on inaccurate data. The CDC’s admission that 80% of reported errors exaggerated the severity of the COVID-19 situation further eroded trust. This manipulation of data undermined the entire public health narrative.
Overall, the report underscores a troubling pattern of inconsistent messaging, overstated claims and data mismanagement by key public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on a study published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, case-counting window bias dramatically distorted COVID-19 shot effectiveness estimates.8 In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both vaccine and placebo groups have synchronized case-counting windows, ensuring a fair comparison. However, in real-world observational studies, this window often applies only to the vaccinated group.
This asymmetry means that cases occurring shortly after vaccination in the unvaccinated group are counted, while similar cases in the vaccinated group are excluded. Consequently, an entirely ineffective vaccine could misleadingly appear to have substantial effectiveness — sometimes showing 50% to 70% efficacy when, in reality, the vaccine has zero effectiveness.9
This bias arises because the early post-vaccination period, when individuals are not yet fully protected, is treated differently between groups. Understanding this flaw is crucial for interpreting vaccine effectiveness accurately and recognizing that observational studies may overstate the true benefits of vaccination due to methodological inconsistencies.
The study also highlighted the impact of age bias on COVID-19 effectiveness estimates. In observational studies, vaccinated individuals are often older and may be less healthy than their unvaccinated counterparts because vaccines were prioritized for those at higher risk. This imbalance skews results, making vaccines appear more effective than they truly are.
The study also sheds light on background infection rate bias, which significantly misrepresents the true impact of vaccines. During periods when overall COVID-19 infection rates are declining, vaccinated individuals may appear to have lower infection rates simply because they received the injection during a peak period.
Conversely, if infection rates rise, unvaccinated individuals might show higher rates not necessarily due to lack of protection but because they were exposed during a surge. This temporal mismatch creates a misleading picture of COVID-19 shot effectiveness. For instance, a decline in cases might be attributed to vaccination when, in fact, it could be due to other factors like natural immunity.
COVID Shot Safety Overstated in Observational Studies
A separate study published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice further revealed how adverse effect counting windows significantly distorted the perceived safety of COVID-19 shots in observational studies.10 This study highlights that methodological flaws, such as limited counting windows, lead to an underestimation of shot-related adverse events.
For instance, by excluding adverse effects occurring within the first two weeks post-shot, observational studies overlook critical data points, including severe reactions like anaphylaxis. This exclusion creates a skewed safety profile, making the shots appear safer than they actually are.
Moreover, the study points out that even when considering longer follow-up periods, the reliance on unsolicited adverse event reporting misses subtle yet significant health impacts. As a result, the true risk associated with vaccines, especially serious conditions like myocarditis, remains obscured. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, was linked to mRNA vaccines, especially in young males.
Within just three weeks post-vaccination, there was a noticeable uptick in myocarditis cases among this demographic. However, due to the limited adverse effect counting windows in both observational studies and clinical trials, many of these cases went unreported or were misclassified. Furthermore, rapid unblinding of trials compromises the ability to monitor long-term safety outcomes, leaving many important questions unanswered.
Excess Serious Adverse Events in Pfizer and Moderna Shot Trials
Research published in the journal Vaccine also uncovered alarming discrepancies in the safety profiles of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots.11 The analysis revealed that both shots were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest (AESIs) compared to their placebo groups.
Specifically, Pfizer’s shot showed a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events, translating to 18 additional events per 10,000 vaccinated individuals. Moderna’s vaccine exhibited a 6% higher risk, equating to seven additional events per 10,000. When combined, the mRNA vaccines presented a 16% higher risk of serious AESIs, with a risk difference of 13.2 per 10,000 vaccinated participants.
These findings are particularly concerning because they show the shots carry more serious risks than initially reported. There was also a stark contrast between its findings and the FDA’s official safety reviews. While the study identified a significant excess risk of serious adverse events in the Pfizer trial, the FDA concluded that serious adverse events were “balanced between treatment groups.”12
This discrepancy arises primarily from differences in data analysis methodologies. The FDA focused on the incidence of participants experiencing any serious adverse event, effectively masking the higher number of multiple adverse events in the shot group. In contrast, the study accounted for the total number of adverse events, revealing a more nuanced and concerning risk profile.
In short, the official narratives provided by regulatory bodies did not fully capture the true extent of shot-related risks.13
Other research published in Social Science & Medicine unveiled the profound impact of government-sponsored disinformation on the severity of respiratory infection epidemics, including COVID-19.14 The research analyzed data from 149 countries between 2001 and 2020, revealing a significant positive association between disinformation campaigns and the incidence of respiratory infections.
Specifically, countries with higher levels of government-driven misinformation experienced more severe outbreaks of COVID-19. This correlation underscores how deliberate dissemination of false information seriously undermines public health efforts, leading to increased transmission rates and higher case numbers.
The study also highlights the detrimental effects of internet censorship on the reporting and management of respiratory infections. Governments that actively censor information limit the public’s access to accurate health data,15 worsening outcomes as occurred during the pandemic. As Dr. Robert Malone put it, “Both the background summary and the study findings are prophetic, and almost completely aligned with the Energy and Commerce committee report.”16
The Path Forward — Ensuring Transparency and Trust in Public Health
It’s evident that the COVID-19 public health campaign was fraught with hidden dangers and systemic challenges. In the aftermath of these revelations, the need to advocate for transparency, accountability and evidence-based policies is clear. Only by addressing these foundational issues will we ensure more effective responses in future health emergencies.
The lessons learned from these failures should drive a fundamental rethinking of how public health campaigns are managed and communicated, prioritizing scientific data over propaganda to better serve and protect the public.
In this Made for Health episode, Dr. Richard Horowitz, a leading expert in Lyme disease, joins us to discuss the complexities of Lyme and its connection to chronic health issues. With over 35 years of experience treating Lyme patients, Dr. Horowitz sheds light on his innovative 16-point model, which uncovers overlapping factors that contribute to chronic illnesses. He also shares insights on recent advances in treatment, including Dapsone Combination Therapy, and explores the rising challenges posed by co-infections, mold toxicity, and the impact of long COVID on patient health.
Dr. Richard Horowitz is a board-certified internist and the medical director of the Hudson Valley Healing Arts Center, an integrative medical center which combines both classical and complementary approaches in the treatment of Lyme disease and other tick-borne disorders. He has treated over 13,000 Lyme and tick-borne disease patients in the last 35 years, with patients coming from all over the US, Canada, and Europe to his clinic. He is former Assistant Director of Medicine of Vassar Brothers Hospital in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and is one of the founding members and past president elect of ILADS, the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society. He is also past president of the ILADEF, the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Educational Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the education of health care professionals on tick-borne diseases. Dr Horowitz has trained hundreds of healthcare providers in diagnosing and caring for patients with treatment-resistant tick-borne disorders and was previously awarded the Humanitarian of the Year award by the Turn the Corner Foundation as well as awards from Project Lyme for his treatment of Lyme Disease. He has dedicated his life to helping those stricken with this devastating illness.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 