Built from a real Babesia experience and a need for better answers.

Why I started collecting this information

When I was dealing with Babesia, I kept running into two extremes. One side gave me short clinical summaries that did not answer the practical questions I had. The other side made sweeping treatment claims without showing where the evidence came from. I wanted the missing middle: detailed information, direct study links, personal experience labeled as personal experience, and experimental evidence labeled as experimental evidence.

That is why the infection guides go beyond a one-sentence definition. They explain pathogen biology, symptoms, testing windows, standard treatment, severe-disease risks, and—where peer-reviewed data exist—botanical or mechanistic research. When the evidence is weak or absent, the guide says so.

What I personally bring to it

I am not presenting myself as a physician or researcher. I am someone who went through Babesia treatment, kept searching when symptoms returned, and felt that ozone, Cryptolepis and artemisinin were among the things that helped me most. Those experiences are documented separately from medical guidelines so readers can decide what kind of evidence they are looking at.

Evidence standards used throughout the guides

• Established clinical evidence: guidelines, controlled human trials and well-supported clinical practice.
• Emerging human evidence: case series, observational studies and early clinical research.
• Preclinical evidence: animal models and in-vitro experiments.
• Mechanistic evidence: biochemical or cellular findings that make a hypothesis plausible but do not establish clinical benefit.
• Personal/anecdotal experience: what an individual reports happened to them; useful context, not proof.