I'm going to try a much bigger dose of vitamin D, for starters.

As for the risks, I was thinking of trying a different treatment (let's call it Treatment X). Treatment X is known to carry some serious side-effects and risks: it causes extreme fatigue, muscle weakness to the point of not being able to walk at times, and vision troubles (sometimes severe), and it carries a risk of death. I think these side-effects are pretty terrible, even though Treatment X has certain benefits (like protecting me from skin cancer). Oh, another thing about Treatment X: it has no effect on MG symptoms. Lousy deal, huh. I would like to avoid Treatment X if I can.

Treatment X, as you may have guessed, isn't really a treatment at all: it's actually the decision not to treat the MG in any way that could involve a risk. Treating MG is risky. But not treating MG is also risky. It's not possible to avoid risks. Our job is to weigh the risks against each other. If I reject light treatments, it won't be because they involve a risk of cancer. It will be because I determine that the cancer risk is too high to justify the benefits.

I want to be alive for my kids. I also want to be healthy enough to take care of them. So the question is not whether light treatments are risky (I know they are). The question is whether they give me a worse risk-to-benefit ratio than not having light treatments. And that's exactly what I'm still trying to figure out.

Hope this makes some sense for you.

Abby