Treatment algorithm developed with Dr. McCullough et al. & Dr. Zelenko, I was 2nd author; note how we have added nasal-oral hygiene wash in the 2nd row up top 6 x day; lost a few patients to acute
COVID-19 respiratory illness & key factor each time has been heart failure combined to a late start early therapeutics; early start key even if hospitalized & get multidrug home treatment, survives!
SOURCE:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/
Dr. Peter McCullough’s substack reminds us that Ambulatory Acute COVID-19 Care Extends to Heart Failure Patients and that with early care you can save patients. One can argue that we are talking about high-risk persons.
Dr. McCullough highlights a good paper by Palazzuoli et al. with New Risk Stratification and Advanced Protocols Allowing Home Treatment.
‘The interplay between COVID-19 infection and HF remains complex because infection may deteriorate a stable HF condition and concurrent events may promote vascular and respiratory complications leading to clinical deterioration. Additionally, some drugs tested in the acute phase of infection may facilitate arrhythmic events and fluid retention, leading to HF. High-risk patients with multiple CV diseases and an early HF stage deserve a careful approach, possibly avoiding the deleterious effects of some agents currently employed during hospitalization. In certain categories without respiratory complications, home care based on nutraceutical agents and common anti-inflammatory drugs is probably preferable in order to reduce hospitalization and guarantee tailored HF management.’
Paul,
I am troubled by two aspects of the most recent paper cited in this post (including the treatment protocol contained in both papers).
First, the recent HF paper says that heart patients who have received the Covid-19 injections have better hospital outcomes than those who are uninjected. You and Dr McCullough have been very clear that the so-called vaccines are dangerous and should be pulled from the market. One of Dr McCullough's recent essays (Trial Site News, March 5, 2023) even bemoans the fact that medical researchers seem to be blind to the fact that the Covid-19 injectables cause myopericarditis and makes the point that the injectables are inherently dangerous, saying, "The COVID-19 vaccines have caused record injuries, disabilities, and death." Yet, the comment in the recent HF paper about injected patients having better outcomes than uninjected patients could be interpreted as a plug for the very injectables you both otherwise have been warning about for years. To be fair, the recent HF paper simply says the injectables are associated with better Covid-19 outcomes and stops short of endorsing the shots, but shouldn’t such a statement be footnoted or otherwise explained so that the reader understands that despite allegedly better outcomes among injected patients the risk profile of the shots remains so bad that the shots should be avoided by everyone? Related, we know that the medical journals and much of the data around Covid-19 has been manipulated and many now realize that medical journals (and Covid-19 data more generally) simply can’t be trusted. I wonder whether the two studies cited in support of the statement that injected HF patients have better outcomes than uninjected HF patients are actually reliable or are part of what we know to be pervasive research fraud.
Second, the HF paper makes favorable comments about remdesivir and the McCullough treatment protocol mentioned in both papers includes molnupiravir and paxlovid among the recommended therapeutics. Before now, I’ve understood that, like the shots, all three medicines are associated with severe adverse events and very bad outcomes. Indeed, unless I’ve missed a regulatory change it’s my understanding all three are available only as EUAs, which I think suggests they haven’t gone through the full FDA approval process and there likely isn’t long term safety data to support any of them. Is there really a good reason any patient should opt for unproven EUA drugs when other fully FDA-approved medicines, like ivermectin among many others, are known to work and, as the HF paper says, have outstanding safety profiles?
Dr Alexander, I cannot get an answer from the Wellness company on what the protocol is for their new Spike Support product. I know it is not something that needs to be taken indefinitely and am trying to get info on duration protocol. Can you shed some light on this? I also imagine it depends on symptoms, if present or not. So the TWC would do everyone justice by providing the protocol.