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
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!
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.
You have done outstanding work and continue to shine a light on the evil that exists out there. Thank-you for all you've done. But I must say that your obsession with the belief that Malone is evil detracts from your great success. I expect you may throw Nass under the bus now that she has come out in defense of Malone. Malone is full of himself sometimes just like all of us but why continue this debasing? What do you expect to accomplish? There are a lot worse people to string up in my opinion.
I appreciate your honorable efforts to help people but covid isn't real and when is everyone going to acknowledge that? You see by keeping this fiction alive, you're just giving them time, time to line up their men against us like in a game of chess. Time that while we dally and fumble, the next time we turn around, they'll have surrounded us and there will be nowhere to go. Do you not understand common English - covid has not been isolated. Viruses are a highly dubious theory. Why isn't this going through? Isn't it another fractal of the "normies" who watch tv and don't even know they're being sprayed like bugs or that soon they'll be eating bugs? You spend too much time worrying about revenge when really it is you, every one who took that vaccine, needs to look at themselves and note that they fell for it, they were duped, they couldn't see the scam. They have impaired judgement and they need to pay attention some more and listen a little better than they have been. And try listening to the truth-tellers and not the liars on commercial television.
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.
You have done outstanding work and continue to shine a light on the evil that exists out there. Thank-you for all you've done. But I must say that your obsession with the belief that Malone is evil detracts from your great success. I expect you may throw Nass under the bus now that she has come out in defense of Malone. Malone is full of himself sometimes just like all of us but why continue this debasing? What do you expect to accomplish? There are a lot worse people to string up in my opinion.
I use ozone generator, it has built in safety timers.
I think the genetic lottery has a fair bit to do with it too. Plus generational epigenetics.
We knew to do this
Oh I wish oh so wish
Just out today…yes TODAY…HOPE FOR HUMANITY!
Important link about THE Supreme Court Proposal in the piece by Lex Greene that should give many HOPE to turn the tide!
https://newswithviews.com/quitters-never-win/
WE ALL MUST GET BEHIND THIS CASE WITH SUPPORT AS THIS IS THE LAST PEACEFUL SOLUTION!
Respectfully,
Mother/Grandmother Lion (of 6 and still counting)
P.S. Care about America? Spread this to ALL who are very concerned about America!
I appreciate your honorable efforts to help people but covid isn't real and when is everyone going to acknowledge that? You see by keeping this fiction alive, you're just giving them time, time to line up their men against us like in a game of chess. Time that while we dally and fumble, the next time we turn around, they'll have surrounded us and there will be nowhere to go. Do you not understand common English - covid has not been isolated. Viruses are a highly dubious theory. Why isn't this going through? Isn't it another fractal of the "normies" who watch tv and don't even know they're being sprayed like bugs or that soon they'll be eating bugs? You spend too much time worrying about revenge when really it is you, every one who took that vaccine, needs to look at themselves and note that they fell for it, they were duped, they couldn't see the scam. They have impaired judgement and they need to pay attention some more and listen a little better than they have been. And try listening to the truth-tellers and not the liars on commercial television.