I am troubled by two aspects of the paper cited in this post. I am a layperson, so it’s possible there’s something I misunderstood or simply missed.
First, the paper says that heart patients who have received the Covid-19 injections have better hospital outcomes than those who are uninjected. You have been very clear that the so-called vaccines are dangerous and should be pulled from the market. One of your recent essays (Trial Site News, yesterday, 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 your paper about injected patients having better outcomes than uninjected patients could be interpreted as a plug for the very injectables you otherwise have been warning about for years. To be fair, your recent paper simply says the injectables are associated with better Covid-19 outcomes and stops short of endorsing the shots, but if you remain of the view the shots are inherently dangerous and should be pulled from the market (assuming I’ve correctly understood your position on the shots), then 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 you cited in support of the statement that injected HF patients have better outcomes than uninjected HF patients are actually reliable or are part of the pervasive research fraud.
Second, the cited paper makes favorable comments about remdesivir and the McCullough treatment protocol mentioned in the paper 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 your paper says, have outstanding safety profiles?
I've been wondering how many people died of COVID outside of hospitals. I've never heard of a single case of someone dying exclusively from COVID at home.
Hi Dr McCulloch, loved seeing you in Melbourne recently - thanks for visiting! I have an interest in this treatment as my 65 year old brother just found out he needs a double bypass - he is overweight, has not had covid and is not vaccinated - around 2 years ago he also had a brain bleed so I'm keen to have a protocol handy should he develop covid - I cant read this chart easily as the text is blurry - is there a link anyone can send me with what to do should my brother contract covid given his unique situation? Thanks in advance.
Dr. McCullough,
I am troubled by two aspects of the paper cited in this post. I am a layperson, so it’s possible there’s something I misunderstood or simply missed.
First, the paper says that heart patients who have received the Covid-19 injections have better hospital outcomes than those who are uninjected. You have been very clear that the so-called vaccines are dangerous and should be pulled from the market. One of your recent essays (Trial Site News, yesterday, 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 your paper about injected patients having better outcomes than uninjected patients could be interpreted as a plug for the very injectables you otherwise have been warning about for years. To be fair, your recent paper simply says the injectables are associated with better Covid-19 outcomes and stops short of endorsing the shots, but if you remain of the view the shots are inherently dangerous and should be pulled from the market (assuming I’ve correctly understood your position on the shots), then 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 you cited in support of the statement that injected HF patients have better outcomes than uninjected HF patients are actually reliable or are part of the pervasive research fraud.
Second, the cited paper makes favorable comments about remdesivir and the McCullough treatment protocol mentioned in the paper 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 your paper says, have outstanding safety profiles?
I've been wondering how many people died of COVID outside of hospitals. I've never heard of a single case of someone dying exclusively from COVID at home.
Brilliant and comprehensive. That's what I love about this papers' team of authors.
Amazing protocol and encouraging approach. Such good news that there is no longer a need for panic in heart failure treatment with natural immunity!
Hi Dr McCulloch, loved seeing you in Melbourne recently - thanks for visiting! I have an interest in this treatment as my 65 year old brother just found out he needs a double bypass - he is overweight, has not had covid and is not vaccinated - around 2 years ago he also had a brain bleed so I'm keen to have a protocol handy should he develop covid - I cant read this chart easily as the text is blurry - is there a link anyone can send me with what to do should my brother contract covid given his unique situation? Thanks in advance.