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.
Stabilise clotting also by the PF4-stabilising rupatadine paths.
And do not forget to I-PREVENT.
Do not starve. Risk of stroke etc.
Loose weight only softly by changing food to low-processed eg mediterranean style and do healthy exercise like 3x/wk 2hrs each like yoga.
Try to promote the idea of “virtual masks” by inorganic antiseptic nasal sprays, or inhaling them. Bit time-shifted like 1/4 hrs could also use organic antivirals like iota-carrageenan (betadine etc., see carragelose.com listing 40 counties’ product names) or xylitol and grapefruitseed extraxt (xlear = xylimed).
I write about this later after I’ve done my homework and inserted all the literature I found to support my views.
Only by not masking he can build-up pre-immunity.
But compensate any risks adequately.
Just keep 3m clear from people producing droplets, couging sneezing nose-blowing, for 40secs!
This is the time to close eyes and keep breath or use a mask and later inorganic spray.
Have nasal spray with inorganic antiseptic always at hand. If you feel ill people come near like in waves, ramp up dosing / frequency a bit.
Also, breath in while spraying to nose and mouth to throat ring, and one under tongue, where 1/5ths of respiratory infections start.
Avoid pulling up the nose or snoring (without having inhaled inorganic antiseptic), as droplets and aerosol get drawn down the lungs spreading fast to lungs infection.
You can measure health status of mucosa by softly breathing at some Fine dust sensor. If level is above normal, care for your mucosa. Also by Mg++ or Ca++ containing salt spray, we diy dead sea (or stone or other healing salt. 2x charged metal ions stop you from producing aerosol for 6 hours.
One can also combine, a bit time shifted, ikta-carrageenan or xylitol+GrapefruitSeed Extract spray. We combine both diy and add a ml glycerine and 1/2 drop cineol.
On symptoms, also likewise applied add some anti-allergic H1-blocker like azelastine or CPM, and/or chromolynium acid, all also inhalable.
Start MCAS therapy early on symptoms flu-like.
Combine with I-CARE or Dr. McCulloughs therapy.
We also added COMUSAV’s covid protocol CDS based. It could be helping to detox if combined with healing earth or zeolite powder and psyllium powder to bind and float.
Inhalation by nebuliser:
Just use Plasm@ Liquid or other 800ppm sodium hypochlorite mouthwash or wound rinse solution, you can directly inhale, ca 1.5ml per session for 70kg lungs. Add some more by estimating lungs surface from standard 70kg persons lungs.
Ask him how long and in which quality he wants to live. Then ask him if he thinks the medical system is profiting more or less if it provides the best care or even heals him.
Encourage him to address physiological, psychological and information axis of being.
That is researched by Russian information therapy.
New field to me (fading homo faber, physicists side, now growing human. :).
It is important that alternative healing methods shall resonate with the patient’s soul.
Some say only when socialised with rituals, they have healing power for you.
I think you first have to decide to survive. Then open up your mind and soul, like Alice before entering the rabbit hole.
Then anything is possible by just thinking the change.
The day BEFORE our daughter infected us all with CoV, her aerosol count measured by chance with a fine dust sensor rose by FACTOR 7.
THIS is a test. As it enables you to curb spread by sterilising viruses, so you shed only inactivated ones, donating training rounds to innate antibodies of beloved ones without the cost of some infection and without the burden, the future vulnerability, of B cell based antibodies only called up upon deep infection of blood ir organs.
No B cell based antibodies, no ADE-I one or ADE-D ca. 3 waves later.
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?
Good questions.
Yes I noted all of this too - interested to see the response to your questions.
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.
Stabilise clotting also by the PF4-stabilising rupatadine paths.
And do not forget to I-PREVENT.
Do not starve. Risk of stroke etc.
Loose weight only softly by changing food to low-processed eg mediterranean style and do healthy exercise like 3x/wk 2hrs each like yoga.
Try to promote the idea of “virtual masks” by inorganic antiseptic nasal sprays, or inhaling them. Bit time-shifted like 1/4 hrs could also use organic antivirals like iota-carrageenan (betadine etc., see carragelose.com listing 40 counties’ product names) or xylitol and grapefruitseed extraxt (xlear = xylimed).
I write about this later after I’ve done my homework and inserted all the literature I found to support my views.
Only by not masking he can build-up pre-immunity.
But compensate any risks adequately.
Just keep 3m clear from people producing droplets, couging sneezing nose-blowing, for 40secs!
This is the time to close eyes and keep breath or use a mask and later inorganic spray.
Have nasal spray with inorganic antiseptic always at hand. If you feel ill people come near like in waves, ramp up dosing / frequency a bit.
Also, breath in while spraying to nose and mouth to throat ring, and one under tongue, where 1/5ths of respiratory infections start.
Avoid pulling up the nose or snoring (without having inhaled inorganic antiseptic), as droplets and aerosol get drawn down the lungs spreading fast to lungs infection.
You can measure health status of mucosa by softly breathing at some Fine dust sensor. If level is above normal, care for your mucosa. Also by Mg++ or Ca++ containing salt spray, we diy dead sea (or stone or other healing salt. 2x charged metal ions stop you from producing aerosol for 6 hours.
One can also combine, a bit time shifted, ikta-carrageenan or xylitol+GrapefruitSeed Extract spray. We combine both diy and add a ml glycerine and 1/2 drop cineol.
On symptoms, also likewise applied add some anti-allergic H1-blocker like azelastine or CPM, and/or chromolynium acid, all also inhalable.
Start MCAS therapy early on symptoms flu-like.
Combine with I-CARE or Dr. McCulloughs therapy.
We also added COMUSAV’s covid protocol CDS based. It could be helping to detox if combined with healing earth or zeolite powder and psyllium powder to bind and float.
Inhalation by nebuliser:
Just use Plasm@ Liquid or other 800ppm sodium hypochlorite mouthwash or wound rinse solution, you can directly inhale, ca 1.5ml per session for 70kg lungs. Add some more by estimating lungs surface from standard 70kg persons lungs.
Ask him how long and in which quality he wants to live. Then ask him if he thinks the medical system is profiting more or less if it provides the best care or even heals him.
Encourage him to address physiological, psychological and information axis of being.
That is researched by Russian information therapy.
New field to me (fading homo faber, physicists side, now growing human. :).
It is important that alternative healing methods shall resonate with the patient’s soul.
Some say only when socialised with rituals, they have healing power for you.
I think you first have to decide to survive. Then open up your mind and soul, like Alice before entering the rabbit hole.
Then anything is possible by just thinking the change.
Fine dust sensor:
The day BEFORE our daughter infected us all with CoV, her aerosol count measured by chance with a fine dust sensor rose by FACTOR 7.
THIS is a test. As it enables you to curb spread by sterilising viruses, so you shed only inactivated ones, donating training rounds to innate antibodies of beloved ones without the cost of some infection and without the burden, the future vulnerability, of B cell based antibodies only called up upon deep infection of blood ir organs.
No B cell based antibodies, no ADE-I one or ADE-D ca. 3 waves later.