Alternative Treatment Protocols for Covid-19

# Introduction

# A Primer to the "Alternative Treatment Protocols for Covid-19"

This website is the outcome of hundreds of hours of investigating viable approaches to treating the infection and symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2.

Even by the middle of 2019, it began to be apparent that there were a number of remarkably evidence-based and incredibly efficacious remedies for Covid-19 that were communicated through independent channels - including local health administrations, social media platforms, word of mouth by beneficiaries, ordinary physicians who truly cared deeply for their patients' welfare to challenge the normative rhetoric and seek better solutions.

However, it seemed also evident that most of these independent entities had not been well connected enough with each other's platforms and communities to be aware of all the treatment modalities that were available out there, even though they were spending what time they could to improve their therapeutic toolkits. To make matters worse, it also seems evident that there is a hugely empowered and concerted movement to grant preferential notice and space to certain kinds of antidotes to the pandemic over others. In a nutshell, these preferences may be observed to be as follows:

# 1. Vaccines and masks over any other remedy or preemption,

# 2. The RT-PCR test, blindly applied, over framing sufficiently reliable and robust diagnostic criteria, and even there, the promotion of the slightly traumatizing deep nasal swabs over salivary samples (opens new window),

  • (RT_PCR test, blindly applied) randombio.com: The Reliability of RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 (opens new window) How reliable are RT-PCR tests for COVID-19?

  • (Promotion of the deep nasal swabs over salivary samples) Saliva is more sensitive than nasopharyngeal or nasal swabs for diagnosis of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 infection (opens new window); Alvin Kuo Jing Teo et al.; Nature; Feb 4, 2021 The study is concordant with multiple published works supporting saliva as an alternative sample for COVID-19 screening and diagnosis, and one of a minority where saliva was shown to be more sensitive than the corresponding NP swab.

  • Diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 on saliva samples relative to nasopharyngeal swabs in tropical hospital and extra-hospital contexts: The COVISAL study (opens new window); Mathieu Nacher et al.; PLOS One; Sept 13, 2021 Across a variety of cultures and socioeconomic conditions, saliva tests were generally much preferred to nasopharyngeal tests and persons seemed largely confident that they could self-sample. For positive patients defined as those with the amplification of 2 specific target genes with Ct values below 35, the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR on saliva samples was similar to nasopharyngeal samples despite the broad range of challenging circumstances in a tropical environment (French Guiana).

# 3. Later treatment over early treatment of the infection,

# 4. Newly patented and expensive treatments (opens new window), as with the Ebola drug Remdesivir (opens new window), and late-stage therapy with corticosteroids, over a number of well-proven treatment modalities and protocols involving off-label use of readily available, relatively inexpensive, long and extensively validated drugs and nutraceutical products (as described in this document),

# 5. Pharmaceutical products over holistic, herbal and integrative remedies,

  • covexit.com (Covid-19 News & Policy Analysis): The Prevention of COVID-19, with Dr Henry Ealy – Naturopathic Doctor and Holistic Nutritionist (opens new window); Aug 30, 2021 In this session,s Dr Henry Ealy talks not only about prevention and early treatment, but also about the bigger picture of healthy lifestyle and nutrition, and coping with the challenges the public are facing in these highly difficult times, where their liberties are increasingly curtailed in the name of COVID-19 while at the same time, some of the most effective prevention and treatment approaches continue to be marginalized or repressed by the health authorities that were empowered to protect us.

# 6. Remedies that empower hospitals and the healthcare industry over remedies that empower the patient and the common man,

# 7. An attitude of hopelessness in the face of the crisis and pessimism about any remedial possibility apart from vaccines, over an attitude of enthusiasm for the very many new protocols and therapies innovated by hundreds of physicians on the field, and amply demonstrated in their clinical practice, and in more than one instance, going to the extent of deliberate commissions that suppressed excellent treatments from finding space in public and scientific discourse (eg., the Zelenko Protocol, phototherapy, Early-Stage treatment protocols, even ""mainstream"" allopathic protocols using Ivermectin, and CDS-based therapy).

  • THE HINDU: Vaccination is the only long-term solution to COVID-19 crisis in India, says Fauci (opens new window); May 10, 2021 The American public health expert also stressed on the importance of a lockdown to break the chain of transmission.

  • ratical.org (opens new window): WHO ""Solidarity"" and UK ""Recovery"" clinical trials of Hydroxychloroquine using potentially fatal doses, according to WHO consultant (opens new window); Meryl Nass, MD. Summary:

    1. In the Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.

    2. HCQ is being given too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARSCoV-2.

    3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosure of adverse drug effects, including death.

    4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on hydroxychloroquine dosages used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.

    5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

      a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.

      b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.

      c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.

  • University of Texas Rio Grande Valley: The Zelenko Protocol (opens new window)

  • Light as a potential treatment for pandemic coronavirus infections: A perspective (opens new window); Chukuka Samuel Enwemeka et al.; Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology; Jun, 2020 The pandemic calls for rapid mobilization of every potential clinical tool, including phototherapy—one of the most effective treatments used to reduce the impact of the 1918 “Spanish influenza” pandemic. This paper cites several studies showing that phototherapy has immense potential to reduce the impact of coronavirus diseases, and offers suggested ways that the healthcare industry can integrate modern light technologies in the fight against COVID-19 and other infections. The evidence shows that violet / blue (400–470 nm) light is antimicrobial against numerous bacteria, and that it accounts for Niels Ryberg Finsen's Nobel-winning treatment of tuberculosis. Further evidence shows that blue light inactivates several viruses, including the common flu coronavirus, and that in experimental animals, red and near infrared light reduce respiratory disorders, similar to those complications associated with coronavirus infection. Moreover, in patients, red light has been shown to alleviate chronic obstructive lung disease and bronchial asthma. These findings call for urgent efforts to further explore the clinical value of light, and not wait for another pandemic to serve as a reminder. The ubiquity of inexpensive light emitting lasers and light emitting diodes (LEDs), makes it relatively easy to develop safe low-cost light-based devices with the potential to reduce infections, sanitize equipment, hospital facilities, emergency care vehicles, homes, and the general environment as pilot studies have shown.

  • Determination of the Effectiveness of Chlorine Dioxide in the Treatment of COVID-19 (opens new window); Insignares-Carrione Eduardo et al.; Molecular and Genetic Medicine; 2021 Conclusion: In conclusion, [it can be affirmed] without a doubt, ... that the data in most of the variables (P<0.05) obtained indicate that chlorine dioxide is effective in the treatment of COVID-19, making RT-PCR negative in one hundred percent of cases at 7 days, significantly and rapidly modifying the symptoms of the disease, significantly reducing laboratory parameters to normality within 14 to 21 days. [It is recommended to conduct] randomized double-blind studies and delving into studies of toxicological safety and therapeutic efficacy of chlorine dioxide in pathologies of epidemiological impact in the near future.

  • FDA.gov: Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 (opens new window) The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

  • covexit.com (Covid-19 News & Policy Analysis): FLCCC Alliance Blasts WHO over Ivermectin Guideline (opens new window); April 1, 2021. One of the first reactions to the new WHO guideline over Ivermectin came from the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which issued a statement on the very same day, highlighting major flaws in the new guideline. FLCCC is “disappointed” by “what appears to be a deliberate omission of data by the World Health Organization in arriving at its decision to not recommend ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19. The latest guidance from WHO ignores several large clinical trials where ivermectin was proven to prevent mortality by more than 68%.” FLCCC’s statement warns countries about following the new WHO guideline: “If the WHO guidance is followed, it will result in a further deprivation of a lifesaving drug and will only prolong the pandemic as it will continue to threaten the health of the global population."" “I am deeply troubled that the WHO made this hasty decision on guidance before reviewing all available data,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPH, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC. “Their recommendation ignores the evidence, creates more controversy, and will only lead to continuing suffering and death from COVID-19.”

  • covexit.com (Covid-19 News & Policy Analysis): The 8th Day Therapy for COVID-19 (opens new window); May 4, 2021 This article is about the “8th Day Therapy” concept developed by Dr Shankara Chetty from South Africa, who has treated some 4,000 COVID-19 patients [in a rural, ill-equipped outpatient setting, with zero fatalities] and has studied at the same time the pathogenesis of the disease and fine-tuned his treatments.

So much so that it would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that this pandemic has been as much a pandemic of disinformation and administrative folly as a pandemic of an unusually debilitating influenza virus.

This website is a small effort to compile a lot of the information in the public domain regarding highly effective and truly (as opposed to nominally or officially) evidence-based treatments for Covid-19. A majority of these treatments have demonstrated a nearly 100 % cure rate in clinical trials, and good longer term prognoses, or at least, have shown a significant improvement in outcome when used as adjunct therapy.

However, it is also true that a majority of these treatments have not found support in mainstream health policy, nor endorsement by top-tier organizations like the WHO, FDA, CDC, and other global and regional regulatory authorities. Sometimes these treatments have been accepted and later retracted by reputable medical journals under interesting circumstances. More often, they have been killed by neglect in policy and in discourse, and a simple lack of vehicles or media to propagate awareness of them to the masses.

Nonetheless these treatments derive considerable authority from evidentiary trials and publications, from the real-life testimonies of thousands or tens of thousands of clinical practitioners on the field who are using these remedies with great success, and the approval of millions of patients who have together benefitted from the willingness and competence of their physicians to provide such truly evidence-based, empirically validated treatments.

As there are a very large number of potentially viable and apparently highly effective treatment options known, an attempt was made to combine the most evidence-based, nontoxic, and the most mutually compatible of these therapies together to create a robust early stage home treatment modality for any Covid-like infection, i.e. any respiratory airborne influenza, potentially causing severe inflammation, so that the treatment could be begun and mitigate the infection at the earliest sign of symptoms, even before Covid-19 was diagnosed. Moreover, by combining several potent adjunct, compatible solutions, their benefits could be compounded. A similar attempt was made also to create a sensible prophylaxing regimen, a regimen for the treatment of long-Covid, as well as to counter the short and long term inflammation induced by the vaccines. Of these, the treatment regimens for vaccine-induced inflammation and to a lesser extent, long-Covid, are the least well understood and evidence-based.

These treatments (in each therapeutic category, with different categories being documented as separate sheets) are not organized or listed in any rigorous order, but in general, the listing is in descending order of the official recognition, and mainstream visibility of these alternate / integrative therapies. This does not, by any means, imply that the topmost therapies in each sheet of this document, or those listed first in each category, are the most effective and recommended remedies, for it does appear that many lesser known remedies- like the integrative therapy Haldi30, or Ozone therapy, or CDS therapy, to name a few- were extraordinarily effective. Furthermore, these also appear to have widespread implications in healthcare, and it appears probable that they may come to be recruited to serve as first line therapies against a wide variety of potentially devastating infections, including tuberculosis and even Ebola.

It is humbly hoped that interested physicians and members of the public could make an effort to study, and if satisfied, apply, demand, store and propagate these protocols, as (lest we forget) it is very much our right to judge and choose, as best we can, how we protect ourselves against the imminent threat.

Preparations & Principles of Holistic Prophylaxing →