The reason I am MOST suspicious of this "protocol" is that there is no recognition (of what I can see), that those suffering from autoimmune conditions are HYPER-REACTIVE to much of what is suggested.
From their report-
Treatment Approach
A number of principles are essential for the optimal management of post-vaccine syndrome:
•It is important to emphasize that there are no published reports detailing the management of vaccine-injured patients. Our treatment approach is, therefore, based on the postulated pathogenetic mechanism, clinical observation, and patient anecdotes.
•The core problem in post-vaccine syndrome is chronic “immune dysregulation.” The primary treatment goal is to help the body to restore and normalize the immune system—in other words to let the body heal itself. We recommend the use of immune-modulating agents and interventions to dampen and normalize the immune system rather than the use of immunosuppressant drugs, which may make the condition worse.However, the concomitant use of a controlled course of an immunosuppressant drug may be appropriate in patients with specific autoimmune conditions.
•Treatment must be individualized according to each patient’s presenting symptoms and disease syndromes. It is likely that not all patients will respond equally to the same intervention; this suggests that the treatment must be individualized according to each patient’s specific response.A peculiar finding is that a particular intervention (e.g., Hyperbaric oxygen therapy) may be lifesaving for one patient and totally ineffective for another.
As highlighted in the italics above, the Frontline Doctors suggest those with specific autoimmune diseases may have to use immunosuppressant drugs they wouldn't recommend otherwise in order for this treatment to help them.
They also emphasize the importance of tailoring a treatment program to the specific patient and how they respond to these protocols.
These are the same doctors that warned people not to get vaccinated in the first place, and that alone lends credibility. It also appears they've addressed some of your concerns.
As far as not focusing heavily on those with pre-existing autoimmune disease, there's a good chance there's no benefit to saying "You're basically fucked." They've already addressed the fact many patients have committed suicide in response to their symptoms and likely are doing everything they can to avoid triggering people by telling them there's no hope. Just a thought.
With respect to medical treatments, I am a cautious person by nature. This is just a point to ponder: those who were critical of how quickly the vaxx was developed and distributed, are not now as critical with protocols such as this with no studies or solid research. Just an observation.
And yes, I read what was written about immunosuppressant drugs. But this is not the same thing as offering caution to the herbals they recommended which themselves can cause up-regulation and hyper-immunity. That was my point. It seems that in their wordiness, they have addressed immunosuppression, without also recognizing that they are recommending other things that cause up-regulation. Also, it needs to be emphasized that the post-vaccine syndrome in ITSELF is an autoimmune condition, instead of passing off those who don't respond to the protocol as having "pre-existing" conditions requiring different medications.
Speaking again from experience, trying to find doctors with ANY understanding at all of autoimmune issues, is surprisingly difficult. The post-vaxx syndrome is clearly an autoimmune issue, and it would have been good to see perhaps a more thorough understanding of both symptoms and treatments, and how that relates to related patients who already struggle with the same. Instead, it almost seems to be a shrug of the shoulders, and admission that some patients may not respond and need other medications. That's not the right way to address this.
By making this sort of thing publicly available on the web, they run the risk of folks self-diagnosing and/or self-treating. To me, this weakness should make such a protocol even MORE cautious in its suggestions, and more thoroughly vetted. I know Front Line Doctors have been at the leading edge through all of this, and have provided a wealth of resources. That's part of what has me scratching my head a bit about this protocol.
I demand high standards from this sort of thing. As I said previously, I fully support this kind of research. But premature "protocols" can be reckless, and just from a layperson's perspective, there are enough holes in what has been presented in this pdf to warrant a healthy dose of skepticism. Spoken from experience, false hope is much, much worse than reality.
It sounds like you never read the disclaimer. The very first thing it says is for patients to contact a trusted healthcare provider.
Disclaimer
This document is primarily intended to assist healthcare professionals in providing appropriate medical care for vaccine-injured patients. Patients should always consult a trusted healthcare provider before embarking on any new treatment.
The very first thing it says is for patients to contact a trusted healthcare provider.
You can demand high standards all you want, but this document wasn't created for you. It was created for healthcare professionals who already understand the issues you've raised.
They HAVE to post that disclaimer, or they would be liable for all sorts of legal trouble.
The fact remains, this is posted for all to see (as well as re-posted frequently on this board), and folks either don't trust doctors, or will self-treat because they don't have insurance, etc., etc. Witness the stampede to take horse paste. I would guess there aren't many medical professionals seeking advice for their practice on GAW.
Saying that this is meant for medical professionals, who, for the most part, were the ones pressuring patients to take the vaxx in the first place, is not recognizing the mind-set of people who will read this and perhaps act on its recommendations themselves.
I suppose one might try to set up a tele-visit with Front Line Doctors, but I understand that doesn't yield very satisfactory results.
Perhaps you missed the rest of my comments that are hidden?
I just did and read this comment of yours.
From their report-
Treatment Approach
A number of principles are essential for the optimal management of post-vaccine syndrome:
• It is important to emphasize that there are no published reports detailing the management of vaccine-injured patients. Our treatment approach is, therefore, based on the postulated pathogenetic mechanism, clinical observation, and patient anecdotes.
• The core problem in post-vaccine syndrome is chronic “immune dysregulation.” The primary treatment goal is to help the body to restore and normalize the immune system—in other words to let the body heal itself. We recommend the use of immune-modulating agents and interventions to dampen and normalize the immune system rather than the use of immunosuppressant drugs, which may make the condition worse. However, the concomitant use of a controlled course of an immunosuppressant drug may be appropriate in patients with specific autoimmune conditions.
• Treatment must be individualized according to each patient’s presenting symptoms and disease syndromes. It is likely that not all patients will respond equally to the same intervention; this suggests that the treatment must be individualized according to each patient’s specific response. A peculiar finding is that a particular intervention (e.g., Hyperbaric oxygen therapy) may be lifesaving for one patient and totally ineffective for another.
As highlighted in the italics above, the Frontline Doctors suggest those with specific autoimmune diseases may have to use immunosuppressant drugs they wouldn't recommend otherwise in order for this treatment to help them.
They also emphasize the importance of tailoring a treatment program to the specific patient and how they respond to these protocols.
These are the same doctors that warned people not to get vaccinated in the first place, and that alone lends credibility. It also appears they've addressed some of your concerns.
As far as not focusing heavily on those with pre-existing autoimmune disease, there's a good chance there's no benefit to saying "You're basically fucked." They've already addressed the fact many patients have committed suicide in response to their symptoms and likely are doing everything they can to avoid triggering people by telling them there's no hope. Just a thought.
With respect to medical treatments, I am a cautious person by nature. This is just a point to ponder: those who were critical of how quickly the vaxx was developed and distributed, are not now as critical with protocols such as this with no studies or solid research. Just an observation.
And yes, I read what was written about immunosuppressant drugs. But this is not the same thing as offering caution to the herbals they recommended which themselves can cause up-regulation and hyper-immunity. That was my point. It seems that in their wordiness, they have addressed immunosuppression, without also recognizing that they are recommending other things that cause up-regulation. Also, it needs to be emphasized that the post-vaccine syndrome in ITSELF is an autoimmune condition, instead of passing off those who don't respond to the protocol as having "pre-existing" conditions requiring different medications.
Speaking again from experience, trying to find doctors with ANY understanding at all of autoimmune issues, is surprisingly difficult. The post-vaxx syndrome is clearly an autoimmune issue, and it would have been good to see perhaps a more thorough understanding of both symptoms and treatments, and how that relates to related patients who already struggle with the same. Instead, it almost seems to be a shrug of the shoulders, and admission that some patients may not respond and need other medications. That's not the right way to address this.
By making this sort of thing publicly available on the web, they run the risk of folks self-diagnosing and/or self-treating. To me, this weakness should make such a protocol even MORE cautious in its suggestions, and more thoroughly vetted. I know Front Line Doctors have been at the leading edge through all of this, and have provided a wealth of resources. That's part of what has me scratching my head a bit about this protocol.
I demand high standards from this sort of thing. As I said previously, I fully support this kind of research. But premature "protocols" can be reckless, and just from a layperson's perspective, there are enough holes in what has been presented in this pdf to warrant a healthy dose of skepticism. Spoken from experience, false hope is much, much worse than reality.
It sounds like you never read the disclaimer. The very first thing it says is for patients to contact a trusted healthcare provider.
Disclaimer
This document is primarily intended to assist healthcare professionals in providing appropriate medical care for vaccine-injured patients. Patients should always consult a trusted healthcare provider before embarking on any new treatment.
The very first thing it says is for patients to contact a trusted healthcare provider.
You can demand high standards all you want, but this document wasn't created for you. It was created for healthcare professionals who already understand the issues you've raised.
They HAVE to post that disclaimer, or they would be liable for all sorts of legal trouble.
The fact remains, this is posted for all to see (as well as re-posted frequently on this board), and folks either don't trust doctors, or will self-treat because they don't have insurance, etc., etc. Witness the stampede to take horse paste. I would guess there aren't many medical professionals seeking advice for their practice on GAW.
Saying that this is meant for medical professionals, who, for the most part, were the ones pressuring patients to take the vaxx in the first place, is not recognizing the mind-set of people who will read this and perhaps act on its recommendations themselves.
I suppose one might try to set up a tele-visit with Front Line Doctors, but I understand that doesn't yield very satisfactory results.