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.
What's the problem with a stampede to take horse paste? You think there's something wrong with apple flavored ivermectin or something?
By all means, address your concerns with information and how it's presented, but it sounds to me like you need to separate your emotions from your analysis and realize people are responsible for their own choices.
I was being a bit facetious about all the folks self-diagnosing and taking horse paste needlessly. In the absence of legitimate ivermectin, horse pasts is fine, but when people self-diagnose symptoms (not so much a problem with ivermectin, admittedly), it could potentially be a problem.
How am I being emotional, now? All I did was post an opinion, and perhaps a couple facts, and now, ten posts later, I'm still being challenged for a simple opinion. What's wrong with providing a counterpoint? Everyone acts so offended...
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.
What's the problem with a stampede to take horse paste? You think there's something wrong with apple flavored ivermectin or something?
By all means, address your concerns with information and how it's presented, but it sounds to me like you need to separate your emotions from your analysis and realize people are responsible for their own choices.
I was being a bit facetious about all the folks self-diagnosing and taking horse paste needlessly. In the absence of legitimate ivermectin, horse pasts is fine, but when people self-diagnose symptoms (not so much a problem with ivermectin, admittedly), it could potentially be a problem.
How am I being emotional, now? All I did was post an opinion, and perhaps a couple facts, and now, ten posts later, I'm still being challenged for a simple opinion. What's wrong with providing a counterpoint? Everyone acts so offended...