A MUST SEE INTERVIEW REGARDING **********!

Below are links to an interview of an expert who did an unbiased analysis of multiple studies done regarding the efficacy of ********** for prevention and treatment of Covid-19 disease.

The expert began her research of the body of evidence from studies regarding the use ********** for treatment of Covid-19 unsure where it would lead, allowing the body of evidence presented in the data to form her conclusions and final opinion regarding **********.

Her presentation of the facts in this interview helped me, and I'm sure you will help you to form a much more informed opinion regarding the use of ********** for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 disease.

THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW (WELL WORTH YOUR TIME):


SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW (NICE SUMMARY FOR THOSE SHORT ON TIME):


R&D WEBSITE FOR PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF COVID-19
https://covid19criticalcare.com/

 

I looked up the protocol you are citing above... the "**********/Mask+ Protocol" and this protocol has nothing to do with the data gathered and analyzed by the expert in this interview.

For those interested, the **********/Mask + Protocol (I-Mask+ Protocol) is an early outpatient treatment protocol for Covid-19.

Below is a link below which outlines precisely what this protocol involves:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/

 

Others here seem to think the 'expert' opinion of ONE person is enough for proof. It is interesting that one of those members wrote an extremely vitriolic post against me for having opinions as a virologist (a post so bad it was deleted (along with all replies to it), and members have been permanently banned from the Forum for FAR less). I also note the similarities between certain members in this pushing of ********** - doppelgangers or what? I think I know.

 

Like I said the protocol you find so important has nothing to do with the interview, which is the topic of the poster. If you watch the video, you will learn that.

 

“The protocol which has not been proven to work, has not been peer reviewed, or shown to be better than placebo.”

The PROTOCOL you cited in the legal disclaimer on the website, has not been studied worldwide and thus the need for the legal disclaimer. Additionally, the data studied by the expert in these videos has nothing do with this PROTOCOL and thus was not reviewed by the expert in the video.

What the expert does discuss in the video, is that ********** (not the I-Mask Protocol) on average has proven in studies worldwide, to be on average 83 times more effective than placebo.

Researchers noted in some studies, for obvious ethical reasons, that they ended the studies on ********** and allowed people in the placebo group to begin taking **********, because the drug had easily shown itself to be much more effective in clearing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the group taking the **********, than those in the placebo group, and thus it was no longer ethical to continue the study, but rather to begin immediately giving those in the placebo group the **********, due to human compassion.

That is powerful testimony from the actual researchers which should not be dismissed as meaningless. I'm certain if both you and I had both been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and were placed in a placebo group and were getting sicker and sicker and the study was stopped due to ethical and compassionate reasons and we were given ********** and it saved our lives... we would both have a different point of view today. But since this did not happen, it is easy for one of us being totally removed from what is documented to have happened to others, and to dig up a legal disclaimer on a website about a protocol not used in the studies being discussed in the videos and claim it as enough proof for ourselves that ********** works no better than a flour-filled placebo.

 

And why three (?) members here so very passionate about this one drug??? Never seen anything like it before.