Before his passing, Dr Zelenko stated his protocol of Quercetin, Zinc and Vitamins C & D would be effective on ALL single stranded RNA viruses. I’m assuming this true for Hantavirus if you’re mentioning Hydroxychlorequin and Ivermectin???
Also, I’m CERTAIN that if your Endocannabinoids are full, you cannot get COVID. Would full Endocannabinoids also block Hantavirus???
Yes. Hantavirus also relies on RdRp. My personal anecdotal observation. Prior to 2020 I usee to catch colds that would last about a week. During HCQ prophylaxis I didn't catch any cold. Now, during Quercetin prophylaxis, I will occasionally get a sniffle, but it only lasts for one day. So, HCQ is probably stronger, but Quercetin is a lot better than nothing. Nix makes an interesting point that combining both hcq and ivm will be even more powerful due to complementary mechanisms.
I followed his protocol from the very start, as did our immediate family. None of us got Covid, despite never masking, no social distancing and doing our own in person shopping! Dr. Zelenko saved countless lives.
Thanks, I will check these out. I definitely believe we neglected the terrain theory of Claude Bernard and embraced Louis Pasteur’s germ theory as the gospel to our detriment. We got fixated on killing things instead of promoting life and health.
If you track back to the origins of my health adventures, it is a cracked molar in my late 40’s with a temporary crown while the permanent one was made. I developed an infection that was undiagnosed by the dentist but in evidence due to the extreme pain of putting on the permanent crown. The infection got away from him, amoxicillin wouldn’t do it and we upped the game to clindamycin and also decided to leave a dead tooth in through a root canal.
I got c diff, thought it was a stomach bug my son had, lost weight with diarrhea for a month, this led to surgery for hemorrhoids and the diarrhea eventually stopped. I share this to show how things can go sideways when you get on a killing spree without restoring life. Probiotics weren’t out then but fermented food was available and not recommended.
Another option which I had not considered until just now was to pull the tooth, let the infection drain and use high dose vitamin C and some mouth rinses to perhaps heal without the antibiotics. The thought of losing a molar at that age was totally out of my wheelhouse.
In the balance I would have gladly saved my gut and lost a tooth.
Small issues really. I’m pretty healthy. Not liking fast food, soft drinks and fried food and controlling my love of sweets was no doubt a big help in staying healthy until I began to research health.
Any ideas on countering 5G exposure? I live in an apt and while I think I’m handling it well (everyone’s individual routers), it could be some more low hanging fruit.
I don’t believe in getting old, debilitated, sick and dying…..and it’s very true that I can never be older than I was in my 20’s.
Not taking yourself too seriously, laughter, being thankful, forgiving and receiving that you are forgiven, loving God and other people while maintaining healthy boundaries helps to keep the health journey sane in a toxic world. Appreciate your ideas. Take care. Be blessed.
At the time of the tooth episode, I was under extreme emotional and spiritual pressures. I forgot to mention that - YEAH!! That really makes me happy! 😃 the physical stuff going on was a blip and nothing to even consider. I LOVE THAT - I forgot!!! Thank you Jesus! God is good.
If the WHO states that IVM is ineffective, you can get your bottom dollar that it works. WHO = enforcer for drug company profits - can’t have a cheap generic drug muscling in and spoiling the monopoly.
PS - if your ascorbic acid is not the recommended 80 mesh or finer for rapid absorption, an aspect of Adam Gaerner's protocol - I plan to dissolve my low cost ascorbic acid powder from Swanson Vitamins in plain water and drink it down fast then immediately rinse my mouth with a 1/2 tsp baking soda per 8 oz cup of water solution to neutralize the acid to protect my teeth. Then drink some plain water to wash down my throat and esophagus. Already dissolved ascorbic acid powder may be easier on the stomach. Aspirin dissolved in water is.
Dr. Zelenko, shortly before his passing, clinically demonstrated nebulization of HCQ for the treatment of people sick with covid (etc).
FYI - the historic Zelenko letter "March 23, 2020" "To all medical professionals around the world:"
Cut to the chase - Hydroxychloroquine administration for most treatment of covid (etc) IS BEST DONE VIA NEBULIZATION for exceptionally rapid effect bringing high levels of HCQ to the target areas with very little systemic absorption hence with very little to no systemic side effects. HCQ pills can also be taken if systemic distribution is also sought.
David E. Scheim, PhD did the gumshoe work working out the details showing doses , amount absorbed , lung tissue concentrations which show that 1 or 2 or so many HCQ pills can be simply converted to HCQ nebulization solution, at home, then nebulized to rapidly achieve the the same lung tissue concentrations as many more pills taken over numbers of days. .
Nebulized hydroxychloroquine as 150 mg HCQ (my note: amount of hcq in one 200 mg pill) in 6 ml (25 mg/ml) of isotonic sterile solution within the first five (5) days of COVID-19 symptoms (" Nebu HCQ ") has resulted in immediate improvement (<1 hour after use) in breathing in COVID-19 infected patients. Nebu HCQ served as a rescue medication with an 80x improvement in time and efficiency when compared to HCQ tablet (400-600 mg per day) combination therapy or Ivermectin combination therapy. No adverse events were reported outside of a bitter taste that quickly subsided. Average time of clinical improvement of pulmonary compromise precipitated by Covid 19 Covid-19 is primarily spread through the respiratory system and may result in significant pulmonary complications. Left untreated, a subset of patients will progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and/or pulmonary infarcts. Oral HCQ and Ivermectin combination therapies have proven to be effective prehospital treatments of Covid-19 and its associated complications. However, treatment with oral HCQ may take an average of 80 hours to achieve significant clinical improvement as well as 3-7 days to achieve optimal alveolar concentration of medication. [3] Nebu HCQ administered as microdroplets directly to the lungs achieves optimal alveolar concentration in approximately one (1) hour and is associated with faster clinical improvement, reduction in pulmonary complications and a reduction in medical costs. The clinical data presented in this paper was generated through the routine practice of medicine and is considered "Real World Evidence" according to the 21st Century Cures Act. [4] Innovation Dr. Zelenko notes that ACE2 Technology LLC ("ACE2") developed Nebu HCQ and that Dr.... ... ...
Nebulized hydroxychloroquine plus oral azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment: from days to hours for optimal lung tissue concentrations and viral immobilization
David E. Scheim, PhD
"Abstract
Background. More than 3,300 COVID-19 patients treated at southeast France’s main COVID-19 treatment hospital with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) had a death rate one-sixth the world average. But the unusual pharmacology of HCQ presents a key limitation. Optimal tissue levels can only be accrued with 5-10 days of oral dosage. Thus, HCQ has performed well for early and mixed-stage COVID-19 patients but has exhibited marginal utility in advanced stage cases.
Proposed combination treatment of nebulized HCQ and oral azithromycin. Drug delivery of HCQ through inhalation of nebulized microdroplets will achieve, in hours, lung tissue concentrations equivalent to those accrued over days of oral dosage. Nebulizers are simple, inexpensive and widely available drug delivery devices, and minimal risks of local lung toxicities are indicated for such HCQ drug delivery. Furthermore, HCQ is effective in blunting the damaging effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the lungs. The combination treatment of nebulized HCQ along with oral AZ and possibly also ivermectin and zinc could provide a rapid reversal of the progression of COVID-19 both in the respiratory tract and in other body tissues."
my "non medical professional" note: imo I expect nebulization of such small amounts of HCQ, as is needed in this application, overcomes virtually all the common adverse event considerations concerning HCQ - probably "check with a covid treating doctor" even the concerns of HCQ use by those with G6PD and without incurring long QT risk in the vulnerable subset of people with HCQ associated risk for long QT. . G6PD link https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22556-g6pd-glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase-deficiency note: Professor Didier Raoult was screening for G6PD and all wore wrist positioned monitors for long QT in his oral HCQ trials with thousands of patients.
Note: I bought the Philips Respironics InnoSpire Elegance compressor nebulizer system which is the 100% duty cycle version of the 50% duty cycle jet nebulizer system that Scheim used. No longer available at last check. Any good jet nebulizer compressor nebulizer system with both child and adult size clear plastic masks to enable breathing in through both nose and mouth note: the plug in the wall compressor of a jet nebulizer system is a bit noisy but the better ones put out a high volume and may handle a wider variety of solutions than other types of nebulizers. Perhaps a consideration when converting 1 or 2 or 3 200mg Hydroxychloroquine tablets into a nebulizer solution for immediate effect in the respiratory system vs a week to reach therapeutic levels when using pills with the use of 9.5 times less HCQ then when taking pills eliminating most all side effects.
"It (CDS) can be nebulized, added to a nasal saline rinse, you can drink it (1mg gradually over an hour in 100ml of water), etc. You can also use it to detox if you have spike protein circulating in your blood.
As one of my readers wrote in the comments, “Anytime I feel anything coming on, one snort session with the nebulizer as Steve Kirsch says is all it takes. Works every time.”
That’s my favorite usage as well: it you feel something coming on, you can short circuit it. The first time this happen, you simply can’t believe it."
The "how to" of his post is paywalled / for paid subscribers.
I have regularly nebulized a few milliliters (my nebulizer cup holds 8 mL) of standard 40% ethanol (80 proof) vodka as part of the after exposure part of my "Basic Prevention" of infection practice. The Ethanol is said to almost instantly evaporate from the tiny nebulizer droplet so you are inhaling a mix of 100% ethanol vapor and water vapor. Bit of a bite at the beginning - 1/2 breaths at the start helps. It has been recommended to first take a dose of aspirin to suppress inflammation induced in the lung with this application. I have taken an ~100 mg dose of aspirin daily for years, I have not specifically added additional aspirin in conjunction with the nebulization of vodka and have not noticed any adverse side effects.
An aspect of hydroxychloroquine nebulization not addressed is, with the long 1/2 life of hydroxychloroquine in the tissues, its potential usefulness as a longer acting agent for prevention of or reduction of infection risk.
mr sars-cov coronavirus gain of function bioweapon baric / ralph s baric at at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill describes in a pre-pandemic paper "their" pop can with a inverted funnel on top shaped unit that produced a thick vapor to be dispensed into cups to be breathed in through nose and mouth to stop sars-cov infections with early use. His antiviral had a code designation - possibility some preparation containing remdesivir. for very early days use in the viral stage of infection where it might well have been useful - not used as an injected killing agent in the hospital stage of treatment where antivirals have little use.
Best place to start is by watching this documentary that came out in '21. www.TheUniversalAntidote.com. The fear campaign has been crazy, but it is the most censored and suppressed compound in 200 years - exactly because it works!
lot's of people drink it, but an easier way is to just incorporate it into your daily routine with topical products...
Its shocking to see that Rotary International is one of the biggest contributors to the WHO. When I was a Rotarian one of their goals was the elimination of measles through vaccination. I tried to educate them on the risk of measles vaccination and they would hear nothing of it. I finally quit Rotary because it felt like they were complicit in the harming of our children. This donation to the WHO confirms that they are.
Thanks Nicolas for this potentially broad life saving protocol useful against yet another "plandemic". I am pleased to note that the cartel is again using the same boring play book, and that WE ARE ONTO THEM. Bill Gates is a disgusting example of miscreant power unbridled.
Thank you, Dr. Hulscher, for this detailed and timely article. I have been thinking a lot about how to defend against hantavirus, and based on what I learned during Covid, I thought the supply of IVM and HCL I amassed during Covid might come in handy.
Where did you get your ivermectin? I noticed the wellness company bottle I got that was compounded expires after 6 months. Early on I got some from a friend who’d gotten hers from India. My son also brought some back since his in laws live in India but he was nervous about this and didn’t want to do it again.
My plan is always try ivermectin, zinc, C, quercetin, etc, and if that doesn’t fix it, look for something that will. And stay out of the hospital…your life may depend on it!
He didn’t know what he didn’t know. He also suggested hydroxychloroquine, getting back to work, brought up the chlorine thing and heavily mocked for it all. He had a big case of Covid himself which he finally had treated with monoclonal antibodies which he popularized. They were available for awhile but probably because of their effectiveness, later hard to find.
Had it not been for that, we would have been on lockdown, until all economies worldwide would be on their knees, followed my mandatory vaccine and masking, something Trump did not do. We should be grateful
WOW, thank you SO MUCH for all this valuable information James 🙏 I can’t imagine the number of people this can help! I’m so thankful for the time you took to share all of this.
A Mechanistic Response to “Why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine”
The central claim in Nicolas Hulscher’s *Focal Points* article is not biologically absurd. Both hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin (IVM) have plausible antiviral and immunomodulatory mechanisms, and for many viral systems the question is not whether a mechanism exists, but whether the magnitude and timing of the effect are sufficient to alter host-level outcomes.
For hantavirus, however, the distinction between *partial inhibition* and *true suppression* matters enormously.
Our modelling work suggests that the relevant issue is not institutional suppression of HCQ or IVM, but rather a straightforward pharmacodynamic constraint: neither drug appears capable of reducing viral replication below the threshold required for host recovery once exponential amplification is underway.
1. The 2021 Hamster Study Was Chloroquine Prophylaxis, Not HCQ or IVM Therapy
The “60% survival” figure cited in the article derives from Vergote et al. (2021), a chloroquine (CQ) prophylaxis study in hamsters.
This distinction matters for three reasons:
1. The paper studied **chloroquine**, not hydroxychloroquine.
2. The intervention was fundamentally **prophylactic**, using osmotic pumps to maintain relatively stable plasma concentrations before viral challenge.
3. The authors themselves concluded that the effect was more compatible with prevention than treatment.
No therapeutic arm demonstrated robust survival rescue after established infection, and the paper contains no ivermectin data.
The result therefore supports a narrow statement:
> sustained pre-exposure chloroquine may delay or reduce hantavirus establishment in hamsters.
It does not establish HCQ+IVM as an effective therapeutic regimen for established HPS.
2. Mechanistic Plausibility Is Not the Same as Viral Suppression
Mechanistically, the proposed actions are coherent:
* IVM: partial viral production inhibition + NF-κB dampening
The issue is quantitative rather than qualitative.
In our model:
* HCQ achieves a maximum entry-block efficacy (EMAX) of ~60%
* IVM achieves a maximum production-block efficacy of ~40%
Combined multiplicatively, the residual viral replication remains approximately:
(1-0.60)(1-0.40)=0.24
In other words, roughly 24% of baseline replication capacity survives even at maximal effect.
For a pathogen undergoing exponential amplification, that residual replication is sufficient to sustain infection. The virus grows more slowly, but it still grows.
That distinction explains the shape of the dose-response curves in our simulations:
* HCQ and IVM modestly reduce viral burden;
* increasing dose produces little additional benefit once the EMAX ceiling is approached;
* no tested dose produces true viral clearance.
The model therefore predicts a flattening of efficacy long before suppression is achieved.
3. Ribavirin Behaves Differently Because It Crosses the Suppression Threshold
Ribavirin exhibits a fundamentally different pharmacodynamic profile.
Rather than partial attenuation, it displays threshold behaviour:
* below EC50: little effect,
* above EC50: rapid collapse of viral replication.
Calibrated against Safronetz et al. (2011), the model reproduces the observed hamster response curve with an EC50 near 2.5 mg/kg/day.
Above that threshold, viral load falls toward zero rapidly when treatment is initiated early enough.
This is not merely a stronger version of HCQ or IVM. It is a qualitatively different regime:
* HCQ/IVM slow growth;
* ribavirin can drive net viral replication below replacement.
That is the difference between mitigation and suppression.
4. Timing Dominates Late-Stage Outcomes
The most important result from the simulations is not the absolute efficacy of any individual drug, but the timing dependence.
For ribavirin:
* initiation at 0–72 hours produces near-complete suppression;
* initiation at 120 hours (5 days) dramatically worsens outcomes despite continued antiviral activity.
By late disease, host damage and inflammatory escalation have already crossed a partially irreversible threshold.
This is exactly what antiviral pharmacology predicts across viral diseases generally:
* oseltamivir for influenza,
* acyclovir for HSV,
* neuraminidase inhibitors,
* HIV post-exposure prophylaxis,
* and many others all show steep timing dependence.
The negative Mertz 2004 ribavirin RCT therefore does not demonstrate that ribavirin “does not work.” It demonstrates that antivirals administered after cardiopulmonary decompensation have limited ability to reverse established systemic injury.
That is not evidence of institutional suppression. It is standard virology.
5. What the Hulscher Framing Gets Right — and Wrong
The article is correct about one important point:
* timing matters enormously.
Many antiviral failures arise because therapy is initiated after peak viral amplification rather than before it.
Where the argument overreaches is in implying that mechanistic plausibility plus modest in vitro activity should be expected to translate into meaningful clinical rescue in severe hantavirus disease.
For rapidly amplifying viral systems, partial inhibition is often insufficient. The host-pathogen system has thresholds. Unless replication is driven below those thresholds early enough, the disease trajectory continues toward collapse despite measurable antiviral effects.
Our modelling therefore supports a narrower conclusion:
* HCQ and IVM may possess modest mechanistic activity against hantavirus pathways.
* That activity is unlikely to achieve therapeutic suppression in established disease.
* Ribavirin remains the only antiviral with evidence consistent with crossing the suppression threshold — but only when administered early enough.
The critical clinical variable is therefore not “which antiviral,” but:
> how quickly effective suppression begins relative to peak viral expansion.
That framing explains both the preclinical successes and the late-stage clinical failures without requiring theories of institutional bias or suppression.
Based on your first paragraph, I have some questions. Is chloroquine superior to HCQ as a prophylactic? (I'm assuming one would need a prophylactic if cleaning up after a rodent, or, if the virus engineers can achieve it, a broad human-to-human hantavirus. ) Is HCQ not helpful at all or would double doses help? In either case, I recall the loud chorus of "HCQ causes long QT interval." Will the cardiology community help to suppress either drug for hantavirus use?
How does one obtain ribavirin quickly, since we recall that all drugs of possible help to combat covid were suppressed and physicians forced to declare that the patient needed the drug for some approved purpose?
On CQ vs HCQ as prophylaxis: our model has both drugs wired in. HCQ is essentially a less toxic derivative of CQ (Liu 2020, *Cell Discovery*). Both are 4-aminoquinolines using the same mechanism — weak-base ion trapping in endosomes, raising pH and interfering with viral entry.
CQ has a longer terminal half-life (~50 vs ~40 days for HCQ) and a much larger volume of distribution (~25,000 L vs ~5,000 L), so it accumulates more aggressively in tissue. That cuts both ways: potentially stronger tissue-level prophylaxis, but materially higher cardiac risk. CQ is a stronger hERG blocker than HCQ at equivalent plasma concentrations.
For hantavirus specifically, both would hit the same β3-integrin/endocytosis entry pathway. In the model, HCQ already achieves ~60% entry blockade at standard dosing (200–400 mg/day), with an effective EC50 around 0.2 mg/kg/day — i.e. the entry mechanism saturates early. CQ would probably produce somewhat stronger blockade at equimolar doses, but the cardiac ceiling arrives sooner. Neither drug has ever been tested in an HPS RCT, so this is mechanistic extrapolation, not clinical evidence.
The “HCQ doesn’t work” vs “higher doses are needed” debate also looks muddled because the model separates two mechanisms operating at different thresholds.
The antiviral entry-blocking effect saturates at ordinary doses. The anti-inflammatory arm (TLR-4 / IL-6 dampening) requires roughly ~2.5× higher concentrations (EC50 ~0.5 mg/kg/day) and even then tops out at only ~15% IL-6 suppression. So increasing the dose engages the immunomodulatory side more, but barely improves viral entry inhibition because that part is already maxed out.
Timing matters much more than dose.
Entry blockade only prevents *new* endothelial infections; it does not clear established infection. In the model, HCQ started before or near symptom onset has measurable effect. Started at the cardiopulmonary stage — when most patients actually present — it does almost nothing because the endothelial cascade is already systemic by then.
On QT suppression by cardiology: the concern is real, not political. HCQ blocks hERG (IKr) with an in-vivo EC50 around 1 µM (~335 ng/mL). Standard 400 mg/day dosing produces mean QTc shifts on the order of ~10–25 ms in COVID-era cohort data, with ~11–19% of patients crossing the 500 ms threshold and a modeled TdP risk around ~2% at saturation. CQ is worse.
So if someone proposed CQ/HCQ prophylaxis for rodent-exposure scenarios in otherwise healthy people, any serious cardiology or regulatory review board would push back hard — especially in women, and especially with co-administered QT-prolonging drugs like azithromycin. That objection would be grounded in real phase-IV safety data, not ideology. The counterargument would be short-course exposure in healthy hearts with monitoring, but the burden of proof would still sit with the proposer.
Ribavirin is more interesting mechanistically than politically.
The key issue is probably not access, but timing. The failed North American RCT (Mertz 2004) treated patients at the cardiopulmonary stage and showed no statistically significant survival benefit. But the hamster work (Safronetz 2011) showed an extremely tight rescue window: 100% survival if treatment started by day 3 post-infection, ~17% by day 5, and 0% by day 7.
That gap may explain the apparent contradiction between strong animal efficacy and failed human trials. Humans typically present very late — effectively equivalent to hamster day 7–8.
For true post-exposure prophylaxis after a known aerosol or rodent-cleanup exposure, the timeline changes completely. You could theoretically initiate ribavirin within hours rather than days. Under those conditions, the hamster data suggests efficacy could be very high if started within ~72 hours.
At that point the limiting factor becomes regulatory/logistical, not mechanistic.
And while we’re on substances to treat viruses, massive dose vitamin C, used intramuscularly and intravenously in non-acidic forms like sodium ascorbate, must be considered. Dr. Fred Klenner’s work amplified by Dr. Thomas Levy, Dr. Robert Cathcart, and Dr. Hugh Riordan, to name a few, have basically found it can destroy the viruses it comes up against—if the dose is high enough & the frequency often enough.
Further, vitamin D levels should be checked in all of these Hantavirus patients because vitamin D is highly protective against all kinds of infections.
Yes, I started with 2,000 mg every 4 - 6 hours, then upped it to every 3 hours then after 4 days and feeling like an elephant was crushing my chest upped it to 1,000 every hour and 15 min. Did this for 48 hrs and cleared my lungs, restoring my oxygen level to 98-100. Took me several months after this to restore my gut but that was my weak point. C was still effective but not as effective as it had been with the lungs. (At one point I discontinued everything and could see how it had been helping) My D level was in the 80’s but increased that and zinc supplementation as well. All I knew about in July 2020. A few other normal immune protocols. No sugar is important. Since then I have found ivermectin to be very effective for long COVID pins and needles, as a treatment and preventative. Got it from relatives in India and the wellness company.
Many years ago and I came down with a bad flu, & I had about 103 fever. I started the vitamin C and did it around the clock mostly every 2 to 3 hours with a total 24 dose of 120,000 mg. I woke up the next morning, fever-free & completely recovered! I wrote about it in an article published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine entitled, “The Gift of vitamin C.”
You might be interested in my upcoming, soon to be published book which you could learn about at my website:
Before his passing, Dr Zelenko stated his protocol of Quercetin, Zinc and Vitamins C & D would be effective on ALL single stranded RNA viruses. I’m assuming this true for Hantavirus if you’re mentioning Hydroxychlorequin and Ivermectin???
Also, I’m CERTAIN that if your Endocannabinoids are full, you cannot get COVID. Would full Endocannabinoids also block Hantavirus???
Thank you!!!
Yes. Hantavirus also relies on RdRp. My personal anecdotal observation. Prior to 2020 I usee to catch colds that would last about a week. During HCQ prophylaxis I didn't catch any cold. Now, during Quercetin prophylaxis, I will occasionally get a sniffle, but it only lasts for one day. So, HCQ is probably stronger, but Quercetin is a lot better than nothing. Nix makes an interesting point that combining both hcq and ivm will be even more powerful due to complementary mechanisms.
I followed his protocol from the very start, as did our immediate family. None of us got Covid, despite never masking, no social distancing and doing our own in person shopping! Dr. Zelenko saved countless lives.
I followed no protocol, just kept my diet clean and had fresh air, and guess what? I never got "the covid" either!
I ate lemons and took lots of vitamin C.
I have followed Dr.Z's protocol since April 2020...
Thanks, I will check these out. I definitely believe we neglected the terrain theory of Claude Bernard and embraced Louis Pasteur’s germ theory as the gospel to our detriment. We got fixated on killing things instead of promoting life and health.
If you track back to the origins of my health adventures, it is a cracked molar in my late 40’s with a temporary crown while the permanent one was made. I developed an infection that was undiagnosed by the dentist but in evidence due to the extreme pain of putting on the permanent crown. The infection got away from him, amoxicillin wouldn’t do it and we upped the game to clindamycin and also decided to leave a dead tooth in through a root canal.
I got c diff, thought it was a stomach bug my son had, lost weight with diarrhea for a month, this led to surgery for hemorrhoids and the diarrhea eventually stopped. I share this to show how things can go sideways when you get on a killing spree without restoring life. Probiotics weren’t out then but fermented food was available and not recommended.
Another option which I had not considered until just now was to pull the tooth, let the infection drain and use high dose vitamin C and some mouth rinses to perhaps heal without the antibiotics. The thought of losing a molar at that age was totally out of my wheelhouse.
In the balance I would have gladly saved my gut and lost a tooth.
Small issues really. I’m pretty healthy. Not liking fast food, soft drinks and fried food and controlling my love of sweets was no doubt a big help in staying healthy until I began to research health.
Any ideas on countering 5G exposure? I live in an apt and while I think I’m handling it well (everyone’s individual routers), it could be some more low hanging fruit.
I don’t believe in getting old, debilitated, sick and dying…..and it’s very true that I can never be older than I was in my 20’s.
Not taking yourself too seriously, laughter, being thankful, forgiving and receiving that you are forgiven, loving God and other people while maintaining healthy boundaries helps to keep the health journey sane in a toxic world. Appreciate your ideas. Take care. Be blessed.
At the time of the tooth episode, I was under extreme emotional and spiritual pressures. I forgot to mention that - YEAH!! That really makes me happy! 😃 the physical stuff going on was a blip and nothing to even consider. I LOVE THAT - I forgot!!! Thank you Jesus! God is good.
Covid 2.0 nonsense from the WHO.
💯💯💯
Why are they ignoring that it was a hoax?
Yes, "viruses" don't exist.
If the WHO states that IVM is ineffective, you can get your bottom dollar that it works. WHO = enforcer for drug company profits - can’t have a cheap generic drug muscling in and spoiling the monopoly.
Rapid effective absorption of multiple high doses vitamin C with effective absorption of regular doses ivermectin via ingestion with fat or high fat foods for the treatment of RNA virus infections i.e. such as sars-cov2 and hantavirus explained by Adam Gaertner here "The Universal Antiviral Protocol - Suffer not a cold to live." post here https://veryvirology.substack.com/p/the-universal-antiviral-protocol?publication_id=846773&post_id=180352652&isFreemail=true&r=xjgqk&triedRedirect=true
PS - if your ascorbic acid is not the recommended 80 mesh or finer for rapid absorption, an aspect of Adam Gaerner's protocol - I plan to dissolve my low cost ascorbic acid powder from Swanson Vitamins in plain water and drink it down fast then immediately rinse my mouth with a 1/2 tsp baking soda per 8 oz cup of water solution to neutralize the acid to protect my teeth. Then drink some plain water to wash down my throat and esophagus. Already dissolved ascorbic acid powder may be easier on the stomach. Aspirin dissolved in water is.
Dr. Zelenko, shortly before his passing, clinically demonstrated nebulization of HCQ for the treatment of people sick with covid (etc).
FYI - the historic Zelenko letter "March 23, 2020" "To all medical professionals around the world:"
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1SesxgaPnpT6OfCYuaFSwXzDK4cDKMbivoALprcVFj48/mobilebasic?usp=gmail&urp=gmail_link&pli=1
Cut to the chase - Hydroxychloroquine administration for most treatment of covid (etc) IS BEST DONE VIA NEBULIZATION for exceptionally rapid effect bringing high levels of HCQ to the target areas with very little systemic absorption hence with very little to no systemic side effects. HCQ pills can also be taken if systemic distribution is also sought.
David E. Scheim, PhD did the gumshoe work working out the details showing doses , amount absorbed , lung tissue concentrations which show that 1 or 2 or so many HCQ pills can be simply converted to HCQ nebulization solution, at home, then nebulized to rapidly achieve the the same lung tissue concentrations as many more pills taken over numbers of days. .
Zelenko's "Nebu HCQ" c19hcq.org/zelenko.html
"Nebulized Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 Treatment: 80x Improvement in Breathing" Vladimir Zelenko M.D - pdf available here https://drelef.org/zelenko/Zelenko-nebulized-hcq.pdf
Nebulized hydroxychloroquine as 150 mg HCQ (my note: amount of hcq in one 200 mg pill) in 6 ml (25 mg/ml) of isotonic sterile solution within the first five (5) days of COVID-19 symptoms (" Nebu HCQ ") has resulted in immediate improvement (<1 hour after use) in breathing in COVID-19 infected patients. Nebu HCQ served as a rescue medication with an 80x improvement in time and efficiency when compared to HCQ tablet (400-600 mg per day) combination therapy or Ivermectin combination therapy. No adverse events were reported outside of a bitter taste that quickly subsided. Average time of clinical improvement of pulmonary compromise precipitated by Covid 19 Covid-19 is primarily spread through the respiratory system and may result in significant pulmonary complications. Left untreated, a subset of patients will progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and/or pulmonary infarcts. Oral HCQ and Ivermectin combination therapies have proven to be effective prehospital treatments of Covid-19 and its associated complications. However, treatment with oral HCQ may take an average of 80 hours to achieve significant clinical improvement as well as 3-7 days to achieve optimal alveolar concentration of medication. [3] Nebu HCQ administered as microdroplets directly to the lungs achieves optimal alveolar concentration in approximately one (1) hour and is associated with faster clinical improvement, reduction in pulmonary complications and a reduction in medical costs. The clinical data presented in this paper was generated through the routine practice of medicine and is considered "Real World Evidence" according to the 21st Century Cures Act. [4] Innovation Dr. Zelenko notes that ACE2 Technology LLC ("ACE2") developed Nebu HCQ and that Dr.... ... ...
Nebu HCQ Whitepaper_Scheim.docx https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vR_ZkSoL1bJI_Hj75SKoqtjsnGUYC_xCQkIwHvHSoz3y45CBhn8w7BSlsboE1avPw/pub?urp=gmail_link&pli=1
Nebulized hydroxychloroquine plus oral azithromycin for COVID-19 treatment: from days to hours for optimal lung tissue concentrations and viral immobilization
David E. Scheim, PhD
"Abstract
Background. More than 3,300 COVID-19 patients treated at southeast France’s main COVID-19 treatment hospital with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) had a death rate one-sixth the world average. But the unusual pharmacology of HCQ presents a key limitation. Optimal tissue levels can only be accrued with 5-10 days of oral dosage. Thus, HCQ has performed well for early and mixed-stage COVID-19 patients but has exhibited marginal utility in advanced stage cases.
Proposed combination treatment of nebulized HCQ and oral azithromycin. Drug delivery of HCQ through inhalation of nebulized microdroplets will achieve, in hours, lung tissue concentrations equivalent to those accrued over days of oral dosage. Nebulizers are simple, inexpensive and widely available drug delivery devices, and minimal risks of local lung toxicities are indicated for such HCQ drug delivery. Furthermore, HCQ is effective in blunting the damaging effects of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the lungs. The combination treatment of nebulized HCQ along with oral AZ and possibly also ivermectin and zinc could provide a rapid reversal of the progression of COVID-19 both in the respiratory tract and in other body tissues."
This paper has blood plasma HCQ levels from nebulized HCQ "Nebulised Isotonic Hydroxychloroquine Aerosols for Potential Treatment of COVID-19" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8399722/
my "non medical professional" note: imo I expect nebulization of such small amounts of HCQ, as is needed in this application, overcomes virtually all the common adverse event considerations concerning HCQ - probably "check with a covid treating doctor" even the concerns of HCQ use by those with G6PD and without incurring long QT risk in the vulnerable subset of people with HCQ associated risk for long QT. . G6PD link https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22556-g6pd-glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase-deficiency note: Professor Didier Raoult was screening for G6PD and all wore wrist positioned monitors for long QT in his oral HCQ trials with thousands of patients.
Note: I bought the Philips Respironics InnoSpire Elegance compressor nebulizer system which is the 100% duty cycle version of the 50% duty cycle jet nebulizer system that Scheim used. No longer available at last check. Any good jet nebulizer compressor nebulizer system with both child and adult size clear plastic masks to enable breathing in through both nose and mouth note: the plug in the wall compressor of a jet nebulizer system is a bit noisy but the better ones put out a high volume and may handle a wider variety of solutions than other types of nebulizers. Perhaps a consideration when converting 1 or 2 or 3 200mg Hydroxychloroquine tablets into a nebulizer solution for immediate effect in the respiratory system vs a week to reach therapeutic levels when using pills with the use of 9.5 times less HCQ then when taking pills eliminating most all side effects.
Excellent comment. Thank you for that information.
You are welcome Frank. I Am Grateful to be able to pass along work of our covid times heros.
How about nebulizing CDS? I'm guessing that would also work.
I do not have any experience with nebulizing Chlorine Dioxide Solution CDS.
Steve Kirsch writes in the free introduction to his post "How I make chlorine dioxide solution (CDS) for less than 8 cents and no messy chemicals" here https://kirschsubstack.com/p/how-i-make-chlorine-dioxide-solution
"It (CDS) can be nebulized, added to a nasal saline rinse, you can drink it (1mg gradually over an hour in 100ml of water), etc. You can also use it to detox if you have spike protein circulating in your blood.
As one of my readers wrote in the comments, “Anytime I feel anything coming on, one snort session with the nebulizer as Steve Kirsch says is all it takes. Works every time.”
That’s my favorite usage as well: it you feel something coming on, you can short circuit it. The first time this happen, you simply can’t believe it."
The "how to" of his post is paywalled / for paid subscribers.
I have regularly nebulized a few milliliters (my nebulizer cup holds 8 mL) of standard 40% ethanol (80 proof) vodka as part of the after exposure part of my "Basic Prevention" of infection practice. The Ethanol is said to almost instantly evaporate from the tiny nebulizer droplet so you are inhaling a mix of 100% ethanol vapor and water vapor. Bit of a bite at the beginning - 1/2 breaths at the start helps. It has been recommended to first take a dose of aspirin to suppress inflammation induced in the lung with this application. I have taken an ~100 mg dose of aspirin daily for years, I have not specifically added additional aspirin in conjunction with the nebulization of vodka and have not noticed any adverse side effects.
An aspect of hydroxychloroquine nebulization not addressed is, with the long 1/2 life of hydroxychloroquine in the tissues, its potential usefulness as a longer acting agent for prevention of or reduction of infection risk.
mr sars-cov coronavirus gain of function bioweapon baric / ralph s baric at at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill describes in a pre-pandemic paper "their" pop can with a inverted funnel on top shaped unit that produced a thick vapor to be dispensed into cups to be breathed in through nose and mouth to stop sars-cov infections with early use. His antiviral had a code designation - possibility some preparation containing remdesivir. for very early days use in the viral stage of infection where it might well have been useful - not used as an injected killing agent in the hospital stage of treatment where antivirals have little use.
Thank you for your answers amd Information!! Excellent
You are welcome Marina. I Am Grateful to be able to pass along work of our covid times heros.
so insane. what also works: chlorine dioxide. Break apart the virus, eliminate the 'disease'. easy peasy.
I don’t know anyone using it so I am nervous. How do you do that? Thank you so much!
Best place to start is by watching this documentary that came out in '21. www.TheUniversalAntidote.com. The fear campaign has been crazy, but it is the most censored and suppressed compound in 200 years - exactly because it works!
lot's of people drink it, but an easier way is to just incorporate it into your daily routine with topical products...
Michelle
www.SnootSpray.com
Thank you so much Michelle!!!
Its shocking to see that Rotary International is one of the biggest contributors to the WHO. When I was a Rotarian one of their goals was the elimination of measles through vaccination. I tried to educate them on the risk of measles vaccination and they would hear nothing of it. I finally quit Rotary because it felt like they were complicit in the harming of our children. This donation to the WHO confirms that they are.
Thanks Nicolas for this potentially broad life saving protocol useful against yet another "plandemic". I am pleased to note that the cartel is again using the same boring play book, and that WE ARE ONTO THEM. Bill Gates is a disgusting example of miscreant power unbridled.
Thank you, Dr. Hulscher, for this detailed and timely article. I have been thinking a lot about how to defend against hantavirus, and based on what I learned during Covid, I thought the supply of IVM and HCL I amassed during Covid might come in handy.
Where did you get your ivermectin? I noticed the wellness company bottle I got that was compounded expires after 6 months. Early on I got some from a friend who’d gotten hers from India. My son also brought some back since his in laws live in India but he was nervous about this and didn’t want to do it again.
My plan is always try ivermectin, zinc, C, quercetin, etc, and if that doesn’t fix it, look for something that will. And stay out of the hospital…your life may depend on it!
PS-this is not medical advice!
See this report that adds to your article: https://rumble.com/v79kwu2-this-time-trump-is-prepared-to-stop-any-future-plandemic-scheme.html.
Have faith in Trump, it is all part of the strategy to defeat the international Deep State Octopus.
Blessings,
Pastor Ricardo Beas
Are you kidding? He's the one that launched the entire thing. Remember "warp speed"? My what short memories.
He didn’t know what he didn’t know. He also suggested hydroxychloroquine, getting back to work, brought up the chlorine thing and heavily mocked for it all. He had a big case of Covid himself which he finally had treated with monoclonal antibodies which he popularized. They were available for awhile but probably because of their effectiveness, later hard to find.
Had it not been for that, we would have been on lockdown, until all economies worldwide would be on their knees, followed my mandatory vaccine and masking, something Trump did not do. We should be grateful
WOW, thank you SO MUCH for all this valuable information James 🙏 I can’t imagine the number of people this can help! I’m so thankful for the time you took to share all of this.
A Mechanistic Response to “Why Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine”
The central claim in Nicolas Hulscher’s *Focal Points* article is not biologically absurd. Both hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin (IVM) have plausible antiviral and immunomodulatory mechanisms, and for many viral systems the question is not whether a mechanism exists, but whether the magnitude and timing of the effect are sufficient to alter host-level outcomes.
For hantavirus, however, the distinction between *partial inhibition* and *true suppression* matters enormously.
Our modelling work suggests that the relevant issue is not institutional suppression of HCQ or IVM, but rather a straightforward pharmacodynamic constraint: neither drug appears capable of reducing viral replication below the threshold required for host recovery once exponential amplification is underway.
1. The 2021 Hamster Study Was Chloroquine Prophylaxis, Not HCQ or IVM Therapy
The “60% survival” figure cited in the article derives from Vergote et al. (2021), a chloroquine (CQ) prophylaxis study in hamsters.
This distinction matters for three reasons:
1. The paper studied **chloroquine**, not hydroxychloroquine.
2. The intervention was fundamentally **prophylactic**, using osmotic pumps to maintain relatively stable plasma concentrations before viral challenge.
3. The authors themselves concluded that the effect was more compatible with prevention than treatment.
No therapeutic arm demonstrated robust survival rescue after established infection, and the paper contains no ivermectin data.
The result therefore supports a narrow statement:
> sustained pre-exposure chloroquine may delay or reduce hantavirus establishment in hamsters.
It does not establish HCQ+IVM as an effective therapeutic regimen for established HPS.
2. Mechanistic Plausibility Is Not the Same as Viral Suppression
Mechanistically, the proposed actions are coherent:
* HCQ: partial endosomal entry inhibition + immunomodulation
* IVM: partial viral production inhibition + NF-κB dampening
The issue is quantitative rather than qualitative.
In our model:
* HCQ achieves a maximum entry-block efficacy (EMAX) of ~60%
* IVM achieves a maximum production-block efficacy of ~40%
Combined multiplicatively, the residual viral replication remains approximately:
(1-0.60)(1-0.40)=0.24
In other words, roughly 24% of baseline replication capacity survives even at maximal effect.
For a pathogen undergoing exponential amplification, that residual replication is sufficient to sustain infection. The virus grows more slowly, but it still grows.
That distinction explains the shape of the dose-response curves in our simulations:
* HCQ and IVM modestly reduce viral burden;
* increasing dose produces little additional benefit once the EMAX ceiling is approached;
* no tested dose produces true viral clearance.
The model therefore predicts a flattening of efficacy long before suppression is achieved.
3. Ribavirin Behaves Differently Because It Crosses the Suppression Threshold
Ribavirin exhibits a fundamentally different pharmacodynamic profile.
Rather than partial attenuation, it displays threshold behaviour:
* below EC50: little effect,
* above EC50: rapid collapse of viral replication.
Calibrated against Safronetz et al. (2011), the model reproduces the observed hamster response curve with an EC50 near 2.5 mg/kg/day.
Above that threshold, viral load falls toward zero rapidly when treatment is initiated early enough.
This is not merely a stronger version of HCQ or IVM. It is a qualitatively different regime:
* HCQ/IVM slow growth;
* ribavirin can drive net viral replication below replacement.
That is the difference between mitigation and suppression.
4. Timing Dominates Late-Stage Outcomes
The most important result from the simulations is not the absolute efficacy of any individual drug, but the timing dependence.
For ribavirin:
* initiation at 0–72 hours produces near-complete suppression;
* initiation at 120 hours (5 days) dramatically worsens outcomes despite continued antiviral activity.
By late disease, host damage and inflammatory escalation have already crossed a partially irreversible threshold.
This is exactly what antiviral pharmacology predicts across viral diseases generally:
* oseltamivir for influenza,
* acyclovir for HSV,
* neuraminidase inhibitors,
* HIV post-exposure prophylaxis,
* and many others all show steep timing dependence.
The negative Mertz 2004 ribavirin RCT therefore does not demonstrate that ribavirin “does not work.” It demonstrates that antivirals administered after cardiopulmonary decompensation have limited ability to reverse established systemic injury.
That is not evidence of institutional suppression. It is standard virology.
5. What the Hulscher Framing Gets Right — and Wrong
The article is correct about one important point:
* timing matters enormously.
Many antiviral failures arise because therapy is initiated after peak viral amplification rather than before it.
Where the argument overreaches is in implying that mechanistic plausibility plus modest in vitro activity should be expected to translate into meaningful clinical rescue in severe hantavirus disease.
For rapidly amplifying viral systems, partial inhibition is often insufficient. The host-pathogen system has thresholds. Unless replication is driven below those thresholds early enough, the disease trajectory continues toward collapse despite measurable antiviral effects.
Our modelling therefore supports a narrower conclusion:
* HCQ and IVM may possess modest mechanistic activity against hantavirus pathways.
* That activity is unlikely to achieve therapeutic suppression in established disease.
* Ribavirin remains the only antiviral with evidence consistent with crossing the suppression threshold — but only when administered early enough.
The critical clinical variable is therefore not “which antiviral,” but:
> how quickly effective suppression begins relative to peak viral expansion.
That framing explains both the preclinical successes and the late-stage clinical failures without requiring theories of institutional bias or suppression.
Based on your first paragraph, I have some questions. Is chloroquine superior to HCQ as a prophylactic? (I'm assuming one would need a prophylactic if cleaning up after a rodent, or, if the virus engineers can achieve it, a broad human-to-human hantavirus. ) Is HCQ not helpful at all or would double doses help? In either case, I recall the loud chorus of "HCQ causes long QT interval." Will the cardiology community help to suppress either drug for hantavirus use?
How does one obtain ribavirin quickly, since we recall that all drugs of possible help to combat covid were suppressed and physicians forced to declare that the patient needed the drug for some approved purpose?
On CQ vs HCQ as prophylaxis: our model has both drugs wired in. HCQ is essentially a less toxic derivative of CQ (Liu 2020, *Cell Discovery*). Both are 4-aminoquinolines using the same mechanism — weak-base ion trapping in endosomes, raising pH and interfering with viral entry.
CQ has a longer terminal half-life (~50 vs ~40 days for HCQ) and a much larger volume of distribution (~25,000 L vs ~5,000 L), so it accumulates more aggressively in tissue. That cuts both ways: potentially stronger tissue-level prophylaxis, but materially higher cardiac risk. CQ is a stronger hERG blocker than HCQ at equivalent plasma concentrations.
For hantavirus specifically, both would hit the same β3-integrin/endocytosis entry pathway. In the model, HCQ already achieves ~60% entry blockade at standard dosing (200–400 mg/day), with an effective EC50 around 0.2 mg/kg/day — i.e. the entry mechanism saturates early. CQ would probably produce somewhat stronger blockade at equimolar doses, but the cardiac ceiling arrives sooner. Neither drug has ever been tested in an HPS RCT, so this is mechanistic extrapolation, not clinical evidence.
The “HCQ doesn’t work” vs “higher doses are needed” debate also looks muddled because the model separates two mechanisms operating at different thresholds.
The antiviral entry-blocking effect saturates at ordinary doses. The anti-inflammatory arm (TLR-4 / IL-6 dampening) requires roughly ~2.5× higher concentrations (EC50 ~0.5 mg/kg/day) and even then tops out at only ~15% IL-6 suppression. So increasing the dose engages the immunomodulatory side more, but barely improves viral entry inhibition because that part is already maxed out.
Timing matters much more than dose.
Entry blockade only prevents *new* endothelial infections; it does not clear established infection. In the model, HCQ started before or near symptom onset has measurable effect. Started at the cardiopulmonary stage — when most patients actually present — it does almost nothing because the endothelial cascade is already systemic by then.
On QT suppression by cardiology: the concern is real, not political. HCQ blocks hERG (IKr) with an in-vivo EC50 around 1 µM (~335 ng/mL). Standard 400 mg/day dosing produces mean QTc shifts on the order of ~10–25 ms in COVID-era cohort data, with ~11–19% of patients crossing the 500 ms threshold and a modeled TdP risk around ~2% at saturation. CQ is worse.
So if someone proposed CQ/HCQ prophylaxis for rodent-exposure scenarios in otherwise healthy people, any serious cardiology or regulatory review board would push back hard — especially in women, and especially with co-administered QT-prolonging drugs like azithromycin. That objection would be grounded in real phase-IV safety data, not ideology. The counterargument would be short-course exposure in healthy hearts with monitoring, but the burden of proof would still sit with the proposer.
Ribavirin is more interesting mechanistically than politically.
The key issue is probably not access, but timing. The failed North American RCT (Mertz 2004) treated patients at the cardiopulmonary stage and showed no statistically significant survival benefit. But the hamster work (Safronetz 2011) showed an extremely tight rescue window: 100% survival if treatment started by day 3 post-infection, ~17% by day 5, and 0% by day 7.
That gap may explain the apparent contradiction between strong animal efficacy and failed human trials. Humans typically present very late — effectively equivalent to hamster day 7–8.
For true post-exposure prophylaxis after a known aerosol or rodent-cleanup exposure, the timeline changes completely. You could theoretically initiate ribavirin within hours rather than days. Under those conditions, the hamster data suggests efficacy could be very high if started within ~72 hours.
At that point the limiting factor becomes regulatory/logistical, not mechanistic.
ICE AGE FARMER Climate change animals dangerous SPREADING DISEASE ALL PART OF THE SCRIPT
https://t.me/iceagefarmer/3379
JIMMY DORE Thomas Massie it’s an IQ test
https://youtu.be/G2khNdcz0Vg
Is there actually any sane person out there who still believes or trusts anything from the WHO, the UN, or Bill Gates?
And while we’re on substances to treat viruses, massive dose vitamin C, used intramuscularly and intravenously in non-acidic forms like sodium ascorbate, must be considered. Dr. Fred Klenner’s work amplified by Dr. Thomas Levy, Dr. Robert Cathcart, and Dr. Hugh Riordan, to name a few, have basically found it can destroy the viruses it comes up against—if the dose is high enough & the frequency often enough.
Further, vitamin D levels should be checked in all of these Hantavirus patients because vitamin D is highly protective against all kinds of infections.
Yes, I started with 2,000 mg every 4 - 6 hours, then upped it to every 3 hours then after 4 days and feeling like an elephant was crushing my chest upped it to 1,000 every hour and 15 min. Did this for 48 hrs and cleared my lungs, restoring my oxygen level to 98-100. Took me several months after this to restore my gut but that was my weak point. C was still effective but not as effective as it had been with the lungs. (At one point I discontinued everything and could see how it had been helping) My D level was in the 80’s but increased that and zinc supplementation as well. All I knew about in July 2020. A few other normal immune protocols. No sugar is important. Since then I have found ivermectin to be very effective for long COVID pins and needles, as a treatment and preventative. Got it from relatives in India and the wellness company.
Many years ago and I came down with a bad flu, & I had about 103 fever. I started the vitamin C and did it around the clock mostly every 2 to 3 hours with a total 24 dose of 120,000 mg. I woke up the next morning, fever-free & completely recovered! I wrote about it in an article published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine entitled, “The Gift of vitamin C.”
You might be interested in my upcoming, soon to be published book which you could learn about at my website:
www.NutritionMiracles.health.