The Science of Vaccine Injury and Treatment | Dr. Paul Marik
Dr. Paul Marik is co-founder of the Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance based in Washington, D.C. As one of the world’s top physicians he has researched in depth the harms caused by the Covid vaccines and effective treatments for the vaccine injured. Dr. Marik shares his research, explains the causes behind many of the common vaccine injuries and provides details on home treatments for the vaccine injured. In addition, Dr. Marik discusses a wider range of topics, including the intentional crippling of the health care system.
- Why are those with the most robust immune systems most susceptible to vaccine injury?
- What damages do the spike proteins do in the body?
- What are the effects of the lipid nanoparticles in the injections?
- If you are vaccine injured, what can you do to recover, and what is the science behind it?
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
, Thanks for getting so much valuable advice out to us, so we’ll organized. I admire brave leaders who make personal sacrifices to help others.
I lost my beloved wife Deborah in October from septic shock in the ICU of the Edmonton University hospital. The doctors there seem to be very professional in their approach except when slight deviations from the drug protocols are proposed. Before my wife went into shock, I asked an attending physician if he had heard of the Marik Protocol for this illness and he said yes he had heard of it but it lacked rigorous controls and the latest study showed that it didn’t work. And besides that, “Marik is a controversial figure.” (ad hominem) “So we see no reason to try it here.”
I looked up the two largest studies including the “Lovit” study released in August and they both clearly did NOT replicate the Marik protocol which they were supposedly comparing their treatment to. Both studies were very late in delivering the ascorbate IV to the patients (from 13 hours to 30 hours late), the Lovit study didn’t include vitamin B1 and instead of simple measurements of outcome, they used complicated measurements of relative risk and death at 28 days and a large number of patients were on mechanical ventilators.
My wife was very ill when she entered the hospital so saving her with this protocol was a long shot but I found the doctor’s attitudes about this innovative protocol, with a completely safe treatment that might save millions of lives puzzling and illogical to say the least. What do they have to lose?