Version 7 of the COVID Guide is out!

chris-masterjohn-phd.myshopify.com/products/the-f…
If you pre-ordered the book, are a Masterpass member, or have already bought the guide in the past, you received a free copy. Please check your email for details.
This guide provides my recommendations for nutritional and herbal defense against COVID. This version covers 41 randomized controlled trials, which are the gold standard of evidence, as well as many other studies providing context for interpreting the trials.
Since much of this research is recent, not all of it is peer reviewed. However, I have used my own expertise in nutritional sciences and extensive experience evaluating research to fully review the quality of this evidence myself.
This protocol represents the best of science-backed strategies for nutritional and herbal anti-COVID defense.
We now have 41 RCTs on the ability of nutrients, herbs, or other natural compounds to fight COVID. While these trials are usually small, some haven’t been peer reviewed yet, some are funded by supplement manufacturers. . .
. . . and most haven’t yet been replicated by different researchers from different institutions and different parts of the world, they are the best evidence we currently have and serve as the highest priority evidence used in this guide.
In evaluating these trials, the most important things I looked for were whether the trials were done well, whether the data were reported clearly, and whether the interpretations were sound.
However, I also considered the funding source, whether different groups had come to similar results, how much of the data was peer reviewed, and whether the substance is an essential nutrient.
Based on these considerations, I categorized anything that made the cut into three tiers: “Essentials,” “Best Add-Ons,” or “These Might Help.”
Having better quality, more trustworthy, more consistent data, and having essential nutrient status pushed the strategies up toward the Essentials tier, while lacking these qualities pushed them down toward the “These Might Help” tier.
Those with intermediate support are included as Best Add-Ons.
The guide includes suggestions on how to tailor the protocol to your individual needs, your personal risk, your environmental risk, and your own risk tolerance. It also includes full instructions on how to implement the strategies.
When you buy it, you will get free updates the research continues to emerge. The guide is currently in version 7 and was last updated on September 25, 2020.
The format of the report is a downloadable PDF. As soon as you complete your order, you will also receive an email with your download.

The guide is 59 pages and contains 157 references.
Yikes 2021, tonight!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chris Masterjohn

Chris Masterjohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChrisMasterjohn

28 Aug
What’s with all these trolls on Instagram and Facebook who have never peer reviewed a paper or published a peer-reviewed paper who think results they aren’t peer reviewed need to be ignored?

These trolls most commonly say this to the 6-month results of the Pfizer vaccine trial!
Like what is your point, that the approval should be withdrawn because the data hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet?
These trolls especially come out in full force to counter the fact that there was no mortality difference in the Pfizer trial (29 deaths, 3 due to COVID, even distribution among groups).
Read 4 tweets
28 Aug
I wonder how this will compare to the 15 deaths in the vaccine group and the 14 deaths in the placebo group in the most recent results of the Pfizer vaccine trial.
Yes I realize there was a ~95% reduction in total and severe cases, and that observational data supports a reduction in mortality.

But this guy is listing drugs failing in RCTs despite working observationally as examples of how ivermectin could be discredited.
And for mortality, “borderline significant” is a hell of a lot better than the Pfizer trial’s results.

The fair comparison between the two is the trial results, not the observational data — unless we want to just give everyone ivermectin and see if it impacts mortality.
Read 4 tweets
18 Aug
So I'm reading Apple, "Mothers and Medicine a Social History of Infant Feeding 1890-1950," and if we are wondering why our microbiome diversity might be inter-generationally devastated, it might have to do with the obsession early hospitals had with preventing infectious disease.
In early 20th century hospitalized births, the mothers would wear facemasks in some hospitals, and in most the nurses would sterilize their nipples when they would nurse with 35% alcohol or some such solution.
Women so trusted medical authority at this point that they modeled their entire nursing experience on their hospital experience. Many of them would sterilize their nipples with boric acid or whatever they had at home before and after nursing.
Read 5 tweets
17 Aug
It just occurred to me that pibloktoq, a form of hysteria lasting days and sometimes ending in a coma, traditionally suffered by the Inuit, may in part be a vulnerability due to their low carbohydrate intake and presumably lower CO2 levels.
I wrote about it in 2009 here:

westonaprice.org/health-topics/…

The most compelling explanation is it is due to hypocalcemia during the late winter and early spring in non-coastal populations without year-round access to dried fish and fish bone.
However, hypocalcemia is strongly influenced by CO2 levels, because CO2 provides a source of acidity, allowing H+ ions to compete with calcium ions for binding to albumin.
Read 12 tweets
15 Aug
Is it possible to test blood CO2 at home? I couldn’t find anything.
Ok so I don’t think there is anything for blood, but searching Amazon for etCO2 (exhaled CO2) seems the best way to get breath capnometers (though it still manages to hijack the search with pulse oximeters!). However, these are insanely expensive ($>600, usually >$1000).
Unfortunately the purpose I want this for isn’t really worth that kind of money.

I was hoping someone had invented something analogous to a pulse ox that could use spectrophotometric properties to estimate blood levels.
Read 6 tweets
15 Aug
“Breathe” by @MrJamesNestor has a fascinating story of how in 1958, a choir trainer who had worked with Grammy-winning opera singers, was asked by a hospital in NJ to work with emphysema patients to improve breathing.
He came to the emphysema ward and was shocked at the lack of appreciation of the physiology of breathing and that the nurses were keeping the patient’s backs arched with pillows, which hurt the depth of their exhalations.
He had them lie flat on their back, did manual work to loosen rigid muscles in their chest, trained them to hold their breath, and taught them to inhale and exhale very slowly.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(