Several months ago, I wrote about an effective treatment for the “C” problem. This C problem refers to the health problem experienced by people worldwide for the last two years. I noted that in many ways, the C problem had become a “crazy” problem in terms of an out-of-control political climate that was handcuffing doctors from providing the very best treatment. Please note that I have to write in this coding style since social media will flag and block this article and possibly shut my accounts down.
I wrote about a safe pharmaceutical treatment for the C problem that I referred to as “big Ivy.” This treatment has been given to tens of millions of people throughout its history with excellent safety and promising efficacy. And while doctors such as myself can prescribe controlled substances that are many times riskier in terms of safety for big Ivy, for some reason, the brand name pharmacies across North America will not allow prescriptions to be filled for the C problem. Fortunately, specialty pharmacies, known as compounding pharmacies, will fill big Ivy for the C problem. The downside is that many rural communities do not have a compounding pharmacy.
An article published in the 2021 July/August issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics reviewed 15 trials using big Ivy for the C problem. This mainstream medical journal which is certainly not aligned with political or “fringe doctors” concluded: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in [C Deaths] are possible using [big Ivy]. Using [big Ivy] early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that [Big Ivy] is likely to have a significant impact on the [C problem] globally.
Also, a recent analysis of 78 studies found big Ivy to be an effective treatment for the C problem, especially when used early. Statistically significant improvements were seen regarding mortality, ventilation, intensive care unit admission, hospitalization, and recovery. You will find a mixture of study conclusions with big Ivy, which is okay. Some studies do not show benefits. If you have formal training in the field of statistics, you understand the many factors that can change the outcome positively or negatively. For example, was big Ivy given to patients at the beginning of the C illness? Or was it given to patients who already had severe progression of the disease? What type of dosage was given in the study?
The reality is that a multiprong approach to the C problem is best. Proper medical attention and diagnostics are essential. The use of indicated pharmaceuticals and natural compounds should all be considered. I have written about the research on the natural compound’s quercetin and vitamin D on this subject at www.americasnaturaldoctor.com. It is best to seek input from several sources for your healthcare decisions.
The scientific community is in a state of disarray on the C problem. There used to be some willingness to have open discussions and debates about various healthcare topics. It seems that now there is an “intolerance” to those with different viewpoints, even when reputable scientific data supports their view.
A proverb that applies to this situation is: “The way of a fool is right is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise.”
About Dr. Stengler
Dr. Mark Stengler NMD is a bestselling author in private practice in Encinitas, California. His weekly newsletter Dr. Stengler’s Health Breakthroughs is available at www.americasnaturaldoctor.com
