There are 2 documents:
- A short guide with the pretty graphics
- A longer guide with more detail and some references.
Overall, it seems that this protocol is different from the long COVID one because the authors talked to the vaccine injured. Compared to long COVID circles, the vax injured groups have different popular treatments (the React19 circle got really into HBOT because of Kyle Warner and April or something). Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of data/evidence to base treatments on (I would assume that the protocol uses a lot of what they see in their patients). (And I’ve been trying to get the React19 survey data published, but it’s been delayed due to unexpected events that have happened.)
The first-line therapies seem pretty reasonable. They’re all generally safe and some of them have a decent track record according to patient experiences (if you believe the random polls on ivermectin and other drugs). I’m surprised that ivermectin wasn’t listed first. The dose is on the higher side, and they stop it at 6 weeks.
IVIG: They’re not fans.
Celltrend: They’re not fans of that either, even though they recognize that many vax injured have auto-antibodies.
Differential diagnosis: Unfortunately the “approach” document doesn’t talk about it. I’m not really sure that doctors should 100% shoot in and assume vaccine injury.
If the symptoms started more than 2 weeks post vax, it’s possible that it’s still vaccine injury. We know that MIS-V can take several weeks to show up. But if it’s >2 weeks post vax, it may be hard to know what caused the health problems. (Unfortunately I haven’t had time to look in VAERS regarding onset data.)
At the same time, there are other conditions that may be worth ruling out. Perhaps Dr. Lucinda Bateman’s approach to ME/CFS --but applied to vaccine injury-- could make some sense. She doesn’t obsess over whether or not somebody has ME/CFS when giving a ME/CFS diagnosis. She does test for the various co-morbidities like celiac disease, various infectious diseases, etc.