Colin Powell Was Not Killed or Helped by His COVID-19 Shots

A New Path – Rev. Jim Hetzer

Colin Powell died of COVID-19 complications according to news reports. Mr. Powell had several significant other factors besides COVID-19, including his age and treatment for multiple myeloma cancer. Those treatments lowered his immune system response that made the Pfizer vaccine shots less able to produce antibodies against COVID-19. If ivermectin had been given immediately after it was determined that Colin Powell was infected by COVID-19, there is evidence that the drug would have helped reduce the viral load substantially. It may be that no treatment in any form could have saved his life given all of the circumstances.

Ivermectin, the repurposed antiparasitic drug, has been used extensively around the world and in the US to prevent and treat COVID-19 infections.  14 prophylaxis trials showed an 86% improvement in reducing the viral load from COVID-19.  There was a 66% improvement from early treatment of patients that tested positive for COVID-19 based upon 28 trials. Ivermectin has been given to over 250 million COVID-19 humans to prevent or treat COVID-19 infections around the world.  Where ivermectin was given as an antiparasitic, the incidence of COVID-19 infections in those countries has been dramatically reduced. 

Ivermectin might not have saved Colin Powell from death from COVID-19 infection, but ivermectin is far more effective than any current FDA approved drugs or antibody infusions that were currently available to treat him.  Ivermectin is also significantly better than the proposed Merck antiviral, molnupiravir, in shortening hospital stays.  The Merck submission to the FDA claimed a 47% reduction in deaths in its submittals for an Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA based on a very limited trial sample size and duration.

Ivermectin has been given to three children with recurring cancer on a continuing basis when the standard of care drugs failed to improve their health.  This was not done as a trial; it was done as a necessity to attempt to save these children’s lives.  The same is true for the use of ivermectin in hospital ICUs; the ICU doctors of the Front-Line COVID Critical Care Alliance use ivermectin along with many other drugs and supplements to reduce the deaths of their patients. Their protocols work because they are adapted to meet the challenges of new mutations. The FLCCC Alliance considers vaccines to be one aspect of COVID-19 prevention, with the use of the ivermectin-based protocols as an effective treatment.

If the FDA had issued a BLA certification for the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 infections in the US, and if the NIH had issued instructions to doctors treating COVID-19 patients that said ivermectin is a useful adjunct to the vaccines, Colin Powell might still be alive.  As it is, the FDA, CDC, and NIH have launched a huge propaganda campaign to falsely discredit the efficacy and safety of human use of ivermectin produced for the treatment of human patients.

Ivermectin is most effective when used to prevent replication of COVID-19 and to provide early treatment to suppress the increase in viral load leading to hospitalization and to death.  Ivermectin is not used as the sole drug in any of the FLCCC’s protocols.  As the ICU physicians gained experience in dealing with COVID-19, the protocols for treatment have evolved.  The Delta mutation has led to increased dosages of the components of the protocol, and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been added to the most extreme COVID-19 infections.  The standard hospital ICU protocols do not include ivermectin or many of the other components that these physicians have found reduced deaths in their ICUs.

It is past time to contact members of Congress, state health directors, and news sources to express a desire for the FDA to formally evaluate the 60+ studies done about the efficacy and safety of using ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19 infections.  Every day, there is increasing evidence that the use of ivermectin over 250 million times to prevent and treat COVID-19 is working to reduce transmission and deaths.

This is the link to contact health agency managers on a federal and state level, and members of Congress, the White House, and federal research institutions.  Express your interest in supplementing vaccines with a safe and proven effective antiviral drug, which is ivermectin.

We have a responsibility to the people of the US and the world to examine the data on ivermectin and get formal approval of its use to treat patients like Colin Powell whose vaccines cannot work properly because of complications effecting their immune systems.

14 thoughts on “Colin Powell Was Not Killed or Helped by His COVID-19 Shots

  1. HCQ works great, too, if given within 72 hours of the start of symptoms, but most docs won’t prescribe it. Some will, and people have to find them before they get sick.

    Backup plan

    We used elderberry concentrate, 50 mg zinc, 2,000 units vit. D, and 1,000 mg vit. C to treat and we cleared symptoms within 24 hours. We began treatment within 48 hours of the start of symptoms.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. thecovidpilot, your combinations are different, but they are logical and your results are good. I have been using research done by Penn State University to write an article titled First Principles to Prevent COVID-19 infection that lowers the viral load in the nasal cavities and salivary glands by 99.9%. I appreciate your comments, and suggest that this is another useful approach to stopping the pandemic.


      1. There are many ways to skin the covid cat and it’s wise to have backup plans.

        May ways are based on my own in depth research.

        I stumbled on calcifediol as being superior to D3 for infections. D3 is dilatory and has a short half-life. The liver produces calcifediol from D3, but it takes a long time to raise levels. Months. While you are supplementing, your body is storing D3 in fat cells so there’s a very gradual increase in calcifediol levels.

        Calcifediol us used by immune cells to produce calcitriol, which they use to signal for T cell specialization and to reduce inflammation when the virus is heavily diminished (which blocks cytokine storm).

        The kidneys also use calcitriol to regulate calcium levels, so the immune system would screw up calcium levels if it used calcitriol from the blood.

        But the calcifediol levels have to reach about 40 ng/ml before the immune system will use them to make calcitriol. 50 ng/ml is optimum for general immune health.

        People have decided against HCQ mostly based on the RECOVERY trial of HCQ, which itself made it plain that its results don’t apply to outpatient treatment.

        There’s a 72 hour window after symptom onset where you want to give antivirals.


      2. My D3 is an oil (fat) which is not excreted through the kidneys like many forms of D3. I have not found a reasonable solution for the retention of C, which has a very short residency before excretion. I make a morning tea or organic elderberries and hibiscus that has turmeric and black pepper. I add at least 10,000 IU of D3, 1,000 mg of C to this before drinking. The C is vegetarian based and I drop the D3 oil on the C in hopes of making it more absorbable. Thanks for your coments.


      3. You can get 1 oz of Lindberg Vitamin D3 cholecalciferol from Piping Rock for $11.99 and on sale right now for 25% off. Each drop is 1,000 IU and I just shake the bottle.


      1. I disagree with the AMA about masking, and I’m in field and they are not.

        Masking effectiveness is a physics question, where I am in field.

        The Bazant study drove the coffin nail in the social distancing canard. Distance between the infection source and the infected persons didn’t matter in multiple instances–the study looked at transportation and other situations where people were together.

        Don’t trust the AMA about much of anything–they have been against patients’ interests for years because they have been in the pocket of pharma. Doctors are ditching them for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons more and more.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. The proof masks and socially distancing work is found in the decrease of serious flu cases in 2020. Here’s some science for you to consider. Single layer non-woven masks filter particles bigger than 0.3 microns. I have a 3-ply mask with the center non-woven layer heat bonded to stop 0.1 micron particles, which research has established as the particle size of the virus. I agree with most of your comment.

        Why Masks work


      3. “The proof masks and socially distancing work is found in the decrease of serious flu cases in 2020.”

        Maybe flu was misdiagnosed as covid in buckets? Mild covid and flu are exceedingly difficult to diagnose as many things will produce the same symptoms.

        There was a physics study about masking and wicking and evaporation that came out in Jan. 2022.

        Title: Droplet evaporation on porous fabric materials


        Droplet evaporation on porous materials is a complex dynamic that occurs with spontaneous liquid imbibition through pores by capillary action. Here, we explore water dynamics on a porous fabric substrate with in-situ observations of X-ray and optical imaging techniques. We show how spreading and wicking lead to water imbibition through a porous substrate, enhancing the wetted surface area and consequently promoting evaporation. These sequential dynamics offer a framework to understand the alterations in the evaporation due to porosity for the particular case of fabric materials and a clue of how face masks interact with respiratory droplets.


      4. Three or four-ply masks have an inner layer of non-woven materials that have been heat treated to decrease the size of openings where aerosol virus can enter. Studies have shown that they are of limited use, but it is logical that this type of masks does do some good in lowering transmission.


      5. The SARS-COV-2 virus is 0.1 microns. What are the sizes of the mask openings?

        All of the studies that supposedly show benefit from masks that I have seen have one of two flaws–either the test was with solid particles much larger than viruses or the test was with droplets and it was assumed that if droplets were caught by the mask, they wouldn’t evaporate, which is silly.

        The best masks (N-95 & N-100)have a saturation curve where effectivness diminishes with time. I haven’t seen any saturation curves for them where viruses were to be filtered.


  2. Here’s the Bazant & Bush study:


    A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19


    The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space. The importance of airborne transmission of COVID-19 is now widely recognized. While tools for risk assessment have recently been developed, no safety guideline has been proposed to protect against it. We here build on models of airborne disease transmission in order to derive an indoor safety guideline that would impose an upper bound on the “cumulative exposure time,” the product of the number of occupants and their time in an enclosed space. We demonstrate how this bound depends on the rates of ventilation and air filtration, dimensions of the room, breathing rate, respiratory activity and face mask use of its occupants, and infectiousness of the respiratory aerosols. By synthesizing available data from the best-characterized indoor spreading events with respiratory drop size distributions, we estimate an infectious dose on the order of 10 aerosol-borne virions. The new virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) is thus inferred to be an order of magnitude more infectious than its forerunner (SARS-CoV), consistent with the pandemic status achieved by COVID-19. Case studies are presented for classrooms and nursing homes, and a spreadsheet and online app are provided to facilitate use of our guideline. Implications for contact tracing and quarantining are considered, and appropriate caveats enumerated. Particular consideration is given to respiratory jets, which may substantially elevate risk when face masks are not worn.

    The _data_ in Bazant shows that distance from infected to infectee was irrelevant in numerous examples.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s