Sure, but you mention Hydroxychloroquine several times and the "Dr" paper has a pretty biased section on its use amongst other things. I picked up on the primary theme... if there is nothing to Hydroxychloroquine why would he even put it in his paper and treatment protocol? His protocol is different from the one that you posted - is his wrong? Which one is correct(both are flawed)? Also, the research on Ivermectin(an antiparasitic) is still out there and leads it to be recommended only in clinical trials.

If I'm proven wrong and the I-MASK+ protocol is mass adopted I'll change my mind and admit it, that's what's done in the science world. Until then ... seems like there is a lot of proselytising rather than science being done.