4,376 Treated, Zero Deaths: What This Clinic Got Right About Early COVID Care
The Independent Journal of Medicine is currently free to access for all. Download the latest issue today!
A newly published review in the Journal of Independent Medicine presents compelling data from a southern California clinic that treated thousands of COVID-19 patients during the height of the pandemic—with outcomes that significantly outperformed regional and national trends. Among 3,962 patients with mild COVID-19 who received early outpatient treatment, there were zero deaths and only two hospitalizations (0.05%).
The review, authored by IMA Senior Fellow Dr. Brian Tyson and colleagues at All Valley Urgent Care (AVUC), documents a pragmatic, real-world approach to care built on clinical vigilance, close patient follow-up, and the strategic use of repurposed medicines. The results add weight to a growing body of observational data supporting early intervention as a critical factor in preventing COVID-19 progression and death.
“If our patients received treatment before day seven, we had a 100% success rate with zero mortality,” said Dr. Tyson. “We hope people will read the paper and understand why we did what we did at the time.”
A Data-Driven Approach With Exceptional Outcomes
The AVUC study stratified patients by disease severity and tailored interventions accordingly.
Treatments included combinations of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, corticosteroids (both oral and injectable), monoclonal antibodies, and nutraceuticals such as zinc, quercetin, vitamin C, and vitamin D3.
Every patient received empiric treatment at the time of presentation—often before test results were available—and was monitored closely through in-person or telemedicine follow-up.
The study reported:
Zero deaths among 3,962 patients with mild symptoms
0.05% hospitalization rate, compared to 22.8% in Imperial County
No serious adverse events attributed to treatment
Strong statistical significance, with odds ratios below 0.003 when compared to both real and synthetic population-level controls
Notably, even among 412 patients presenting with moderate symptoms, the outcomes remained favorable: only three deaths and seven hospitalizations—an outcome that would be difficult to replicate with delayed or hospital-based treatment protocols.
The Role of Independent Publication
Though the study was completed years ago, it was repeatedly rejected by major journals—despite strong data and external statistical validation. Only with the recent launch of the Journal of Independent Medicine was it possible for the findings to be peer-reviewed and published.
“We tried to publish it on multiple platforms,” Tyson explained. “It wasn’t until we had the support of the Independent Medical Association that it was reviewed and validated—including an independent statistical analysis confirmed against state public health data.”
The publication illustrates a broader issue in medical science: the challenges faced by clinicians working outside of large academic institutions or pharmaceutical affiliations. The creation of the Journal of Independent Medicine reflects the need for rigorous, independent platforms where real-world clinical data can be evaluated on merit, not institutional alignment.
A Case Study in What Could Have Been
AVUC operated in a setting where hospital access was limited, and early care options were scarce. That reality pushed Dr. Tyson’s team to act quickly and use what was already available, safe, and potentially effective. Their protocols were dynamic—adjusted based on severity, patient age, and comorbidities—but always grounded in clinical observation and early intervention.
Their experience stands in contrast to centralized public health responses that often discouraged outpatient care altogether, focusing instead on late-stage hospitalization and experimental pharmaceutical interventions. While new, on-patent drugs were prioritized, these physicians pursued cost-effective, repurposed options that could be widely deployed.
Part of a Global Network for Solutions
This review is not just a local success story—it reflects the values and approach of the Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), formerly FLCCC, which has long advocated for early treatment protocols across COVID-19, influenza, RSV, and other respiratory illnesses. The AVUC data validates the very model IMA has worked to make accessible: fast, adaptable, decentralized care using repurposed drugs with known safety profiles.
The findings also underscore the importance of the IMA International Fellowship Program, which connects clinicians around the world who are developing similar low-cost, effective approaches to treatment—often in the face of political or institutional resistance. By facilitating data sharing, joint analysis, and research publication, the fellowship helps translate frontline experience into actionable clinical knowledge.
Why It Matters Now
As health systems revisit what succeeded and what failed during the pandemic, studies like this one offer a clear benchmark. The outcomes at AVUC were not hypothetical—they were observed, documented, and now peer-reviewed. They demonstrate that early outpatient treatment, when grounded in evidence and clinical responsiveness, saves lives.
The scale is not insignificant. Dr. Tyson and his team have now treated more than 20,000 COVID-19 patients using these protocols, with consistently low rates of hospitalization and mortality. In an era where healthcare costs continue to climb, and public trust remains fragile, the study provides a model of effective, affordable, patient-centered care.
And perhaps just as importantly, it demonstrates what’s possible when clinicians are empowered to act independently—and when research is judged on outcomes, not allegiance.
The Independent Journal of Medicine is currently free to access for all. Download the latest issue today!
Absolutely, we had zero patient deaths with early treatments Even with late disease presentation we had excellent outcomes. Once we learned what the hospitals were doing, we were running therapies out of patient's living rooms.
COVID may have been the first time in history when public health agencies around the world FORBADE treating patients, reacting hysterically and angrily to reports that patients were cured of their illnesses. In hindsight, it is abundantly clear that the pandemic was created for two purposes: 1) the enrichment of certain pharmaceutical companies and their investors, and 2) the defeat of President Trump in his 2020 campaign.
At some point, of course, we will need to discuss the significance of Trump's nomination of Casey Means to be Surgeon General.