Dr. Offit is an excellent communicator of health information. I have read many of his books, support the Vaccine Education Center at his hospital, and appreciated his voice of reason during the height of the Covid pandemic.
However, Pfizer's April 2024 study of Paxlovid was NEGATIVE. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or deaths in the two groups: high risk unvaccinated or low risk vaccinated. There was one death from any cause in the 317 high risk unvaccinated people which does not meet statistical significance; it was chance. There were 10 (1.6%) placebo vs 5 (0.8%) Paxlovid hospitalization but this also was not shown, by the study, to have been due to Paxlovid. Statistically, it was as likely due to chance and the authors acknowledge this: "The results with respect to the number of Covid-19 related hospitalization and deaths from any cause, ALTHOUGH NOT SIGNIFICANT..."
This paper is an excellent example of the necessity of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Observational trials can suggest hypotheses but a RCT is essential as, well designed, it avoids bias.
Pfizer's April 2024 paper, try at they may to spin in their favor, was a NEGATIVE trial. It failed to show that Paxlovid decreases death, hospitalization, or duration of symptoms.
I see….several large, well conducted studies show that Paxlovid is highly effective and reduces serious disease (hospitalisations/death), but because a recent small trial was underpowered to show significance for these endpoints (though which still showed twice as many hospitalisations in the control arm), ….you conclude paxlovid is ineffective.
Observational studies are, by their nature, at risk of bias so they are valuable only in creating hypotheses to be further researched.
The New England Journal of Medicine April 2024 Article, "Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19" is the large randomized controlled trial by Pfizer to which Dr. Offit referred.
It's title is misleading as Paxlovid is Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and the article is about Paxlovid.
The conclusion in the abstract is also misleading as this study looked not only at time to relief of symptoms (no difference) but also hospitalization and death (not significantly different - and clearly stated as such by the authors in the discussion section of the paper).
The burden of proof that a medication is effective and safe is on the pharmaceutical who makes the drug and Pfizer failed to prove effectiveness of Paxlovid on all measures now that the world has either been vaccinated or had Covid or both.
Further real world studies totalling well over a million people have confirmed that finding. These studies included vaccinated patients and those with prior infection.
A recent (small) underpowered study of 1,290 patients showed near but not statistical significant difference in hospitalisation rates. It was not a “large” trial.
The observational studies show paxlovid is effective in vaccinated/previously infected patients.
Your refusal to accept those studies is concerning.
Imagine if you will that antibiotics are used to treat meningitis due to Bacterium X, then a universal vaccine is introduced which reduces disease incidence/severity.
Is your response to question the use of antibiotics, because in one small underpowered study they didn’t show they were of statistical benefit in vaccinated patients? ….Presumably it would be.
I and a number of others had a number of issues with with the 'study'. Rather than listing the limitations and short comings, I'll cut to the chase with the using the end point of 'time to symptoms alleviation'. This is the same end point for influenza. The end point should be avoiding progression to severe, hospitalization and death. This was a rather shoddy study.
If I can find them, so can you. Do your own reading, as I have. Substack writers have published all of them: Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Sasha Latypova, Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough… to name but a few. I really don’t have time to look all of them up for you. Gardening season has started and I have work to do outside.
It has to be started as soon after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and within five days of symptoms starting. Its effectiveness may diminish the further away from symptom onset it is started, due to the way it works.
“ COVID-19 in patients who do not require oxygen supplementation and are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection
for nirmatrelvir with ritonavir
By mouth
Adult
300 mg (two pink tablets) and 100 mg (one white tablet) twice daily for 5 days, to be initiated as soon as possible after SARS-CoV-2 positive result and within 5 days of symptom onset, for each dose, nirmatrelvir (pink tablets) and ritonavir (white tablet) to be taken together.”
interventions including vaccines and antiviral drugs like Paxlovid are effective in preventing severe disease and death in people infected with SARS-CoV2. Paxlovid must be given early in the course of COVID-19 to work (while the virus is actively replicating) but is not offered or available to as many patients as need/would benefit.
As long as healthcare is a profit-driven business, aimed at increasing shareholder dividends and filling 401K accounts, then, limits to access and denial of care to those who do not pay money will be needed. The USA is not interested in or prepared for medical care for more than those who are people of means.
I have valid reasons to make these assertions, but, the comments section of Dr Paul Offit's Substack is not a great place for a meaningful discussion of these matters. That said, I don't understand why people are surprised that a country that has homeless veterans and addicts doesn't just give healthcare to "all."
Of course the anti-viral meds are not offered or available to all. It's how everyone wants it and votes to keep. The US Supreme Court has been ruling on the ACA for years. That's partly why so many people lack healthcare. A profit-driven model for healthcare requires limits to access, and to "expensive" (in the USA, as a result) treatments and other care. Why are people surprised? Don't they know any poor people? I'm in Jenkintown PA, ask me anything. The system works as designed, it's just Capitalism, that's all.
Only Jesus healed for free, that was the miracle, no copay.
While still testing "POSITIVE" each time. You would thi k that at some point brain cells would kick in or at least the vestiges of self preservation. Whats the definition of insanity again?
Public safety requires community immunity from preventable illness. Vaccines have been demonstrated to reduce ot eliminate (eradicate, I suppose) many diseases, such as polio, measles, and whooping cough.
Why do you favor a return of diseases, a lack of public safety, and more loss of health and life? Why reject the social contract? What is the benefit to harm? Why do you require harm to human people?.
Polio was never a virus. it's symptoms are directly tied to the damaging effects of DDT and LEAD ARSENIC.
Polio still exists in third world countries that use those pesticides and in first world countries that offer the polio "vaccine" but it's symptoms are reclassified as AFP acute flaccid paralysis
A cursory look and plot of the prevalence of Polio and the use of DDT and Arsenic as pesticides (they even sprayed these on children and beach goers)
Some good articles on this subject from the wayback machine:
M. Biskind, "DDT poisoning and the elusive Virus X". American Journal of Digestive Diseases vol 16 1949
J. Gabliks and L. Friedman. "Effects of insectisides on mammalian cells and virus infections", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences vol 160. 1969
F. Burgess and G.R Cameron. "The Toxicity of D.D.T", British Medical Journal vol 1 june 23 1945
>Why do you favor a return of diseases, a lack of public safety, and more loss of health and life?
Why do you favor rigged RCTs(where the previous version of the vaccine under test is substituted for the saline solution placebo standard)?
Why do you support zero liability indemnified vaccine manufacturers?
Why are you against a vax vs unvaccinated study to resolve this issue?
Do you hate children that much?
>Why reject the social contract?
Fxck your social contract. There is no social contract when RCTs are rigged and vaccine manufacturers are indemnified
>What is the benefit to harm?
Then strip the manufacturers of the protection of the national childhood vaccination act of 1986 and the CARES and PREP act.
>Why do you require harm to human people?.
Am not the one rigging Randomized Clinical Trials, Hiding behind Indemnity and Requesting 55 years to release already manipulated test data
My motive is healthy children. The reduction in the massive amount of mental and physical damage including death and chronic disease brought to helpless children by foolish doctors and ignorant parents.
Please tell Vincent Racianello that his life’s work with the poliovirus has been based on a lie. If it were due to lead and arsenic then why did cases drop here in the U.K. when we didn’t switch to unleaded petrol until relatively recently?
It isn’t just mortality that is the problem with measles, not dying from it doesn’t mean it’s mild. There are non fatal but nasty side effects. The virus also suppresses the immune system for several years, leaving the child vulnerable to other infections and diseases. Please explain why there are no measles outbreaks when 95% vaccination rate is achieved and why when that rate drops, as it has recently here in certain parts of the U.K. , there are outbreaks?
>It isn’t just mortality that is the problem with measles, not dying from it doesn’t mean it’s mild. There are non fatal but nasty side effects. The virus also suppresses the immune system for several years, leaving the child vulnerable to other infections and diseases.
What a crock of sxit. The living conditions in third world countries (lack of clean water, sanitation, nourishing food) conveniently left out of the equation.
Please list all the adverse reactions /chronic diseases possible from the MMR vaccine. Ill wait. Unless you believe its a panacea.
Also kindly explain why mortality from measels had dropped 95% before the introduction of the vaccine !!!!
>explain why there are no measles outbreaks when 95% vaccination rate is achieved and why when that rate drops, as it has recently here in certain parts of the U.K. , there are outbreaks?
Oh, you still suffer the illusion that the news on tv is timely and factual? You poor delusional fool.
Its collusion between the NHS and the media. Whenever rates of vaccination acceptance drops below a certain rate: out comes the media scare routines all promulgated by that countries health agency whose management is tied to the revolving door of pharmaceutical giants and who get to define what constitutes an "outbreak" whether real or imagined
These health agencies will redefine "outbreak", "pandemic" and "vaccine" to suit there agendas.
Like the WHO did in 2020 for the televised "pandemic" of seasonal flu?
From 2020 - 2022. We were fed the daily drumbeat of CONvid deaths (FALSE positive PCR tests and reclassification of death causes). Thats now largely gone after vaccine rollout.
However, sudden deaths (myocarditis, turbo cancer, etc) have increased so much so books are written about it like Edward Dowds "sudden deaths" of healthy people and young adults dropping death sometime after taking the jab
There are telegram channels (thank goodness for alternative media) covering this daily but not a single peep from the news media
We have debated this already. You will refer to my previous comments and the research of Drs Mark and Samantha Bailey (authors of "Virus Mania" and "The Final Pandemic") on this subject
That's because he is their salesman as are the pharma shills in this substack.
IVM/HCQ, even vitamin D3 tablets were attacked during the CONvid era and numerous flawed studies released along with a mounted campaign to prevent doctors from prescribing them or pharmacies from fulfilling those requests
They (drugs I cited above )had a few things in common. They were cheap, easy to manufacture, OFF PATENT and effective.
All have been in use for decades to threat other illnesses. But during the CONvid era there were denigrated and sidelined and banned and the likes of remdisivir aka "run death is near" and the various "vaccines" were promoted to the fore front
All that matters is the concerted effort by the pharmaceutical giants and the three letter bought-and-paid-for-health agencies to attack/dismiss/malign and discredit two drugs that have been in use for DECADES and have won numerous awards including statues erected in their honor
Thanks for this potent exegesis. I keep my supply of Paxlovid in a kitchen cabinet that is just to the left of the refrigerator. So far, I have not needed to use this agent.
Seems to me you are speaking about yourself and the evidence for the use of Ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID. Your preconception and bias is it doesn’t work which has been the governmental, media and big pharma promotion and propaganda, despite the body of evidence that does conclude it does work, especially after you analyze the flawed designs and implementation of some of the clinical trials.
One of my messages to the few remaining "first timers" when they get Covid is: "You didn't put off getting Covid for 4+ years NOT to get the state of the art treatment. You bloody EARNED Paxlovid."
I was involved in the effort to provide antivirals to people with flu symptoms during the H1N1 pandemic. The infrastructure for doing this was poor. Antivirals are most effective if given very early. (That's why their use prophylactically in care homes is so effective.) Their efficacy decreases quickly, and by 5 days from symptom onset they are of little or no value. Patients often take a day or two to decide to present for medical care; then there may be a delay in confirming the diagnosis. By which time, it is often too late. The window for effective treatment has closed. I suspect this may be a large part of the reason why Paxlovid is not used more often.
Thank you for the blog post and thank you to commenters! I am now 72 and have taken every COVID shot and booster, and still came down with Covid in Jul2022 and XmasDay2023. In both cases I took Paxlovid, the first time I was really sick but as far as I know well short of hospitalization etc. The Paxlovid seemed to squelch the symptoms on the spot in a remarkable way. The second time I was at home and may have had a minor Covid case and gotten Paxlovid within 24 hrs so the effect was less dramatic. I think there has been so much variation in severity in the Covid “variants” and the so-called 5 day window brings additional variation so it is hard to pin things down statistically. Plus a certain number of those involved in the tests have previously had Covid and there may be variation in the immunity conferred.
IMO there's an additional reason MDs under-prescribe Paxlovid: the NIH's clear treatment guidelines get translated by obviously well-meaning, highly-informed—even expert—people such as Dr Offit
.
The NIH's “… adults who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19“ becomes “groups at highEST risk for severe COVID”
.
And the fact that 1/3 of Americans are over 50, where the CDC says “ the risk of death is 25 times higher” gets translated into “the elderly.” Last time I heard another doc on a podcast call for Paxlovid for “the elderly,” I was doing my morning 5K jog and NOT feeling exactly “elderly.”
.
Fortunately, when my similarly “elderly” wife tested positive, Kaiser had interactions tested & a scrip ready for pickup within an hour or so
.
The “rebound” effect getting press seems more a function of our Public Health servants being inattentive to messaging. I have heard the April study characterized as showing that patients on Paxlovid felt much better in the first 7–10 days or so compared to the placebo group; the week two “immune hyperactivation” phase wasn't avoided but the quality of life during the overall course seems to be on average, MUCH better for those taking Paxlovid. Meanwhile, the still-sketchy data on post-acute sequelae after Paxlovid seem not to have been studied well enough to make definitive recommendations.
This messaging failure is hard to understand: given that Paxlovid is indicated for 1/3 of the population, Public Health agencies ought to be precise in characterizing how much it helps us be less impacted in all the ways that matter to us.
We have debated this already. You will refer to my previous comments and the research of Drs Mark and Samantha Bailey (authors of "Virus Mania" and "The Final Pandemic") on this subject
The calibration standard are two controls, a known positive and a known negative. The known positive will become visible after around 20 cycles and the known negative will never become visible.
It's "calibrated" to however number of cycle counts is necessary to generate the FALSE positive results that keeps CONvid in the news and useless, idemnified drugs on the market
I hope it's okay to copy/paste my reply to your post of this article on another platform. I am hoping your readers on Substack will have some commentary regarding Medicare coverage of anti-viral medicine and more. Thanks. Here is my comment (again).
I said: Hey, Paul. Medicare says: "Medicare Part D covers oral antiviral treatment. Your plan's deductible, copayment, and coinsurance rules apply."
The kinds of doctors who even bother to accept Medicare and its patients are already underpaid and overworked. The patients are rarely their/our own best advocates.
Medicare-accepting doctors must save money and cut costs. Prescribing anti-viral medicine to Medicare patients may have the risk of the patient's plan not covering the drug at all, or, not compensating the doctor enough to justify that kind of treatment.
The doctors aren't seeking the best interest of the patient. They can't do that, they have too many rules and regulations, and can't risk a malpractice suit. They have to save money first.
Paul, there is so much nonsense I'd love to discuss with you. This is one topic. The reason why the sick patients who are poor and/or on Medicare are not getting anti-viral medicine for Covid could be because the financial motive for the doctors is too great. They are not rewarded for making Medicare spend money. Profits over people. Healthcare for profit necessarily requires limits on care and access to care.
Dr. Offit is an excellent communicator of health information. I have read many of his books, support the Vaccine Education Center at his hospital, and appreciated his voice of reason during the height of the Covid pandemic.
However, Pfizer's April 2024 study of Paxlovid was NEGATIVE. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or deaths in the two groups: high risk unvaccinated or low risk vaccinated. There was one death from any cause in the 317 high risk unvaccinated people which does not meet statistical significance; it was chance. There were 10 (1.6%) placebo vs 5 (0.8%) Paxlovid hospitalization but this also was not shown, by the study, to have been due to Paxlovid. Statistically, it was as likely due to chance and the authors acknowledge this: "The results with respect to the number of Covid-19 related hospitalization and deaths from any cause, ALTHOUGH NOT SIGNIFICANT..."
This paper is an excellent example of the necessity of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Observational trials can suggest hypotheses but a RCT is essential as, well designed, it avoids bias.
Pfizer's April 2024 paper, try at they may to spin in their favor, was a NEGATIVE trial. It failed to show that Paxlovid decreases death, hospitalization, or duration of symptoms.
I see….several large, well conducted studies show that Paxlovid is highly effective and reduces serious disease (hospitalisations/death), but because a recent small trial was underpowered to show significance for these endpoints (though which still showed twice as many hospitalisations in the control arm), ….you conclude paxlovid is ineffective.
🙄
Observational studies are, by their nature, at risk of bias so they are valuable only in creating hypotheses to be further researched.
The New England Journal of Medicine April 2024 Article, "Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19" is the large randomized controlled trial by Pfizer to which Dr. Offit referred.
It's title is misleading as Paxlovid is Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and the article is about Paxlovid.
The conclusion in the abstract is also misleading as this study looked not only at time to relief of symptoms (no difference) but also hospitalization and death (not significantly different - and clearly stated as such by the authors in the discussion section of the paper).
The burden of proof that a medication is effective and safe is on the pharmaceutical who makes the drug and Pfizer failed to prove effectiveness of Paxlovid on all measures now that the world has either been vaccinated or had Covid or both.
All studies are at risk of bias.
The article cited by Dr Offit was the one with 2,250 randomised patients showing a clear benefit from the drug.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2118542
Further real world studies totalling well over a million people have confirmed that finding. These studies included vaccinated patients and those with prior infection.
A recent (small) underpowered study of 1,290 patients showed near but not statistical significant difference in hospitalisation rates. It was not a “large” trial.
The observational studies show paxlovid is effective in vaccinated/previously infected patients.
Your refusal to accept those studies is concerning.
Imagine if you will that antibiotics are used to treat meningitis due to Bacterium X, then a universal vaccine is introduced which reduces disease incidence/severity.
Is your response to question the use of antibiotics, because in one small underpowered study they didn’t show they were of statistical benefit in vaccinated patients? ….Presumably it would be.
I and a number of others had a number of issues with with the 'study'. Rather than listing the limitations and short comings, I'll cut to the chase with the using the end point of 'time to symptoms alleviation'. This is the same end point for influenza. The end point should be avoiding progression to severe, hospitalization and death. This was a rather shoddy study.
Thank you very much for showing the value of Paxlovid as an antiviral treatment !
Other than the fact it doesn’t work. But whatever…..
It does work. Read the studies cited by Dr Offit.
Dr. Offit might try reading the studies of nearly everyone else who agree that Paxlovid is junk.
Can you post links to all of these studies, so I can see them? I’m having trouble finding any.
Thank you.
If I can find them, so can you. Do your own reading, as I have. Substack writers have published all of them: Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Sasha Latypova, Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough… to name but a few. I really don’t have time to look all of them up for you. Gardening season has started and I have work to do outside.
It's your claim, so the onus for providing the papers is on you.
Don't ask me to do your homework. I've looked for studies that show paxlovid doesn't work, but haven't found any.
Can't you even provide a single study that shows it has no effect on outcomes like hospitalisation or death?
...Not one?????
I have heard that Paxlovid is quite expensive. Another factor to continue, especially for patients not at high risk.
There’s no NHS indicative price here in the U.K.
It has to be started as soon after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test and within five days of symptoms starting. Its effectiveness may diminish the further away from symptom onset it is started, due to the way it works.
“ COVID-19 in patients who do not require oxygen supplementation and are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection
for nirmatrelvir with ritonavir
By mouth
Adult
300 mg (two pink tablets) and 100 mg (one white tablet) twice daily for 5 days, to be initiated as soon as possible after SARS-CoV-2 positive result and within 5 days of symptom onset, for each dose, nirmatrelvir (pink tablets) and ritonavir (white tablet) to be taken together.”
interventions including vaccines and antiviral drugs like Paxlovid are effective in preventing severe disease and death in people infected with SARS-CoV2. Paxlovid must be given early in the course of COVID-19 to work (while the virus is actively replicating) but is not offered or available to as many patients as need/would benefit.
As long as healthcare is a profit-driven business, aimed at increasing shareholder dividends and filling 401K accounts, then, limits to access and denial of care to those who do not pay money will be needed. The USA is not interested in or prepared for medical care for more than those who are people of means.
I have valid reasons to make these assertions, but, the comments section of Dr Paul Offit's Substack is not a great place for a meaningful discussion of these matters. That said, I don't understand why people are surprised that a country that has homeless veterans and addicts doesn't just give healthcare to "all."
Of course the anti-viral meds are not offered or available to all. It's how everyone wants it and votes to keep. The US Supreme Court has been ruling on the ACA for years. That's partly why so many people lack healthcare. A profit-driven model for healthcare requires limits to access, and to "expensive" (in the USA, as a result) treatments and other care. Why are people surprised? Don't they know any poor people? I'm in Jenkintown PA, ask me anything. The system works as designed, it's just Capitalism, that's all.
Only Jesus healed for free, that was the miracle, no copay.
Says the over medicated fool.
Imagine how stupid one must be to
* take a jab
* then booster 1
* booster 2
* booster 3
* booster 4
* booster 5
* booster 6
* bivalent 1
* quarterly subscription 1
* quarterly subscription 2.
While still testing "POSITIVE" each time. You would thi k that at some point brain cells would kick in or at least the vestiges of self preservation. Whats the definition of insanity again?
https://rumble.com/v2wy4vz-dr-peter-hoetz-various-moments-contradicting-himself.html
Public safety requires community immunity from preventable illness. Vaccines have been demonstrated to reduce ot eliminate (eradicate, I suppose) many diseases, such as polio, measles, and whooping cough.
Why do you favor a return of diseases, a lack of public safety, and more loss of health and life? Why reject the social contract? What is the benefit to harm? Why do you require harm to human people?.
Just curious as to your motive, is it financial?
>Public safety requires community immunity from preventable illness.
No it doesn't. Herd immunity through vaccination is a myth
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-whooping-cough-vaccine-20190316-story.html
>Vaccines have been demonstrated to reduce ot eliminate (eradicate, I suppose) many diseases, such as polio, measles, and whooping cough.
No they have not. Another myth.
Mortality from All childhood illnesses where trended to zero long before vaccines were introduced
https://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
Polio was never a virus. it's symptoms are directly tied to the damaging effects of DDT and LEAD ARSENIC.
Polio still exists in third world countries that use those pesticides and in first world countries that offer the polio "vaccine" but it's symptoms are reclassified as AFP acute flaccid paralysis
A cursory look and plot of the prevalence of Polio and the use of DDT and Arsenic as pesticides (they even sprayed these on children and beach goers)
https://i.stack.imgur.com/jC0nl.gif
Some good articles on this subject from the wayback machine:
M. Biskind, "DDT poisoning and the elusive Virus X". American Journal of Digestive Diseases vol 16 1949
J. Gabliks and L. Friedman. "Effects of insectisides on mammalian cells and virus infections", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences vol 160. 1969
F. Burgess and G.R Cameron. "The Toxicity of D.D.T", British Medical Journal vol 1 june 23 1945
>Why do you favor a return of diseases, a lack of public safety, and more loss of health and life?
Why do you favor rigged RCTs(where the previous version of the vaccine under test is substituted for the saline solution placebo standard)?
Why do you support zero liability indemnified vaccine manufacturers?
Why are you against a vax vs unvaccinated study to resolve this issue?
Do you hate children that much?
>Why reject the social contract?
Fxck your social contract. There is no social contract when RCTs are rigged and vaccine manufacturers are indemnified
>What is the benefit to harm?
Then strip the manufacturers of the protection of the national childhood vaccination act of 1986 and the CARES and PREP act.
>Why do you require harm to human people?.
Am not the one rigging Randomized Clinical Trials, Hiding behind Indemnity and Requesting 55 years to release already manipulated test data
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto
>Just curious as to your motive, is it financial?
My motive is healthy children. The reduction in the massive amount of mental and physical damage including death and chronic disease brought to helpless children by foolish doctors and ignorant parents.
https://rumble.com/v1pb9bf-in-their-own-words-doctors-are-not-experts-on-vaccines.html
What's your motive? Other than that which your handlers have sanctioned?
If vaccines work and your children are vaccinated why do you care that mine are not?
Please tell Vincent Racianello that his life’s work with the poliovirus has been based on a lie. If it were due to lead and arsenic then why did cases drop here in the U.K. when we didn’t switch to unleaded petrol until relatively recently?
Signs and symptoms of lead poisoning
https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/lead-poisoning
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24727-arsenic-poisoning
It isn’t just mortality that is the problem with measles, not dying from it doesn’t mean it’s mild. There are non fatal but nasty side effects. The virus also suppresses the immune system for several years, leaving the child vulnerable to other infections and diseases. Please explain why there are no measles outbreaks when 95% vaccination rate is achieved and why when that rate drops, as it has recently here in certain parts of the U.K. , there are outbreaks?
>It isn’t just mortality that is the problem with measles, not dying from it doesn’t mean it’s mild. There are non fatal but nasty side effects. The virus also suppresses the immune system for several years, leaving the child vulnerable to other infections and diseases.
What a crock of sxit. The living conditions in third world countries (lack of clean water, sanitation, nourishing food) conveniently left out of the equation.
Please list all the adverse reactions /chronic diseases possible from the MMR vaccine. Ill wait. Unless you believe its a panacea.
Also kindly explain why mortality from measels had dropped 95% before the introduction of the vaccine !!!!
https://vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
>explain why there are no measles outbreaks when 95% vaccination rate is achieved and why when that rate drops, as it has recently here in certain parts of the U.K. , there are outbreaks?
Oh, you still suffer the illusion that the news on tv is timely and factual? You poor delusional fool.
Its collusion between the NHS and the media. Whenever rates of vaccination acceptance drops below a certain rate: out comes the media scare routines all promulgated by that countries health agency whose management is tied to the revolving door of pharmaceutical giants and who get to define what constitutes an "outbreak" whether real or imagined
These health agencies will redefine "outbreak", "pandemic" and "vaccine" to suit there agendas.
Like the WHO did in 2020 for the televised "pandemic" of seasonal flu?
From 2020 - 2022. We were fed the daily drumbeat of CONvid deaths (FALSE positive PCR tests and reclassification of death causes). Thats now largely gone after vaccine rollout.
However, sudden deaths (myocarditis, turbo cancer, etc) have increased so much so books are written about it like Edward Dowds "sudden deaths" of healthy people and young adults dropping death sometime after taking the jab
There are telegram channels (thank goodness for alternative media) covering this daily but not a single peep from the news media
Rombios thinks viruses don’t exist.
What you and i think is irrelevant. We go where the facts take us
Facts are that viruses exist.
Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance....
A severe case of Stupid 20 I would say. Repeat after me 'Posoning myself with vaccines is good for my health'. :)
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/05/29/i-knew-an-old-doctor-who-swallowed-a-lie/
Tell us again how viruses don’t exist, would you?
We have debated this already. You will refer to my previous comments and the research of Drs Mark and Samantha Bailey (authors of "Virus Mania" and "The Final Pandemic") on this subject
Yep, we debated it, and you lost.
Viruses exist.
❤️
Maybe it’s the 5 pgs of contraindications. Most older people are on one of the drugs on those five pages.
How come Paul didn't discuss the contraindications with this drug but rather merely pumped it like he was their salesman?
Like other antivirals, its most effective at disease onset.
Paul should explore other at-onset treatments that can be prescribed which don't require $1000's for a full course?
He did discuss problems, namely paxlovid “rebound” and DDIs, which are significant and which often contraindicate its use.
Read the article.
That's because he is their salesman as are the pharma shills in this substack.
IVM/HCQ, even vitamin D3 tablets were attacked during the CONvid era and numerous flawed studies released along with a mounted campaign to prevent doctors from prescribing them or pharmacies from fulfilling those requests
They (drugs I cited above )had a few things in common. They were cheap, easy to manufacture, OFF PATENT and effective.
All have been in use for decades to threat other illnesses. But during the CONvid era there were denigrated and sidelined and banned and the likes of remdisivir aka "run death is near" and the various "vaccines" were promoted to the fore front
So according to you, how do HCQ and IVM “work” in covid?
ITS IRRELEVANT
How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/how-a-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative-87d
BigPharma Shill SALE: Can The Nobel Prize Winning Miracle Drug Ivermectin Damage Fertility?
https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/bigpharma-shill-sale-can-the-nobel
All that matters is the concerted effort by the pharmaceutical giants and the three letter bought-and-paid-for-health agencies to attack/dismiss/malign and discredit two drugs that have been in use for DECADES and have won numerous awards including statues erected in their honor
You claim they work.
How?
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/interactions/nirmatrelvir/
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/interactions/ritonavir/
Compare with the interactions of these antibiotics.
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/interactions/flucloxacillin/ note that this antibiotic has a serious adverse interaction with paracetamol/acetaminophen.
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/interactions/erythromycin/
Thanks for this potent exegesis. I keep my supply of Paxlovid in a kitchen cabinet that is just to the left of the refrigerator. So far, I have not needed to use this agent.
Seems to me you are speaking about yourself and the evidence for the use of Ivermectin for treating and preventing COVID. Your preconception and bias is it doesn’t work which has been the governmental, media and big pharma promotion and propaganda, despite the body of evidence that does conclude it does work, especially after you analyze the flawed designs and implementation of some of the clinical trials.
One of my messages to the few remaining "first timers" when they get Covid is: "You didn't put off getting Covid for 4+ years NOT to get the state of the art treatment. You bloody EARNED Paxlovid."
I was involved in the effort to provide antivirals to people with flu symptoms during the H1N1 pandemic. The infrastructure for doing this was poor. Antivirals are most effective if given very early. (That's why their use prophylactically in care homes is so effective.) Their efficacy decreases quickly, and by 5 days from symptom onset they are of little or no value. Patients often take a day or two to decide to present for medical care; then there may be a delay in confirming the diagnosis. By which time, it is often too late. The window for effective treatment has closed. I suspect this may be a large part of the reason why Paxlovid is not used more often.
Thank you for the blog post and thank you to commenters! I am now 72 and have taken every COVID shot and booster, and still came down with Covid in Jul2022 and XmasDay2023. In both cases I took Paxlovid, the first time I was really sick but as far as I know well short of hospitalization etc. The Paxlovid seemed to squelch the symptoms on the spot in a remarkable way. The second time I was at home and may have had a minor Covid case and gotten Paxlovid within 24 hrs so the effect was less dramatic. I think there has been so much variation in severity in the Covid “variants” and the so-called 5 day window brings additional variation so it is hard to pin things down statistically. Plus a certain number of those involved in the tests have previously had Covid and there may be variation in the immunity conferred.
IMO there's an additional reason MDs under-prescribe Paxlovid: the NIH's clear treatment guidelines get translated by obviously well-meaning, highly-informed—even expert—people such as Dr Offit
.
The NIH's “… adults who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19“ becomes “groups at highEST risk for severe COVID”
.
And the fact that 1/3 of Americans are over 50, where the CDC says “ the risk of death is 25 times higher” gets translated into “the elderly.” Last time I heard another doc on a podcast call for Paxlovid for “the elderly,” I was doing my morning 5K jog and NOT feeling exactly “elderly.”
.
Fortunately, when my similarly “elderly” wife tested positive, Kaiser had interactions tested & a scrip ready for pickup within an hour or so
.
The “rebound” effect getting press seems more a function of our Public Health servants being inattentive to messaging. I have heard the April study characterized as showing that patients on Paxlovid felt much better in the first 7–10 days or so compared to the placebo group; the week two “immune hyperactivation” phase wasn't avoided but the quality of life during the overall course seems to be on average, MUCH better for those taking Paxlovid. Meanwhile, the still-sketchy data on post-acute sequelae after Paxlovid seem not to have been studied well enough to make definitive recommendations.
This messaging failure is hard to understand: given that Paxlovid is indicated for 1/3 of the population, Public Health agencies ought to be precise in characterizing how much it helps us be less impacted in all the ways that matter to us.
1. It's useless
2. IVM is cheaper, off patent and more effective
3. HCQ is cheaper, off patent and more effective
4. COD liver oil, magnesium and zinc tablets are cheaper, off patent and more effective
5. Most people with functional braincells have caught on to the CONvid grift and have long since MOVED ON.
6. You are deluded.
The resident pharma-shill. Proffit must have you on retainer. Figured youd chime in soon enough.
All part of earning your keep
As compared to the millions the anti-vaxxers are making or the billions the 'wellness industrial complex' make?
…Says the antivax covidiot.
Whats that definition for insanity?
Doing the same thing (trusting pharma and taking boosters over and over) expecting a different result
https://rumble.com/v2wy4vz-dr-peter-hoetz-various-moments-contradicting-himself.html
Tell us rombios, we are keen to hear about your expertise on the topic…Do viruses exist? Yes or No?
We have debated this already. You will refer to my previous comments and the research of Drs Mark and Samantha Bailey (authors of "Virus Mania" and "The Final Pandemic") on this subject
since the indication that someone has "covid" is most often the PCR test,
Please tell me ( anybody ) what is the calibration standard for the PCR test?
I believe you're asking a heretical question? lol
Ya, I'm a freaking HERETIC . . .
.
Iconoclast . . . etc . . .
The calibration standard are two controls, a known positive and a known negative. The known positive will become visible after around 20 cycles and the known negative will never become visible.
It's "calibrated" to however number of cycle counts is necessary to generate the FALSE positive results that keeps CONvid in the news and useless, idemnified drugs on the market
I hope it's okay to copy/paste my reply to your post of this article on another platform. I am hoping your readers on Substack will have some commentary regarding Medicare coverage of anti-viral medicine and more. Thanks. Here is my comment (again).
I said: Hey, Paul. Medicare says: "Medicare Part D covers oral antiviral treatment. Your plan's deductible, copayment, and coinsurance rules apply."
The kinds of doctors who even bother to accept Medicare and its patients are already underpaid and overworked. The patients are rarely their/our own best advocates.
Medicare-accepting doctors must save money and cut costs. Prescribing anti-viral medicine to Medicare patients may have the risk of the patient's plan not covering the drug at all, or, not compensating the doctor enough to justify that kind of treatment.
The doctors aren't seeking the best interest of the patient. They can't do that, they have too many rules and regulations, and can't risk a malpractice suit. They have to save money first.
Paul, there is so much nonsense I'd love to discuss with you. This is one topic. The reason why the sick patients who are poor and/or on Medicare are not getting anti-viral medicine for Covid could be because the financial motive for the doctors is too great. They are not rewarded for making Medicare spend money. Profits over people. Healthcare for profit necessarily requires limits on care and access to care.