The experts agree with your assessment of why the vaxxed were removed from the standard trial. And then Longley’s rationale is nonsensical, there is no ethical concern with continuing to include the high-risk vaxxed since benefit still needs to be determined in the very trial they were just removed from, it can’t be assumed from the HR trial. What a bunch of idiots, this is basic logic. And then “1.5%” rebound in the placebo doesn’t mean anything, “higher day 14 than day 5” is not a good rebound standard since lots of rebounds can be 5 high 10 nothing 14 high, 5 medium 10 crazy high 14 medium etc.
Yeah. The ethical angle is laughable. It is unethical to give paxlovid to vaxed people, on whom it was not tested, or to kids, on whom it was not tested.
It is not unethical to add a thousand more people to a trial, it just costs $$$
So, BA.2 seems to be even more sensitive to Paxlovid than the others. This could counterintuitively lead to more rebound. Example: If with prior stains “1 in 4” virus infected cells would NOT pause, then they are setting off the local immune response that takes care of the paused cells when they unpause. But if all the cells pause then it’s overkill - there’s no activated immune response when they unpause.
"I wouldn't worry too much! Even if it happens, it happens and you will be better off taking paxlovid and not being hospitalized! I will say covid and possibly paxlovid did a number on me emotionally as well. I did have muscle aches and cramps during the beginning and while taking covid. [oops] One of the first symptoms of my relapse was actually muscle pain in my legs, then a unbearable stuffy nose. I hope you feel better soon!"
I feel like that leg detail is important. Going to do some thinking on this...
Appears the CDC, FDA, NIH, US government, WEF, WHO, etc. are looking for partners in crime, instead of, let's say what's best for our health. Sadly, there are plenty of willing victims still lining up.
Methinks there's a delightful turf war brewing among the government public health watchdogs (FDA, CDC, and NIAID) over the Pfizer Pfaux Pas of Paxlovid.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something that allows them a double dose. Remdesivir was only meant to be a 5-day course, but then there was a sudden "well, if they are on a ventilator make it 10 days!"
This is rather interesting. At some point the return of investments here should make them really reassess the need to keep pushing something so expensive.
I am rather curious about the PCR tests, as that would indicate that Paxlovid would be widely dispersed in the body, although NP swabs are different than the ones we shove only an inch into the nose.
Maybe I overlooked it, but do you know why the rebound effect would be so great? Part of it actually looks like the scaling of the days may mean that we should be careful about the spacing, but it still looks pretty high.
This is all interesting regardless, and I wonder what will come of all of this.
The most conservative model is that the virus has been paused after expanding to new tissue in the respiratory tract, so even if the immune system mounts a local response to the areas where there was shedding before, which means fully assembled virons with recognizable structural proteins / antigens, all these “paused” copies were in a different area, and as described in the edited version of Pt 1 the pause takes place before structural proteins are being expressed. A less conservative version is that the pause isn’t even complete at any point, just a sort of slowing-down of replication, and that this delays the “5 alarm” style immune response that is inevitably required to do the job. A further plausible but possibly not consistent with the data model is that these were all early-suppressed infections; this might be the most relevant for real world use but doesn’t quite match the context of the trial.
“Perhaps the executives at Pfizer are all new at this whole “medicine” thing…?” Thank you for today’s guffaw. Sadly they know exactly what they’re doing in this war for normie mindshare.
Thank you for QUANTIFYING the rebounds. I believe that "1-2%" is FDA's sleight of hand:
The number is 8 out of what, 1072? So they say it is 1%. But it is actually 8 out of 107 randomly chosen persons who were actually watched for resurgence. That's how I understood your article.
Your article is very smart and I hope that Harris meets Biden soon.
I agree that rebounds are unfortunate but should NOT be a reason for a duplicate paxlovid treatment.
I want to write about that sleight of hand, giving you proper credit of course.
Another published rebound, the first one of the three case studies here https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1617822/v1 (the other two are Pax used weeks after infection). For the rebound, suspected Long Covid starts after rebound.
I counted 97, but this might have been an erroneous read of Table 10. I’m reviewing the horrible description of the data set in the FDA doc again *edit OK yeah 97, I just didn’t mark up the screenshot in a way that would prevent my future self from getting confused. Best guess, with the caveat that it is difficult to read the FDA description, there are 97 in the graph. And not all of them stuck around for a sample past day 5 so the denominator is actually even smaller by 10/14.
Similar to the Charness case study, though it’s a bit unconventional to actually quantify antigen tests as far as I know. Having internet issues so I can’t see the “another person” comments; and it is hard to understands what she means by the “two people” - is that irl or just somewhere else in the thread? It’s certainly at least remotely possible that this could just be a new thing the virus does in general, though I doubt it.
This could be coincidental co-infection with something else that had a longer incubation period, considering that “got Covid” is also a proxy for “around the same group of people.”
On the other hand, if it is SARS-CoV-2, it doesn’t necessarily mean immune evasion or what we would normally think of as far as viral reservoirs/ persistence. Vomiting and headaches could both reflect GI infection (headaches from gut microbiome / vagus nerve dysregulation) and like Omicron in general, it may be not enough to just have antibodies, the virus has to actually show the immune system WHERE it likes to replicate before immunity is achieved (tissue-resident T-Cells + resident B Cells secreting IgA antibodies = immunity) so even if it’s still SARS-CoV-2, the resurgence is not a sign of total immune defeat.
I haven’t been giving as much thought to the early anecdotes of Omicron having a return of symptoms, but that was a thing back in January. But so far the previous “Paxlovid rebound” stories sound a lot more straight-forward than the “Omicron twofer” anecdotes!
Perversely, Bourla accidentally hit on an important point when he blamed a weakened immune system for failing to clear the virus, that Paxlovid was doing its part by reducing viral load and giving the immune system time to deal with the virus (sorta like what Ivermectin actually does but for pennies per dose).
Left unsaid, of course, is that the immune systems of the rebound cases were weakened by Bourla's OTHER pharmaceutical ph*ckup, the mRNA inoculation.
A "Fact Check" came out that regurgitates our thoughts and pretty much confirms them.
Useless buffoon "health expert" comments sprinkled in the fact check to smooth out the impression
https://twitter.com/ichudov/status/1528110915157168128
The experts agree with your assessment of why the vaxxed were removed from the standard trial. And then Longley’s rationale is nonsensical, there is no ethical concern with continuing to include the high-risk vaxxed since benefit still needs to be determined in the very trial they were just removed from, it can’t be assumed from the HR trial. What a bunch of idiots, this is basic logic. And then “1.5%” rebound in the placebo doesn’t mean anything, “higher day 14 than day 5” is not a good rebound standard since lots of rebounds can be 5 high 10 nothing 14 high, 5 medium 10 crazy high 14 medium etc.
Yeah. The ethical angle is laughable. It is unethical to give paxlovid to vaxed people, on whom it was not tested, or to kids, on whom it was not tested.
It is not unethical to add a thousand more people to a trial, it just costs $$$
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1662783/v1/18472a50-4405-45a3-9963-4af53b59ece6.pdf?c=1652882064
So, BA.2 seems to be even more sensitive to Paxlovid than the others. This could counterintuitively lead to more rebound. Example: If with prior stains “1 in 4” virus infected cells would NOT pause, then they are setting off the local immune response that takes care of the paused cells when they unpause. But if all the cells pause then it’s overkill - there’s no activated immune response when they unpause.
Covid personality Peter Hotez is discovering that Paxlovid does not work, and is having a rebound.
Hahaha!
https://twitter.com/PeterHotez/status/1526745216061001729
He should have tried using his immune system.
Jimmy Kimmel and "Tatiana Prowell MD", a vaccine propagandist, are also rebounding
Are either of them even eligible for Pax? They’re not elderly. Maybe everyone in America has asthma now...
They are all so scared of Covid that they beg for Paxlovid, and everyone is happy to oblige
Hotez no longer has an immune system
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/comments/up039n/covid_relapse_feels_worse_than_when_i_first_got/
"I wouldn't worry too much! Even if it happens, it happens and you will be better off taking paxlovid and not being hospitalized! I will say covid and possibly paxlovid did a number on me emotionally as well. I did have muscle aches and cramps during the beginning and while taking covid. [oops] One of the first symptoms of my relapse was actually muscle pain in my legs, then a unbearable stuffy nose. I hope you feel better soon!"
I feel like that leg detail is important. Going to do some thinking on this...
Would love to know what you think.
And also, look at this you will chuckle (big edit to a previous post)
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/comments/u612zp/viral_rebound_on_day_13_after_taking_paxlovid/
“Sensationalist”? That’s it, I’m suing.
Appears the CDC, FDA, NIH, US government, WEF, WHO, etc. are looking for partners in crime, instead of, let's say what's best for our health. Sadly, there are plenty of willing victims still lining up.
If there's no association why is NIAID seeking "urgent" data on the matter?
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/now-its-a-crisis
Methinks there's a delightful turf war brewing among the government public health watchdogs (FDA, CDC, and NIAID) over the Pfizer Pfaux Pas of Paxlovid.
Or just a lot of people describing data that they have only yelled at someone else to look at.
You're not seriously suggesting that buck passing occurs among these noble and high minded stewards of the nation's health?
What a cynical (i.e., accurate) perspective!
These institutions need burning to the ground
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something that allows them a double dose. Remdesivir was only meant to be a 5-day course, but then there was a sudden "well, if they are on a ventilator make it 10 days!"
This is rather interesting. At some point the return of investments here should make them really reassess the need to keep pushing something so expensive.
I am rather curious about the PCR tests, as that would indicate that Paxlovid would be widely dispersed in the body, although NP swabs are different than the ones we shove only an inch into the nose.
Maybe I overlooked it, but do you know why the rebound effect would be so great? Part of it actually looks like the scaling of the days may mean that we should be careful about the spacing, but it still looks pretty high.
This is all interesting regardless, and I wonder what will come of all of this.
The most conservative model is that the virus has been paused after expanding to new tissue in the respiratory tract, so even if the immune system mounts a local response to the areas where there was shedding before, which means fully assembled virons with recognizable structural proteins / antigens, all these “paused” copies were in a different area, and as described in the edited version of Pt 1 the pause takes place before structural proteins are being expressed. A less conservative version is that the pause isn’t even complete at any point, just a sort of slowing-down of replication, and that this delays the “5 alarm” style immune response that is inevitably required to do the job. A further plausible but possibly not consistent with the data model is that these were all early-suppressed infections; this might be the most relevant for real world use but doesn’t quite match the context of the trial.
“Perhaps the executives at Pfizer are all new at this whole “medicine” thing…?” Thank you for today’s guffaw. Sadly they know exactly what they’re doing in this war for normie mindshare.
Amazing article!
I tweeted it https://twitter.com/ichudov/status/1522415167874678785
Thank you for QUANTIFYING the rebounds. I believe that "1-2%" is FDA's sleight of hand:
The number is 8 out of what, 1072? So they say it is 1%. But it is actually 8 out of 107 randomly chosen persons who were actually watched for resurgence. That's how I understood your article.
Your article is very smart and I hope that Harris meets Biden soon.
I agree that rebounds are unfortunate but should NOT be a reason for a duplicate paxlovid treatment.
I want to write about that sleight of hand, giving you proper credit of course.
Another published rebound, the first one of the three case studies here https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1617822/v1 (the other two are Pax used weeks after infection). For the rebound, suspected Long Covid starts after rebound.
I counted 97, but this might have been an erroneous read of Table 10. I’m reviewing the horrible description of the data set in the FDA doc again *edit OK yeah 97, I just didn’t mark up the screenshot in a way that would prevent my future self from getting confused. Best guess, with the caveat that it is difficult to read the FDA description, there are 97 in the graph. And not all of them stuck around for a sample past day 5 so the denominator is actually even smaller by 10/14.
A very interesting and nuanced reddit post, do not miss the mention of "another person" in post and comments
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19positive/comments/ukg0ki/covid_rebound/
She seems to be a budding scientist, I contacted her to see if she wants to participate in our discussion
Her rebound graphed and quantified:
https://imgur.com/a/Cwlu4kD
My Twitter thread (mentioning you)
https://twitter.com/ichudov/status/1522988652447608832
Similar to the Charness case study, though it’s a bit unconventional to actually quantify antigen tests as far as I know. Having internet issues so I can’t see the “another person” comments; and it is hard to understands what she means by the “two people” - is that irl or just somewhere else in the thread? It’s certainly at least remotely possible that this could just be a new thing the virus does in general, though I doubt it.
Check this out too. Speaks for itself
https://twitter.com/ichudov/status/1523033274695970816
This could be coincidental co-infection with something else that had a longer incubation period, considering that “got Covid” is also a proxy for “around the same group of people.”
On the other hand, if it is SARS-CoV-2, it doesn’t necessarily mean immune evasion or what we would normally think of as far as viral reservoirs/ persistence. Vomiting and headaches could both reflect GI infection (headaches from gut microbiome / vagus nerve dysregulation) and like Omicron in general, it may be not enough to just have antibodies, the virus has to actually show the immune system WHERE it likes to replicate before immunity is achieved (tissue-resident T-Cells + resident B Cells secreting IgA antibodies = immunity) so even if it’s still SARS-CoV-2, the resurgence is not a sign of total immune defeat.
I haven’t been giving as much thought to the early anecdotes of Omicron having a return of symptoms, but that was a thing back in January. But so far the previous “Paxlovid rebound” stories sound a lot more straight-forward than the “Omicron twofer” anecdotes!
Perversely, Bourla accidentally hit on an important point when he blamed a weakened immune system for failing to clear the virus, that Paxlovid was doing its part by reducing viral load and giving the immune system time to deal with the virus (sorta like what Ivermectin actually does but for pennies per dose).
Left unsaid, of course, is that the immune systems of the rebound cases were weakened by Bourla's OTHER pharmaceutical ph*ckup, the mRNA inoculation.