So it seems first lady Jill Biden is experiencing the “rare” occurrence of the infamous (but, again, rare) “Paxlovid Rebound”. She now follows in the august footsteps of her husband Joe and the Oracle of Science Anthony Fauci. Each of these fine people were quadruple-vaxxed, masked to the hilt, and were as cautious and protected as literally anyone on earth (except maybe for your cousin Karen who has yet to emerge from under her bed), and yet they still got tagged.
Of course the first question in any sane, honest society would be, “How is it possible that these quadruple-vaxxed people caught COVID?” But as nobody is going to answer that question for us (hint – maybe the vaccine doesn’t actually work the way it was sold to us – 95% effective!!), the second question would be something like “Wait, the only drug being pushed by our overlords as a legitimate treatment for COVID, which just so happens in what can only be called a coincidence, to be made by the same drug company that makes the vaccine that doesn’t work, causes some kind of “rebound” of COVID when one takes the drug which is the only drug touted to treat COVID?” Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Anyway, if you’ve looked into this Paxlovid Rebound, you will “know” that “…White House COVID-19 coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said Paxlovid rebounds happen in 5% to 8% of patients. During a trial conducted by drug maker Pfizer, only 1% to 2% of those taking the antiviral pills later tested positive again”
You’ll here these figures thrown around by your favorite talking head all the time. The question of how could Pfizer’s trial data show “only 1% to 2%” rebound when it appears that it is actually “5% to 8%” or by other “expert” estimates to be as much as 10% (an increase of some 400% to perhaps as much as 1,000%) doesn’t seem to pique anyone’s curiosity, but oh well…you just trust the science! You’ll also read, if you look, little ditties like “'From a research definition, the reemergence of symptoms with a positive test is ‘symptomatic [Paxlovid] rebound,’' says Amy Barczak, an infectious disease doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital and COVID researcher. 'A positive test and the absence of symptoms—which nobody is looking for—that would be ‘asymptomatic Paxlovid rebound.’ The latter is what Biden has, and was detected because he was testing daily.” So we actually have NO IDEA how many people “rebound”. And as we were recently told by Tiny Tony, we now “know” that 50% to 60% of COVID spread is by those who are asymptomatic (we of course don’t “know” that), it is entirely possible that those who get infected, then take Paxlovid, then experience an asymptomatic rebound (remember, NOBODY is looking for these people) are out there spreading the ‘rona willy-nilly. A “pandemic of the fully vaxxed, doubly-boosted, and then treated” if you will. Silly perhaps, but in point of fact we have NO IDEA. That’s what you call “SCIENCE” kids.
But here’s a question that someone should have an answer to, maybe say Jimmy the Greek (Google it). Given that we “know” the incidence of Paxlovid Rebound is somewhere between 1% and 10%, what are the CHANCES that the three most prominent cases of COVID in the United States this year, Fauci, Biden, and Biden, would ALL take Paxlovid and would ALL have rebound cases? That’s 100%; somewhere between 10 and 100 times greater than we are told is the case. And Pfizer tells us “Patients with COVID-19 rebound had significantly higher prevalence of underlying medical conditions than those without.” Aside from Joe’s mushbrain, I’m not sure what “underlying medical conditions” these three would have that would make them amenable to rebound. How exactly is this possible? Since you can add odds-maker to the list of things I am not (you know, virologist, epidemiologist, immunologist, etc) I can’t calculate them but the odds must be astronomical. Or could it be (Occam’s Razor) that as these individuals get tested every 17.5 minutes all day every day, we just discovered the rebound in them that we would actually find in almost everybody taking Paxlovid if we tested everybody all day every day? Your choice; astronomical odds or your stupid drug works as well as your stupid vaccine.
Well to be fair, at least according to Pfizer’s data (which of course we can trust), “The event rates were 5/697 (0.72%) in the PAXLOVID group and 44/682 (6.45%) in the placebo group. The primary SARS-CoV-2 variant across both treatment arms was Delta” So Pfizer reports “medications for cutting hospitalizations or death for high-risk patients as compared with placebo corresponding to 88% for Paxlovid…8” . Of course, if you follow the footnote #8 (I did) upon which the “88%” number is based, you come to a Lancet study and you find this “Trial results released by the manufacturer indicate that the drug cuts the risk of hospitalisation or death for high-risk patients by 88%,” So Pfizer, in their report of the effectiveness of Paxlovid, states an “88%” efficacy and cites as the reference for that claim a Lancet article which reports on Pfizer’s own report. So they use what they say to substantiate what they say. SCIENCE!! Also, this “efficacy” is often reported for reasons unknown as “…it cut COVID hospitalizations and deaths by 89 percent compared to those who received a placebo sugar pill” cause I guess we gotta throw Pfizer a bone and pad their numbers for them. That’s called “reporting”. In any event, you can see by Pfizer’s own data above, the ACTUAL difference in “events” between Paxlovid and placebo is 5.73%, not the “relative risk reduction” number of 88% (or 89%, you know, whatever). Almost 6% isn’t nothing, but it ain’t 88%. Also notice these data are based on the Delta variant which in now all but extinct, but again, whatever.
And as we have discussed before, if you’re wondering why one might rebound after Paxlovid to begin with, “Rebound may occur because some patients are not receiving high enough doses...” See, you’re just not taking ENOUGH of the drug, silly. As one super-expert “hypothesizes” “people in the ‘real world’ might decide to skip a dose because Paxlovid can make food taste bad.” So maybe Tony and Joe and Jill just didn’t take the drug as prescribed; yeah, that’s it.
What’s also interesting is Pfizer reports “The data supporting this EUA are based on…study in non-hospitalized symptomatic adult subjects with a laboratory confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They then show us this chart:
Wow, 12 deaths in the placebo group vs. zero in the drug group; pretty good. But notice these are “All-cause” deaths, which they never describe. If this data is based on “non-hospitalized symptomatic adult subjects” what happened to these people in the ensuing month? Did they continually get much worse until they died? Were they all on the same bus on the way to Pfizer when the bus crashed and they all died together? We are not supplied with that information. Wonder why…
Anyway, if anybody can calculate the odds of these three people ALL rebounding after Paxlovid when it “should” be at worst 1 in 10, I’d appreciate an answer. Maybe Orange Man put a hex on them. That’s as good a “scientific” explanation as any we’ve been given so far.
But no worries, “FDA asks Pfizer to test second Paxlovid course in patients with COVID rebound” You see, the government is a harsh taskmaster and has told Pfizer “The drugmaker must produce the initial results of a randomized controlled trial of a second course of the antiviral by Sep. 30” so don’t worry, the FDA is on it. Oh wait, those results are demanded by Sep. 30 next year, the FDA told Pfizer in a letter dated Aug. 5.” How many people have already “experimented” and taken a second course (Fauci did). Just curious, we are counting somewhere north of 100,000 COVID “cases” a day. In their initial EUA for Paxlovid, Pfizer studied less than 2,500 people; how long exactly would it take to collect another 2,500 people who have already used Paxlovid (I can think of three right off the bat) to run this study? I don’t know, maybe 75 years…