So I recently wrote about Pfizer’s other wonder drug that doesn’t really work called Paxlovid. That piece, entitled “PAXLOVID IS THREE FOR THREE (found here https://www.springfieldholisticwellness.com/post/paxlovid-is-three-for-three) detailed the incredible, almost incalculable chances that the three most prominent cases of COVID in this country, Fauci, Biden, and Biden, all quadruple vaxxed and masked up, would each not only catch the ‘rona, but would go on to take Paxlovid and then would each suffer the “rare” rebound effect where they would reacquire an active infection after testing negative. Fauci, in a moment of remarkable honesty actually admitted his rebound was much worse than his original case. The other two, who knows.
Anyway, while the liars at Pfizer told us the rebound rate was in the 1-2% range, and the imbecilic government and medical experts pegged it more in the 5-10% range, in what would be an odd-maker’s worst nightmare, somehow these three people ALL rebounded. That’s 100%. That would be quite a payout as a trifecta. Oh well, I guess that’s what scientists would call a “coincidence”. Moving on.
Now we get a headline that tells us (my bold) “Paxlovid, Pfizer's COVID pill, showed no measurable benefit in adults 40 to 65, study says” This is the most honest headline. Others, like the New York Times say “Paxlovid Cuts Covid Deaths Among Older People, Israeli Study Finds” No mention that it’s useless for people under 65; talk about burying the lead. The AP reports “Pfizer's COVID-19 pill appears to provide little or no benefit for younger adults, while still reducing the risk of hospitalization and death for high-risk seniors, according to a large study published Wednesday.” We’ll look at the second half of that statement soon. But I saw this “no benefit in younger adults” in several places. I think it’s funny that 40-65 is considered “younger adults”. The drug is approved for kids as young as 12; what are they considered? As I’ve warned many times, pay attention to the words they use to manipulate you.
So the miracle drug is useless for anybody under age 65; what a surprise. The fact that “The Biden administration has spent more than $10 billion purchasing the drug and making it available at thousands of pharmacies through its test-and-treat initiative.” shouldn’t surprise anyone. And the fact that Pfizer is expecting about 24 billion dollars in revenue this year from Paxlovid shouldn’t surprise anyone either. But just how “effective” is Paxlovid on old folks, exactly? Let’s take a look.
The study on which headlines such as the NYT’s one above, and statements like “The researchers found that Paxlovid reduced hospitalizations among people 65 and older by roughly 75% when given shortly after infection…” come from an Israeli study looking at medical records of some 109,000 people. That’s a pretty good sample size to get a legitimate idea of how the drug is working. It’s not EIGHT MICE mind you, but we can only work with what we have. It’s also important to know “The FDA made its decision based on a Pfizer study in high-risk patients who hadn't been vaccinated or treated for prior COVID-19 infection.” Those people don’t really exist anymore as “…the vast majority of people already have some protection against the virus due to vaccination or prior infection. For younger adults, in particular, that greatly reduces their risks of severe COVID-19 complications. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that 95% of Americans 16 and older have acquired some level of immunity against the virus.” so we’re working in a completely different landscape now than when Pfizer found some unicorns on whom to do their study. By the way, does anyone else find it interesting that the CDC’s estimate of those who have acquired “some level of immunity” doesn’t count those 15 and younger; the very group which is lagging way behind on being “up to date” with their vaccines? No? Just me? Pay attention.
Not surprisingly, “A spokesman for Pfizer declined to comment on the results,” even though “Pfizer reported earlier this summer that a separate study of Paxlovid in healthy adults — vaccinated and unvaccinated — failed to show a significant benefit.” so maybe that’s why. Although “Those results have not yet been published in a medical journal.” I wonder why. Not to be deterred, “A White House spokesman on Wednesday pointed to several recent papers suggesting Paxlovid helps reduce hospitalizations among people 50 and older. ‘Risk for severe outcomes from COVID is along a gradient, and the growing body of evidence is showing that individuals between the ages of 50 and 64 can also benefit from Paxlovid,’ Kevin Munoz said in an emailed statement.” Alas, those “…studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals.” either. I wonder why again. To borrow a line from Captain America, “I can do this all day”, but punching down on liars and idiots gets boring, so on we go to the main event.
The study in question is titled “Oral Nirmatrelvir and Severe Covid-19 Outcomes
During the Omicron Surge” and here’s what it actually says:
“Nirmatrelvir therapy was associated with a 67% reduction in Covid-19 hospitalizations and an 81% reduction in Covid-19 mortality in patients 65 years and above. However, no significant benefit in avoidance of severe Covid-19 outcomes was shown in younger adults.”
Let’s forget the “younger adults”, those reductions for old people look pretty good, no? Let’s dig just a bit:
“Among 42,819 patients 65 years of age and above, hospitalizations due to Covid-19 occurred in 776 patients (1.8%): 14 (0.6%) out of 2,504 treated patients and 762 (1.9%) out of 40,315 untreated patients;”
Among patients, 65 years of age and above, Covid-19 death occurred in 2 treated and 151 untreated patients; adjusted HR: 0.19 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.76).”
Wow, so 776 hospitalized patients, only 14 of whom were given Paxlovid. That sounds pretty convincing. And only 2 deaths out of 153 were Paxlovidians? Well, case closed. Sign me up.
But as I have suggested many times, you need to look at what’s called the “absolute” risk reduction, not just the “relative” risk reduction, which is a sort of made up number that drug companies (and apparently governments) use to make their product look like it actually does something. Let’s look at those numbers.
Out of 2,504 treated patients, only 14 went to hospital (channeling my British avatar). That means if you took Paxlovid, your chances of ending up in the hospital were 0.6%, right? It’s right there in the quote back a few paragraphs. If you were infected and didn’t take Paxlovid, your chances of ending up in the hospital were 1.9% (762 out of 40,315). Now you can play those numbers as TRIPLE the risk of hospitalization without Paxlovid or 67% reduction in risk (quoted above) by taking Paxlovid, but the truth is, the ACTUAL “protection” one buys oneself by taking Paxlovid is 1.3%. That’s it. 1.3% You take the 1.9% rate in the untreated group and subtract from that the 0.6% in the treated group and you end up with a difference of 1.3%.
The same holds for deaths: 2 deaths out of 2,504 treated equals 0.08%. 151 deaths out of 40,315 not treated equals 0.4%; roughly a difference of 0.3% or three-tenths of one percent. That’s the protection you buy by taking Paxlovid. You can say the risk in the untreated is FIVE TIMES HIGHER, and that’s true, but as I’ve said many times, five times nothing is still nothing. If you’re concerned with acquiring an extra three-tenths of one percent “protection” against anything you might have too much time on your hands. And remember these numbers come from people with no vaccines and no infections. Those people don’t exist anymore. Everyone has some immunity so the actual protection of Paxlovid would be smaller still.
Am I saying don’t take Paxlovid? Well there are side effects and Pfizer lists some 40 medications that if you are taking them you should not take Paxlovid because “Taking PAXLOVID with these medicines may cause serious or life-threatening side effects or affect how PAXLOVID works.” I wonder how many people have any idea what those medications are…but no, I’m not saying don’t take it. None of my damn business. I’m just saying be aware of the constant BS we are being fed; whether it’s the effectiveness of masks, the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, or the benefits of Paxlovid. It’s all lies. Every single bit of it.
If you were rushing to get Paxlovid because you “knew” it reduced deaths 81% or reduced hospitalizations by 67%, would you be in such a rush if you new the actual benefit was three-tenths of one percent? If the answer’s “yes” then good on you (my Australian avatar) but at least you should know the honest truth before you dive in head first.
And you should absolutely know that when it comes to COVID, we are being lied to all the time by every body every day. If you’re angry now because I’ve challenged your world view and you want to call me names, just show me where I’m wrong and then we can talk. I dare you.