Discover more from Igor’s Newsletter
FDA Dismisses Paxlovid Concerns, Gaslights Recurrence Sufferers
Viral Rebounds are Extremely Rare, Says the FDA
Yours truly and many other substackers brought up evidence that Paxlovid does not work well in vaccinated people. We discussed viral symptoms resurfacing around Day 10, and Brian explained biomolecular mechanisms of those rebounds.
My first article was posted on April 13. For a good summary of further developments after that article, look at my subsequent summary and discussion:
Well today, we have big news! FDA finally responded.
FDA Response: Gaslight and Ignore
Guess what the FDA did? Did the FDA request more data from Pfizer? Did the FDA reach out to hospitals? Did the FDA ask patients for input? Perhaps the FDA reached out to health insurance companies for more data? I mean, the FDA cares about us, so it should definitely get more information, would you agree?
The answer to all of the above questions is NO.
Instead, the FDA’s Dr John Farley, made a curious statement that ignored ALL current data. He also gaslit numerous victims of recurrence by saying that they are only 1-2%, so they are rare and effectively do not matter.
This ridiculous statement deserves to be published in full. It is most notable for what it does NOT say. Read on!
You can see that the FDA basically gaslights all current recurrence sufferers, by saying that their recurrences only happen in 1-2% of cases, implying that they are extremely rare. FDA bases its conclusion on the “Paxlovid trial" that involved only unvaccinated people.
Despite deciding to give Paxlovid to vaccinated people, on whom Paxlovid was never tested, the FDA seems to NOT want any new data on the effects of Paxlovid on the vaccinated.
FDA’s statement has ZERO indication of receiving or asking for additional data.
Does this look like only 1-2 percent of people had a rebound? It looks, to me, that a lot more than 2% had a rebound!
What most disappoints me is dismissal: instead of taking these reports seriously, the FDA basically ignores them, refers to the old study, and calls rebounds extremely rare.
Have we heard that sort of thing before? Sure. Those same people gaslit and dismissed reports of COVID vaccine injuries, with the same exact attitude.
Who is Dr. John Farley, MD?
Dr. Farley is one of the persons who played a role in approval of Remdesivir. Remdesivir, a hepatotoxic antiviral, showed NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT SURVIVAL BENEFIT in COVID patients. Despite acknowledging this, Dr. Farley is proud to have approved it, oddly enough.
This same article acknowledges that Remdesivir has no statistically significant survival benefit.
So, John Farley is happy to approve Remdesivir despite being toxic to the liver (hepatotoxicity) as well as providing no statistically significant survival benefit.
He is similarly happy to ignore and gaslight vaccinated people taking Paxlovid, who experience recurrences. Dr. Farley, strangely, bases his dismissal of problems with vaccinated people, on a trial involving only unvaccinated people.
EDIT: Mind you, Pfizer knows something about Paxlovid not working in vaccinated people. In the middle of its EPIC-SR Paxlovid trial, Pfizer purposely EXCLUDED vaccinated people without explanation. Details here.
In my opinion, we need a new trial of Paxlovid involving vaccinated people, with time to recovery and viral rebound carefully re-analyzed. Paxlovid’s real life benefits outside of Pfizer’s clinical trial, may be greatly overstated.
Here’s a famous Twitter personality, triple jabbed “Eric Feigl-Ding”, who also took Paxlovid and had a recurrence.