↓
 
Home » Pfizer may have a game-changer COVID drug – so why isn’t the game changing?

Pfizer may have a game-changer COVID drug – so why isn’t the game changing?

The New Neo Posted on by

The rush to vaccine mandates isn’t really about COVID science. It masks little sense in those terms. If vaccines are protective, then those who are vaccinated are in no danger from the unvaccinated. And if vaccines aren’t protective, then why mandate them since anyone can catch it?

A small argument can be made that universal vaccination would reduce the potential burden on hospitals and the health care system, but we don’t mandate things (yet) for reasons such as that, especially with a disease that, though lethal in a very small percentage of cases, is fairly mild to moderate in the vast majority of cases (as opposed, for example, to smallpox, which killed one-third of those who contracted it and left many of the rest hideously scarred).

And of course these arguments against mandated COVID vaccination are even stronger where children are concerned, or where those who have already had COVID are concerned. And yet the mandate-advocates don’t seem to care.

Now we have what appears to be the most promising pharmaceutical yet to treat the disease:

When given within five days of the onset of symptoms, the antiviral therapy, called Paxlovid, prevented almost 90% of deaths from COVID-19 compared with a placebo, a Pfizer study found.

By the end of the year, the company plans to complete two other studies of the pill, which is given twice a day for five days. Pfizer plans to submit the study data as part of its rolling submission to the Food and Drug Administration as soon as possible…

Pfizer’s pill compares favorably with a similar one being developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics that cut in half the hospitalization and death rate for COVID-19…

On Thursday, Merck and Ridgeback received authorization to provide their drug, molnupiravir, in the United Kingdom to adults with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who have at least one risk factor for developing severe disease.

It’s not being used in the US yet.

Hopefully, these results will hold up, and the results will be pretty clear fairly soon so that more lives can be saved. In the meantime, vaccine mandates seem even less sensible.

And wouldn’t it be nice if success of this drug would also mean that all the restrictive COVID madness will cease? I predict the latter will take a long time, and some of it will never go away. Meanwhile, our insect overlords have learned a lot about how far they can go – and in many places it’s pretty far.

Comments

Pfizer may have a game-changer COVID drug – so why isn’t the game changing? — 33 Comments

  2. On the topic of COVID, Andrea Widburg has just posted a fascinating piece (at AmericanThinker) on the drastic reduction in Italy of the number of deaths from the Wuhan-virus, by distinguishing those who died with the virus from those who died from the virus. As many have known for quite some time, the number of deaths from COVID (as in the chyron which was always running on CNN and MSNBC during Trump’s presidency) has been much exaggerated for political and ideological purposes, as this particular virus was only ever especially deadly to the already-weakened elderly and to those with severe co-morbidities.

  3. This Pfizer drug works like other antivirals which target HIV and flu. The Merck drug, just approved in the UK, works on the human cells rather than the virus, and is only 50% effective. Heck, you can get that with ivermectin. It appears this Paxlovid will be like Tamiflu for flu viruses. Get it early, get well.

    Meanwhile, the Transportation Dept. says that truck drivers will be exempt from the vaccine mandates. That’s good; but maybe our insect overlords can explain why healthcare workers and work-from-home IBM coders have to be fired.

  4. Sebastian Rushworth, an MD practicing in Sweden, wrote a recent article based on Swedish studies of the vaccines and their rather rapid drop in effectiveness. Pretty sobering info.

    “Covid: How long does vaccine based immunity last?
    by Sebastian Rushworth, M.D.”
    https://sebastianrushworth.com/2021/11/05/covid-how-long-does-vaccine-based-immunity-last/
    Based on this article, vaccine mandates make little sense. People’s faith in the vaccines, especially the Pfizer version, is misplaced. Either we find a therapeutic that works or we will be getting boosters every four months. 🙁

    I

  5. J.J.:

    I’ve read quite a bit on that subject, and the drop in effectiveness is effectiveness in preventing infection – even symptomless infection. That problem is well-known. There is very little drop in preventing serious symptoms and death, which to my way of thinking is the most important thing of all.

  8. Yancey Ward, can you translate that study for general understanding? The proposed dose is twice a day for five days. Would a short-term use be risky?

  9. neo,

    The problem is that is not have the vaccines were sold. We have all seen the countless clips of Fauci, Wollensky and dozens of others saying how if you get the vaccine you will be 100% protected from infection.

    These people have lost all trust from a huge amount of people so for them to transition to ‘well you can still get it but it won’t be bad’ should not be taken as anything but an attempt by ‘political’ scientists trying to shape the narrative to maximize their power.

    And I am not saying I agree with this last paragraph about what the vaccine does or does not do but anybody that believes what these people say is a fool.

  10. Kate, it would be less risky than the target we aimed at which was autoimmune disorders which would have been long-term dosing. What we found in every single example preclinical was kidney toxicity, and this occurred in animal models (primates) with only a few weeks of dosing.

  11. Griffin:

    Yes, those agencies and entities have lost people’s trust, with good reason. Nevertheless, I like to stick with the facts as best we know them, understanding that there are many unknowns, many errors, and also some lies.

  12. Thank you, Yancey Ward. It might be a reasonable risk for those of us in the over-65 range or younger with risk factors, since the dosage is short-term. I will look at the kidney risk for my daughter with stable stage one kidney disease; however, there are things which are not bad in the short term which get bad in the longer term.

  13. neo,

    As do I but the problem is most people don’t have the time or inclination to dig deeper and instead they just go by what is pushed by mainstream sources and combined with the censoring of dissenting voices by big tech means most people only hear the gov’t approved narrative and when reality runs against that they rebel.

  14. I haven’t seen many recommendation by the “experts” on treatments or preventative measures for the C19. Whenever Trump or anyone mentioned something, the experts rushed to ban the treatments or ridicule it.

    The impact of comorbidities on the outcome of C19 has been mentioned, but you don’t see recommendations to deal with those illnesses. Instead of encouraging people to get more Vitamin D, exercise, better nutrition, many have been banned from the outdoors, exercise sites, etc.

  16. What’s really been disappointing, medically, is that the mRNA vaccines were less impressive than hoped. I think I’m still in good shape, but then, despite my age, I’m in good shape. It has proved otherwise for higher-risk people, some of whom who are getting COVID, including serious or fatal cases, several months after inoculation.

  19. Bryan Lovely,

    Amazes me that YouTube leaves that up. They have taken down other clips using Fauci, MSM, etc. saying currently inconvenient things.

  20. Neo: “There is very little drop in preventing serious symptoms and death, which to my way of thinking is the most important thing of all.”

    Thanks for that info, Neo. It gives me more confidence in having taken the vaccine. Still, as my doctor tells me, “You’re a prime candidate for dying from Covid. ” Yeah, even without Covid, I’m on borrowed time. 🙁 Forward. 🙂

  21. neo asks, “why isnt the game changing?”

    As all but the most gullible know by now, the ‘game’ was never about the supposed game.

    Bryan Lovely,

    Thanks for sharing that very effective summary of mass murderer Fauci’s lies.

    Griffin,

    Somebody is asleep at the wheel over at YouTube.

  22. I find myself chuckling over how neo begins this post:

    “The rush to vaccine mandates isn’t really about COVID science. It *masks* little sense in those terms.”

    (Emphasis added in case anyone skimmed or read neo’s post quickly.)

    Sumpin’ on yer mind, friend neo? [smile]

  25. @ Neo > “those agencies and entities have lost people’s trust, with good reason”

    Powerline linked a very sobering story from Tablet back in October.
    I won’t say that the author’s analogy is 100% correct, but it presents a lot of information that should be pondered. Too long and complex to excerpt meaningfully, but the gist is that she saw the same kind of “expert” arrogance and incompetence (as revealed later) that we have experienced with the CDC & Fauci Inc., while she was seeking treatments for her autistic son beginning in 1991.
    Don’t be put off by the long beginning about Bruno Bettelheim’s role; it’s essential to the development of her story.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/i-have-been-through-this-before-bauer

  26. Worth a read if you haven’t seen this story yet.
    https://www.theblaze.com/news/gop-senator-introduces-fauci-act-ban-funding-gain-of-function-research-hold-nih-officials-accountable

    From Joni Ernst: The lawmaker’s legislation, called the Fairness and Accountability in Underwriting Chinese Institutions Act, or the FAUCI Act, would put a complete ban on U.S. funding for any gain-of-function research, as a statement from Ernst’s office said. The bill would also require what Ernst’s office called “a full accounting of U.S. involvement in ‘gain-of-function’ research, particularly in China.”

  29. Related—the efficacy of using nasal spray against Covid:
    https://stateofthenation.co/?p=84538

    Banning its use would be perfectly consistent with the American medical authorities’ GROTESQUE AND MURDEROUS decisions regarding effective, proven treatments such as HCQ+zinc, Quercetin+zinc and Ivermectin….

  31. Covid has been the secret to the Democrats/ Marxists success, they will be sad to see it go if they haven’t cemented their hold on everything.

  32. Just an (Ivermectin) reminder:
    “The FDA is lying to you on behalf of Big Pharma.”
    https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1457348844426076167

    Actually, it should be clear by now that the FDA (and the NIH) have also been lying to you on behalf of the Democratic Party—in order to help elect its candidate in 2020.

    Jes’ sayin’.

    (There really is so much to cover up. What’s a political party to do?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑