Those “Got Covid, Paxlovid” commercials that began carpet-bombing your airwaves (after the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” lie was no longer sustainable) promised symptom relief. If that PCR test that was not designed for it showed positive (they insisted it had to be COVID), Pfizer had a thing you could take that could reduce symptoms and help you get better sooner. Paxlovid.
We’d already been making fun of it when numerous jabbed, high-profile covidiots tried it so we could discover something called COVID-rebound. They got symptoms, “tested” positive, took Paxlovid, and after a day or two of what may well have been phantom improvement, got more severe symptoms.
We’ve shared a few studies and real-world evidence that this was a pill mill deal to keep Pfizer Pflush with Pfederal dollars, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before Pfizer did a trial to test it, too.
The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.)
Doing nothing and saving the cost of the script (and avoiding any and all side-effects) was as productive a choice as taking Paxlovid.
What I did not see in the research, and this could be me missing it, was any reference to the reemergence of symptoms in either group but this is wel documented. It was so common that the machine media had to admit something was up. Fauci, Biden, Colbert, and others – regime policy mouthpieces- took it and got worse.
There was one caveat—there always is—and it relates to the elderly, especially those with multiple comorbidities. High-risk populations might benefit, which I can’t say I believe. Since its first encounter with humankind, the flu has taken people from our lives, most of them older or weaker. Given what we’ve seen in recent years, I am under no illusion that the public health industrial complex views saving them as more important than making some sort of profit before their inevitable demise.
The evidence on this point leans strongly in my favor, which makes this Pfizer-Pfunded and managed study appear a bit out of place. Sure, they made millions when the Pfeds bought a gazillion doses and likely more peddling it to docs, hospitals, and whoever, so why do the study now and admit the results were inconclusive?
Best guess is they have a pricier replacement. Less “rushed.” More money to be made from future flu-hysteria. Kaching!
