Igor and Brian Mowrey have been posting about Paxlovid for a while. During the Paxlovid trial, only some of the participants were tracked via PCR, and I believe it was around 12% showed a viral spike in the second week. It appears Pfizer came up with the 1-2% number by dividing the number of rebound cases (which were only discovered through a small sampling of the participants) by the total number of participants.
Viral rebound unquestionably happened during the Paxlovid trials.
Viral rebound also happens naturally. How much it happens with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is hard to pin down. PCR results suggest it happens fairly often--over 10% of the time, but the studies that drive that use high Ct values which are inherently problematic and yield a very high frequency of false positives. Also, a number of earlier studies on the rebound/reactivation phenomenon show a certain skepticism that the "rebound" is actually an artifact of false negative tests.
Because of the false positive potential associated with high Ct values, I am skeptical of the higher estimates of the frequency with which rebound naturally occurs. Thus, I am more willing to accept Pfizer's claim of 1-2% rebound, not so much because I trust Pfizer (I don't), but because that fits with what I believe the natural rate sans inoculation and Paxlovid to be.
In other words, the rebound happens, not because of anything Paxlovid does or does not do, but because it's a natural outgrowth of how some people's immune systems confront the virus.
However, the current focus on viral rebound after Paxlovid would appear to suggest that, currently, the rebound phenomenon is happening with greater frequency, and appears to be happening with greater frequency among inoculated patients.
What we do not have is a reliable metric of how often the rebound happens. If my appraisal of the accuracy of PCR testing is off, and rebound happens more often naturally, then the question is still whether rebound among inoculated patients is higher than the historical rate--and the attention being paid to the phenomenon suggests that it is.
IF that is the case, however, and Paxlovid is not a factor in viral rebound, then the greater frequency of rebound that appears to be happening among inoculated patients MUST be due to inoculated patients having greater difficulty clearing the virus on their own.
If that is NOT the case, then either Paxlovid is a factor in the viral rebound (i.e, the drug is doing something harmful and preventing viral clearance), or it isn't, in which case it isn't doing much of anything at all.
The CDC acknowledges that rebound is an issue for Paxlovid patients. Rochelle Walensky has already drawn that line in the sand.
If the issue is attributable to Paxlovid (always a possibility), then the solution is simple: pull the drug. If the issue is not attributable to Paxlovid, then the rebound cases are absolute proof of lasting immune system damage from the inoculations that not even the CDC and FDA will be able to ignore, since the CDC has already flagged the phenomenon.
Basically, the best case for Paxlovid is that it just doesn't do much of anything overall. However, if that best case is the real world case than the real world case for the mRNA inoculations gets demonstrably worse.
The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught, and not educated enough to question anything from what they have been taught.
The virtue of looking at the broad data sets such as rebound cases is that one is able to moot a great many of those particulars.
Batch variability in overall effect and impact is documented, and is probably to some degree an observable phenomenon for all pharmaceutical substances. Even in the best quality control scenario no two production runs of anything are going to be 100% exactly the same (as I learned back in my Cost Accounting days when ISO-9000 quality control metrics were all the rage, quality control itself is little more than documenting by how much individual production runs vary).
However, rebound infection rates, like the "breakthrough" infection rates, are observable phenomena across all batches, and that cross-sectional view allows us to set aside for the immediate discussion variables attributable to individual production runs of inoculations and even the different inoculation preparations themselves.
While it might be a worthy discussion at some point to evaluate the degree of rebound among different inoculations, as a means of ascertaining which shots are the most and least toxic, for the initial purpose of establishing overall toxicity, those variables do not enter into this analysis.
There are many variables swirling around the inoculations. For any given aspect of those inoculations, however, most of those variables are not immediately germane to analysis.
All of this, the different dosages, lots, batches, strains, various groups included or not in the studies, well, it is all just that much more evidence that the "experiment" is ongoing.
Either the "experiment" is ongoing, the "research" is just that sloppy and inept, or both.
Disturbingly, those possibilities are not mutually exclusive. The degree of scientific rigor for pharmaceutical studies these days borders on the nonexistent--which is the only reason Pfizer can make the extravagant initial claims they routinely do for their concoctions.
The one great takeaway from the Pandemic Panic Era: if you trust Big Pharma with your physical health you have NOT been paying attention.
It is like I said before, we are not just dealing with megalomaniacs and egomaniacs as well as totalitarians, we are dealing with all of them on drugs!
For much of my work I focus my research on the various posturings and pretensions of the corporate media. My reason for this is that the best way to debunk "official" narratives is to use their own words against them.
Paxlovid has been something of an inflection point for me, because the corporate media is so far behind the curve on this story. The best in-depth explorations of Paxlovid rebound are not being done by corporate media, but right here on Substack, and we should not ignore it. Igor Chudov and Brian Mowrey's "Unglossed" are just a couple of the excellent go-to sources here, as is Modern Discontent. A key subtext of what I write on this topic is to highlight the reality that the best analysis of the phenomenon is not found within the corporate media, and potentially not even within the peer-reviewed journals, but here on Substack.
Alternative media has always had writers with superior analysis and reporting than corporate media, but Paxlovid is one instance where the difference is so wide as to greatly advance the argument that alternative media is the future of journalism--and that future is a lot closer than folks realize.
Great article.. I would bet my last dime that if this "rebound phenomena" occurred with ivermectin users-- it would have been front page news.
The media would never stop talking about it. In fact, I have yet to read--- or hear of it.
Igor and Brian Mowrey have been posting about Paxlovid for a while. During the Paxlovid trial, only some of the participants were tracked via PCR, and I believe it was around 12% showed a viral spike in the second week. It appears Pfizer came up with the 1-2% number by dividing the number of rebound cases (which were only discovered through a small sampling of the participants) by the total number of participants.
Viral rebound unquestionably happened during the Paxlovid trials.
Viral rebound also happens naturally. How much it happens with the SARS-CoV-2 virus is hard to pin down. PCR results suggest it happens fairly often--over 10% of the time, but the studies that drive that use high Ct values which are inherently problematic and yield a very high frequency of false positives. Also, a number of earlier studies on the rebound/reactivation phenomenon show a certain skepticism that the "rebound" is actually an artifact of false negative tests.
Because of the false positive potential associated with high Ct values, I am skeptical of the higher estimates of the frequency with which rebound naturally occurs. Thus, I am more willing to accept Pfizer's claim of 1-2% rebound, not so much because I trust Pfizer (I don't), but because that fits with what I believe the natural rate sans inoculation and Paxlovid to be.
In other words, the rebound happens, not because of anything Paxlovid does or does not do, but because it's a natural outgrowth of how some people's immune systems confront the virus.
However, the current focus on viral rebound after Paxlovid would appear to suggest that, currently, the rebound phenomenon is happening with greater frequency, and appears to be happening with greater frequency among inoculated patients.
What we do not have is a reliable metric of how often the rebound happens. If my appraisal of the accuracy of PCR testing is off, and rebound happens more often naturally, then the question is still whether rebound among inoculated patients is higher than the historical rate--and the attention being paid to the phenomenon suggests that it is.
IF that is the case, however, and Paxlovid is not a factor in viral rebound, then the greater frequency of rebound that appears to be happening among inoculated patients MUST be due to inoculated patients having greater difficulty clearing the virus on their own.
If that is NOT the case, then either Paxlovid is a factor in the viral rebound (i.e, the drug is doing something harmful and preventing viral clearance), or it isn't, in which case it isn't doing much of anything at all.
The CDC acknowledges that rebound is an issue for Paxlovid patients. Rochelle Walensky has already drawn that line in the sand.
If the issue is attributable to Paxlovid (always a possibility), then the solution is simple: pull the drug. If the issue is not attributable to Paxlovid, then the rebound cases are absolute proof of lasting immune system damage from the inoculations that not even the CDC and FDA will be able to ignore, since the CDC has already flagged the phenomenon.
Basically, the best case for Paxlovid is that it just doesn't do much of anything overall. However, if that best case is the real world case than the real world case for the mRNA inoculations gets demonstrably worse.
Pick your poison? (literally!)
The problem is not people being uneducated.
The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught, and not educated enough to question anything from what they have been taught.
Richard Feynman
The virtue of looking at the broad data sets such as rebound cases is that one is able to moot a great many of those particulars.
Batch variability in overall effect and impact is documented, and is probably to some degree an observable phenomenon for all pharmaceutical substances. Even in the best quality control scenario no two production runs of anything are going to be 100% exactly the same (as I learned back in my Cost Accounting days when ISO-9000 quality control metrics were all the rage, quality control itself is little more than documenting by how much individual production runs vary).
However, rebound infection rates, like the "breakthrough" infection rates, are observable phenomena across all batches, and that cross-sectional view allows us to set aside for the immediate discussion variables attributable to individual production runs of inoculations and even the different inoculation preparations themselves.
While it might be a worthy discussion at some point to evaluate the degree of rebound among different inoculations, as a means of ascertaining which shots are the most and least toxic, for the initial purpose of establishing overall toxicity, those variables do not enter into this analysis.
There are many variables swirling around the inoculations. For any given aspect of those inoculations, however, most of those variables are not immediately germane to analysis.
All of this, the different dosages, lots, batches, strains, various groups included or not in the studies, well, it is all just that much more evidence that the "experiment" is ongoing.
Either the "experiment" is ongoing, the "research" is just that sloppy and inept, or both.
Disturbingly, those possibilities are not mutually exclusive. The degree of scientific rigor for pharmaceutical studies these days borders on the nonexistent--which is the only reason Pfizer can make the extravagant initial claims they routinely do for their concoctions.
The one great takeaway from the Pandemic Panic Era: if you trust Big Pharma with your physical health you have NOT been paying attention.
It is disturbing, and illuminating.
It is like I said before, we are not just dealing with megalomaniacs and egomaniacs as well as totalitarians, we are dealing with all of them on drugs!
Very much so.
For much of my work I focus my research on the various posturings and pretensions of the corporate media. My reason for this is that the best way to debunk "official" narratives is to use their own words against them.
Paxlovid has been something of an inflection point for me, because the corporate media is so far behind the curve on this story. The best in-depth explorations of Paxlovid rebound are not being done by corporate media, but right here on Substack, and we should not ignore it. Igor Chudov and Brian Mowrey's "Unglossed" are just a couple of the excellent go-to sources here, as is Modern Discontent. A key subtext of what I write on this topic is to highlight the reality that the best analysis of the phenomenon is not found within the corporate media, and potentially not even within the peer-reviewed journals, but here on Substack.
Alternative media has always had writers with superior analysis and reporting than corporate media, but Paxlovid is one instance where the difference is so wide as to greatly advance the argument that alternative media is the future of journalism--and that future is a lot closer than folks realize.