Faucism's Epic Fail: COVID-19 "Rebound" Only Baffling To Those Who Don't Do The Required Reading
For Doctors And Journalists Alike, Ignorance Is No Excuse
We know the mRNA inoculations fraudulently marketed as COVID-19 “vaccines" are a failure at stopping community spread of COVID-19.
We know this because the data tells us this.
Yet we should also know, if we have been willing to look at all the data, that the mRNA inoculations are also demonstrably harmful in their own right. Even Big Pharma's own clinical data shows this, and validates the ever-increasing mountain of adverse events attributable to the mRNA inoculations recorded in VAERS.
Yet within the sizable list of toxic side effects to inoculation, one significant harm gets overlooked: immune system degradation. To know this one has to stay abreast of a wide array of research studies, as fellow Substack writer Igor Chudov, who has described the immune system damage in some detail, has done.
This somewhat lengthy exposition is necessary to appreciate the extent of the medical and journalistic incompetence on display in articles such as this latest burst of ignorance from CNN:
Doctors are perplexed by the failure of Pfizer's answer to Ivermectin, Paxlovid, to clear the SARS-CoV-2 virus from infected patients.
Blakeney knew that for Paxlovid to be effective, she had to take it early, within a few days of getting symptoms. That's what she and her husband did. They didn't get very sick and continued to improve until their five days of treatment were over.
She finished treatment on a Thursday and tested negative the next day. She thought she was done with Covid-19, at least for a few months.
But by Monday, she was starting to get congested again. When she woke up on Tuesday, April 12, she realized that she was really sick. Her husband was, too.
"We both took rapid tests, and we were both very positive again, and we were like 'Oh, my gosh, what just happened? We've never heard of this,' " Blakeney says.
What happened, of course, is that Paxlovid failed Ms. Blakeney spectacularly. So did the doctor who wrote her prescription for Paxlovid, as he was seemingly unaware of Paxlovid's capacity to face-plant.
Confirmed: This Is Rebound And Not Reinfection
CNN makes it clear they are reporting cases of viral “rebound" after taking Paxlovid and not a reinfection.
[Dr. Michael] Charness and his colleagues sequenced the genome of the man's coronavirus. It was the same throughout the course of the infection, so it wasn't a reinfection. And they couldn't find any mutations that had suddenly developed, so the virus hadn't suddenly changed to develop resistance to the medication. They also looked for 21 other respiratory pathogens that might be making the man sick and didn't find anything.
The phenomenon being described is a process of initial infection, a decrease in viral load after taking Paxlovid, followed by a subsequent increase in viral load after the Paxlovid course is complete, along with COVID-19 symptoms.
The cases described by CNN also are individuals who received all the recommended doses of the mRNA inoculations.
His patient, who was fully vaccinated and boosted and in good overall health, was tested for Covid-19 multiple times throughout his treatment and then shortly after his symptoms returned.
It is also worth noting that the patient in “good health” was a 71-year old with asthma.
His patient was a 71-year-old man with asthma who started taking Paxlovid the first day he had symptoms because of his age and underlying medical condition.
Asthma is classified as a “Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease” by the CDC, which category accounted for 152,657 deaths in 2020:
Asthma plus being over 65 means this patient in “good health” has two identified comorbidities implicated in the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths.
We should also take note that the lead case in the CNN article is a breast cancer survivor and is taking medication to prevent further cancer.
Blakeney, a 43-year-old researcher at the University of Washington's School of Nursing, is a breast cancer survivor. The Seattle resident says she doesn't meet any strict definition of being immunocompromised, which can raise someone's Covid-19 risk. Both Blakeney and her husband are fully vaccinated and boosted. But she didn't want to take chances, because she's taking medications to prevent a cancer recurrence and she lost a family member to Covid-19 in November 2020.
While perhaps technically not considered immunocompromised, she almost certainly presents a measure of immune system dysfunction.
This is relevant because research shows, as I have discussed previously, that comorbidities also indicate varying levels of immune system dysfunction.
Another fascinating statement in the study is the acknowledgement that healthier individuals have better outcomes from vaccination.
Although risk for a breakthrough infection increased with greater number of comorbidities, this risk was associated with and notably attenuated by immune dysfunction status.
While such a correlation is on its face unsurprising, we should remember that the healthy patient population is already at the lowest risk from COVID-19. Vaccines which are effective only for healthy individuals are of questionable practical utility, given that less healthy individuals are the ones at greatest risk and in need of the most protection.
Another implication of this correlation is that comorbidities weaken the immune system and are themselves an indicator of a level of immune system dysfunction. The greater the dysfunction the less effective the vaccines.
Thus, right away CNN presents us with patients for whom the best case scenario regarding the mRNA inoculations is reduced efficacy. That is before one considers the immune system damage articulated in the research Igor has summarized.
All of the foregoing is a “mystery” to doctors, according to CNN. Rebound infection after taking Paxlovid is also a mystery to them.
The Data Is Out There
Rebound infection is not a mystery to Igor. Rather, it is more like an outrage.
Perversely and ironically, Dr. Charness was advised to review social media for a full background on rebound infection.
Last week, in his very first tweet, Charness detailed the rebound of his patient's Covid-19 infection after Paxlovid. His colleagues urged him to join social media after seeing other reports about Covid relapse in patients who were taking the medication.
Dr. Charness could have gotten the same information much more quickly by reviewing Igor’s Newsletter. Igor brings receipts, including a broad survey of the rebound cases described on multiple social media platforms.
The data is out there. The data has always been out there, both anecdotal social media posts as well as clinical research by Dr Charness’ colleagues and peers.
Journalists and analysts, whether they are in corporate media or are independents such as Igor and myself, have an obligation to ourselves at the very least to do basic research in order to have the facts straight.
Doctors have a professional ethical obligation to their patients to be conversant with the extant research on medical topics, in particular the failures and side effects of crucial and broadly prescribed medications.
There is no excuse for anyone desiring to report or comment on COVID-19, the mRNA inoculations, or Paxlovid not to have at least some awareness of the research data in clinical literature. If Igor Chudov and myself (and others) can do the research into these materials, the corporate media “journalists” certainly can do that much. If doctors are going to prescribe Paxlovid they have a professional ethical obligation to do at least that much.
Yet, to the corporate media and the mainstream healthcare professional alike, Paxlovid's potential for rebound infection is a “mystery”.
The only real mystery is how many of these doctors will be facing malpractice lawsuits, and how many of the so-called “journalists" will be hounded out of the profession for crap reporting.