The Gateway Pundit also reported that Paxlovid can cause severe or life-threatening effects if it is taken in tandem with other common medications
A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) raises serious questions about the efficacy of Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid, which was previously authorized for emergency use to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 cases.
Paxlovid received emergency use authorization in December 2021 as the first at-home treatment for COVID-19 in the United States. It was touted as a cost-effective and efficient method to combat early COVID-19 infections.
Pfizer reported that Paxlovid significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death by 88% in their press release.
The Gateway Pundit has been covering the inefficacy and adverse reactions associated with Pfizer’s antiviral drug.
Scientific documentation about post-Paxlovid relapse has been available since the fall of 2022. Pfizer’s application to the FDA for emergency use authorization of Paxlovid stated that in the placebo-controlled clinical trial — which included 2,246 participants — “several subjects appeared to have a rebound in SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels around Day 10 or Day 14” after beginning treatment, NBC reported.
Following this report, Pfizer released a statement admitting that it failed to reduce the risk of confirmed and symptomatic COVID-19 infection in adults living with someone who had been exposed to the virus.
More at:
Top Pathologist: Cancers Spread ‘Like Wildfire’ after Covid Shots
One of the world’s most highly respected pathologists is raising the alarm after seeing cancers spreading rapidly in his patients after they’ve received Covid mRNA shots.
Dr. Ryan Cole says he observed cancer diagnoses soaring since the rollout of the injections for public use in 2021.
Before the mass vaccination campaign, Cole says his practice saw one endometrial cancer case every one to two months.
However, after the public started receiving mRNA injections, he said he was overwhelmed with endometrial cancer patients.
Dr. Cole saw an exponential increase in endometrial cancers in his practice, spiking to multiple cases per month.
“And then one month, it was four or five in a month,” he said.
Cole says “the alarm bells went off” when he saw the spike in cancer cases among vaccinated patients.
Disturbed by this pattern, Cole sought confirmation from a cancer expert.
Cole consulted with Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a leading cancer researcher from the UK.
However, Dalgleish had also been witnessing a shocking pattern emerging among his own vaccinated patients.
Dalgleish revealed to Cole that recovering melanoma patients saw the disease spread “like wildfire” after they received a Covid mRNA injection.
Those patients had been in remission or were managing well but experienced a sudden and rapid progression of their disease post-vaccination, Dalgleish disclosed.
“[Dalgleish] notices melanoma patients that had been in remission or were doing fine, [cancers] took off like wildfire,” Cole said.
Cole sounded the alarm about his findings during an interview on the DarkHorse Podcast with Bret Weinstein, a former professor of evolutionary biology.
More at:
Federal Judge Hits CDC Over Withholding Data on Adverse Vaccine Reports
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to resist disclosing information on claimed side effects and problems with its COVID-19 vaccines, including from healthcare workers. Due to a January order by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in a Freedom of Information Act case, the CDC is being forced to turn over hundreds of thousands of “free text” entries from V-safe. The court has scolded the CDC for its continuing efforts to withhold information on these complaints.
As the CDC and the Biden White House gear up for another possible pandemic, the case reminds us that we still need to address the conduct of the government — and the reporting of the media — from the last pandemic. Once agency officials were told that they could censor those with opposing views, a culture of speech controls took hold at the CDC and the government narrative was then amplified by the media.
To question such mandates was declared a public health threat. The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”
A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University). Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.
The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.” In the meantime, California moved to potentially strip doctors of their licenses for spreading dissenting views on Covid.
It is clear that much still has to be done to create a culture of transparency at the CDC. Judge Kacsmaryk has slammed the agency for withholding the data on the health complaints on spurious grounds. There still appears a culture at CDC in withholding data that could be used to question its decisions or conclusions.
For a year, the CDC has been fighting these efforts. The lawsuit by the Informed Consent Action Network, revealed “nearly 8% of V-safe users said they required medical care, another 12% couldn’t perform normal daily activities and yet another 13% said they missed work or school.” With limited “boxes” supplied by the CDC, people had to write in their complications. The CDC then failed to disclose those reports.
The free-text entries reportedly support one of the most controversial moves by the CDC to downplay heart complications. Litigants say that the new disclosures show a frequency of symptoms associated with myocarditis – inflammation of the the heart muscle myocardium.
Experts raising these concerns were labeled “anti-vaxxers” and conspiracists.
As I have previously testified in Congress, the surest way to combat this culture of censorship is to pass legislation barring a single dime of taxpayer funds from being used to fund censorship efforts, including third-party groups on removing “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.”
The government can always speak in its own voice, but we should get the government out of the business of controlling the speech of citizens and groups. It can rebut critics on its ample platforms without using third parties to silence them as surrogates.
More at:
More Stories
Sceptical Supreme Court Could Hand Trump Partial Victory In Immunity Case
Why is US threatening to ban TikTok and will other countries follow suit?
Biden’s new Title IX revisions are a repulsive attempt to erase biological truth