Floggy in his basement, jerking off to Dylan Mulvaney ads and desperately rooting on the next variant.
Floggy Mom: "Floggy, why's the basement door locked?"
Floggy: "Damn it, mom, I'm working!"
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
Floggy in his basement, jerking off to Dylan Mulvaney ads and desperately rooting on the next variant.
Floggy Mom: "Floggy, why's the basement door locked?"
Floggy: "Damn it, mom, I'm working!"
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,239
- Points
- 113
YOU said Switzerland “straight out cancelled” the vaccine. They did not, they are still available.
The stunning thing is that you have absolutely no skepticism when you read something that would certainly be major international news. You never question why you are finding out about it from some obscure website or social media. Your confirmation bias is set to 11. Or you’re simply not interested in the truth. Delusion.
It took me less than 30 seconds to learn who healthfeedback is. LMAO!
XBB sounds like a star wars bot
Yes, I did (not Malone). Wrong choice of words.
So is cyanide. No one voluntarily swallows it.
The major news (and it is) is that they have stopped recommending it. En masse.
"Vaccination is possible for people who are particularly at risk (BGP) ≥ 16 years of age if the attending physician considers it to be medically indicated in the respective epidemiological situation in the individual case, a temporarily increased protection against serious illness is to be expected and the last vaccination dose at least 6 months ago."
"doctors can only administer the controversial vaccines in individual cases under certain conditions"
Why is the United States still pushing the boosters and shots on everyone...TV ads, PSAs and more...and Switzerland has gone the opposite direction?
It took me less than 30 seconds to learn who healthfeedback is. LMAO!
Funny how the hook and bait works with some.
Robert Malone invents mRNA.
Robert Malone preaches the dangers of mRNA, which goes against the ideology.
Massive smear campaign ensues to cancel Robert Malone.
Fish bites and eats it up.
Floggy = fish.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,239
- Points
- 113
So you’re comparing the Covid vaccine to cyanide now?
They are not recommending it for Spring and Summer 2023. They have not declared it will never be recommended in the future. That is in no way major news, and thusly isn’t being reported as such.
What are you taking about? My last booster was seven months ago and the only one I’ve received in the past sixteen months. Nobody is recommending that I get another one for the Spring and Summer. The US is advising people get the most recent booster if they have not yet gotten it.
Inferring that just confirms to all (not that we needed confirmation) you're still an idiot.
No one said they wouldn't recommend it in the future. None of us, not the articles. But you do need to go to a Dr. there now to get "approved" to get one.
It is major news Shortbus. The USA is still PUSHING vaccines on the masses. Commercials every day, ads everywhere. Seasons don't matter. Covid being less deadly than the flu doesn't matter.
Intelligent countries like Switzerland have wisened up. Ours still nefariously pushes the clot shot.
You're manipulating the argument again Wonder Woman. Our country is PUSHING COVID shots still. That is the claim. You're narrowing it down to just boosters. Stay on course. And you live in a cave, clearly not watching TV or reading the news. We are still mass-pushing shots. All of these were produced/published in the past few months or are still airing.
The CDC still pimping the boosters...
Martha Stewart pushing Covid boosters:
Pharmacies still pushing the jabs. This ad sits loud and proud on CVS' website.
I've seen this ad every day in the last week alone. John Legend LOL
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,239
- Points
- 113
Walk it back, Tim. What exactly were you inferring when you mentioned taking cyanide in the Covid Vaccine thread?
READ, Tim, READ. It is currently NOT recommended that I get a booster. FACT.
READ, Tim, READ.
The wise country of Switzerland has not changed its assessment that the vaccine is SAFE.
“Time for another Covid-19 shot?” QUESTION MARK. You’re delusional.
Anti-VAXXER!!!
What next, Floggy Booster Shortbus, masks don't work?!?!?
YOU ARE MURDERING PEOPLE!!
I'll let you decide, since you already have decided. Assessing others' comments ain't your strong suit.
You're now arguing with yourself again. I said "Why is the United States still pushing the boosters and shots on everyone...TV ads, PSAs and more...and Switzerland has gone the opposite direction?"
You can't answer that, won't - so you change the conversation. I provided undeniable proof to support my statement above. The US is still pushing the clot jabs on US Citizens through TV ads, PSAs and more. And we have proof from Switzerland's government they have gone in the complete opposite direction.
So now you're switching to arguing that the vaccines are safe....which...isn't...the point...or...the...topic.
It's comical watching you confuse yourself and get off track like a drunk Alzheimer's patient.
Shortbus in this thread....
"The US is still pushing/encouraging vaccinations through PSAs, TV commercials, etc." /Tim Steelersfan
"Vaccine efficacy did not wane!!!" /Floggy
"Umm...you're not following" /Tim Steelersfan
"Trans people aren't a threat to women in restrooms!!!" /Floggy
"Umm...other thread Floggy" /Tim Steelersfan
"Ha, walk it back and eat that **** sandwich Tim!!" /Floggy
I'm telling you this stuff is priceless. I hope the mods keep records of these pages for future generations to read. Comedy gold.
Yay vaccines!
Devastating data from two new reports by the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Control (DHEC) “show a dramatic increase” in deaths of mothers and infants. The 2023 Infant Mortality Report shows the total number of infant deaths was “the highest in nearly a decade,” with 416 deaths. In 2012 there were 435 infant deaths. According to the report, Black infants are “dying at a rate nearly 2.5 times that of White infants.”
The second report, using data from 2018-2019, investigated “66 pregnancy-associated deaths from 2019″—the state’s most recent data. The 2019 report from the South Carolina Maternal Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee (SCMMMRC) showed a 9.3% increase in maternal deaths directly related to “pregnancy itself from the year before.” The pregnancy-related mortality rate in South Carolina is higher than the national average, “especially in non-Hispanic Black women.”
IMR in SC since 2012/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-012142-2021.pdf
It is also interesting to note that the newly released 2019 report on maternal mortality mentions in a “COVID-19 graphic sidebar” deaths related to COVID-19 status while highlighting that 100 percent of the mothers were unvaccinated. Obviously, that is true because jabs were not available in 2019.
Nevertheless, the same sidebar states that “all COVID-19 deaths through 2021 were investigated.” The mRNA shots became available in 2021. Additionally, the paragraph to the left of the sidebar explains that the 2018-2019 data was based on 66 deaths from 2019. Makes sense.
However, which part of the SCDHEC 2019 report is correct—the information in the sidebar stating “all COVID-19 deaths through 2021 were investigated” or the paragraph next to it which indicates a “review of 66 deaths from 2019” were studied? There may be a reasonable explanation, but it doesn’t seem to make sense looking at the report.
2019 Report Released in 2023/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-013357.pdf
Most disturbing is the fact that further down in the sidebar, SCMMMRC continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for “all pregnant or post-partum women” even though both maternal and infant mortality rates are markedly on the rise and there is growing evidence of harm or death to mothers and infants from the mRNA vaccines.
One might also ask if the data on infant mortality from 2020-2021 is now available; where is the data from the same time period for maternal mortality? And why, other than recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for mothers, does neither report mention the vaccination status of pregnant or post-partum mothers?
However, data from this report is far from encouraging, at least in South Carolina. The report states that “while the US IMR has been declining over the past several years, SC’s rate increased overall 12.3% between 2020 and the end of 2021. Non-Hispanic Black infants showed the sharpest rise in infant mortality. Infant mortality rates (IMR) as a whole increased markedly (6.8%) from 2020 through 2021. According to this DHEC report, IMR for infants born to Black mothers has increased by 39.6% since 2017.
South Carolina Infant Mortality Rate/ 2017-2021/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-012142-2021.pdf
In addition, the “IMR increased across both the neonatal and postnatal periods in 2021. Most of the increase is attributed to a 23.8% increase in postneonatal mortality between 2020 and 2021. The Neonatal mortality rate increased by 6.8% during the same period.
“Dramatic Increase” in Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates in South Carolina
Devastating data from two new reports by the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Control (DHEC) “show a dramatic increase” in deaths of mothers and infants. The 2023 Infant Mortality Report shows the total number of infant deaths was “the highest in nearly a decade,” with 416 deaths. In 2012 there were 435 infant deaths. According to the report, Black infants are “dying at a rate nearly 2.5 times that of White infants.”
The second report, using data from 2018-2019, investigated “66 pregnancy-associated deaths from 2019″—the state’s most recent data. The 2019 report from the South Carolina Maternal Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee (SCMMMRC) showed a 9.3% increase in maternal deaths directly related to “pregnancy itself from the year before.” The pregnancy-related mortality rate in South Carolina is higher than the national average, “especially in non-Hispanic Black women.”
IMR in SC since 2012/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-012142-2021.pdf
Why No Mention of mRNA Vaccination Status?
Given the growing evidence of harm to mothers and infants from the COVID-19 vaccines, a few questions come to mind. It is perplexing that the 2023 report on infant mortality never mentions maternal vaccination status as part of their data, even though the mRNA jabs have been available since early 2021.It is also interesting to note that the newly released 2019 report on maternal mortality mentions in a “COVID-19 graphic sidebar” deaths related to COVID-19 status while highlighting that 100 percent of the mothers were unvaccinated. Obviously, that is true because jabs were not available in 2019.
Nevertheless, the same sidebar states that “all COVID-19 deaths through 2021 were investigated.” The mRNA shots became available in 2021. Additionally, the paragraph to the left of the sidebar explains that the 2018-2019 data was based on 66 deaths from 2019. Makes sense.
However, which part of the SCDHEC 2019 report is correct—the information in the sidebar stating “all COVID-19 deaths through 2021 were investigated” or the paragraph next to it which indicates a “review of 66 deaths from 2019” were studied? There may be a reasonable explanation, but it doesn’t seem to make sense looking at the report.
2019 Report Released in 2023/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-013357.pdf
Most disturbing is the fact that further down in the sidebar, SCMMMRC continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for “all pregnant or post-partum women” even though both maternal and infant mortality rates are markedly on the rise and there is growing evidence of harm or death to mothers and infants from the mRNA vaccines.
One might also ask if the data on infant mortality from 2020-2021 is now available; where is the data from the same time period for maternal mortality? And why, other than recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for mothers, does neither report mention the vaccination status of pregnant or post-partum mothers?
What the Data Says for Infant Mortality
Infant mortality rate (IMR), as defined by the 2023 DHEC report, means a live-born baby died before its first birthday as calculated per 1,000 live births. South Carolina uses this United States-recognized standard to reflect “the overall state of a population’s health.” The state has prioritized the reduction of IMR as part of its “Healthy People 2030” objective.However, data from this report is far from encouraging, at least in South Carolina. The report states that “while the US IMR has been declining over the past several years, SC’s rate increased overall 12.3% between 2020 and the end of 2021. Non-Hispanic Black infants showed the sharpest rise in infant mortality. Infant mortality rates (IMR) as a whole increased markedly (6.8%) from 2020 through 2021. According to this DHEC report, IMR for infants born to Black mothers has increased by 39.6% since 2017.
South Carolina Infant Mortality Rate/ 2017-2021/https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/Library/CR-012142-2021.pdf
In addition, the “IMR increased across both the neonatal and postnatal periods in 2021. Most of the increase is attributed to a 23.8% increase in postneonatal mortality between 2020 and 2021. The Neonatal mortality rate increased by 6.8% during the same period.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,239
- Points
- 113
They are NOT. READ the guidelines. It is not recommended that I (or anyone else with a similar vaccination record) get any more shots at this time. How is that pushing it on everyone?I'll let you decide, since you already have decided. Assessing others' comments ain't your strong suit.
You're now arguing with yourself again. I said "Why is the United States still pushing the boosters and shots on everyone...TV ads, PSAs and more...and Switzerland has gone the opposite direction?"
Opposite direction? No. Switzerland stated that they may recommend boosters in the future. Neither country has abandoned the vaccine.
You called Switzerland smart. I’m pointing out their policy and assessment of the vaccine’s safety which flies in the face of your delusional nonsense.You can't answer that, won't - so you change the conversation. I provided undeniable proof to support my statement above. The US is still pushing the clot jabs on US Citizens through TV ads, PSAs and more. And we have proof from Switzerland's government they have gone in the complete opposite direction.
So now you're switching to arguing that the vaccines are safe....which...isn't...the point...or...the...topic.
It's comical watching you confuse yourself and get off track like a drunk Alzheimer's patient.
Why not? Go ahead and explain, in light of your INSISTENCE two years ago that those with natural immunity SHOULD GET THE SHOT!!
Explain why citizens should not get a booster, or indeed a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th booster, what with all the virus mutations. Please, explain to us what changed from 2021 to now. Go ahead.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 15,706
- Reaction score
- 6,239
- Points
- 113
Could you be anymore clueless and incoherent? 3rd, 4th or 5th booster? WTF are you talking about?
Sometimes the blind squirrel still cant find that nut.I'll let you decide, since you already have decided. Assessing others' comments ain't your strong suit.
You're now arguing with yourself again. I said "Why is the United States still pushing the boosters and shots on everyone...TV ads, PSAs and more...and Switzerland has gone the opposite direction?"
You can't answer that, won't - so you change the conversation. I provided undeniable proof to support my statement above. The US is still pushing the clot jabs on US Citizens through TV ads, PSAs and more. And we have proof from Switzerland's government they have gone in the complete opposite direction.
So now you're switching to arguing that the vaccines are safe....which...isn't...the point...or...the...topic.
It's comical watching you confuse yourself and get off track like a drunk Alzheimer's patient.
You really are this stupid, aren't you? Genuinely stupid. Completely bereft of coherent thought, utterly and completely without the ability to reason or answer simple questions.
YOU are the person screeching that anybody refusing to wear masks was a science denier and basically a murderer. YOU were the one pimping the shot relentlessly. YOU and the corrupt CDC still push for more and more and more shots.
So now - NOW, after billions of shots and boosters and follow-up boosters and more boosters and more shots - do you admit, "Ehh, don't need a shot if you are like me with just the right number of shots, whatever that may be [or already had the ******* Chinese flu]."
I swear to god I hope your profession doesn't involve writing and reading comprehension. You are referring to guidelines (despite me showing the CDC still recommending them). I have consistently been saying "they" are still pushing the vaccines. The media. The government. Walgreens. CVS. Marketing. There is still a campaign across the nation to "push" vaccine uptake.
All one has to do is watch television, watch the news, read the news.
You saying there still isn't a campaign push for the vaccines is right up there with you saying there were no vaccine mandates.
Yes, opposite direction. While Switzerland now needs you to have a doctor agree to you getting a vaccine, the USA is still pushing anyone, everyone...from 6 months old to 95...to get vaccinated.
Watch....the....television. Read...the...news.
You won't see articles like this in Switzerland now. This was run this week in NC. Still...pushing...the...vaccines. Even on the population that does not need it.
Switching to "safety" is using your Shortbus Super Powers of deflection. That isn't the topic. I can point to British agencies that will say the vaccine is safe. While they have an agency that is paying out millions to the vaccine injured.
Poor Floglofuck. Barely clinging on to the last silky threads of the Covid lie web.
Last edited:
“Thank y’alls, every damned one of you!” - Floglo to the SN common cents committee
YET...
Pfizer says COVID treatment Paxlovid fails to prevent infection of household members
By Deena BeasleyApril 29 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Friday said a large trial found that its COVID-19 oral antiviral treatment Paxlovid was not effective at preventing coronavirus infection in people living with someone infected with the virus.
The trial enrolled 3,000 adults who were household contacts exposed to an individual who was experiencing symptoms and had recently tested positive for COVID-19. They were either given Paxlovid for five or 10 days or a placebo.
Those who took the five-day course were found to be 32% less likely to become infected than the placebo group. That rose to 37% with 10 days of Paxlovid. However, the results were not statistically significant and thus possibly due to chance.
Pfizer said safety data in the trial was consistent with previous studies, which had shown the pills to be nearly 90% effective at preventing hospitalization or death in COVID patients at high risk of severe illness when taken for five days shortly after symptom onset.
“While we are disappointed in the outcome of this particular study, these results do not impact the strong efficacy and safety data we’ve observed in our earlier trial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients," Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla said in a statement.
Pfizer said Paxlovid, which consists of two different antiviral drugs, is currently approved or authorized for conditional or emergency use in more than 60 countries across the globe to treat high-risk COVID-19 patients.
Sales of Paxlovid, part of a class of drugs known as protease inhibitors, are projected to reach $24 billion this year, according to Wall Street forecasts compiled by Refinitiv.
Shares of Pfizer, which fell 3% in regular trading, were down another 1% at $48.53 after hours.
Reporting By Deena Beasley Editing by Bill Berkrot
13 Things To Know About Paxlovid, the Latest COVID-19 Pill
BY KATHY KATELLA FEBRUARY 3, 2023Yale experts answer commonly asked questions about the oral antiviral medication.
[Originally published: March 10, 2022. Updated: Feb. 3, 2023]
Note: Information in this article was accurate at the time of original publication. Because information about COVID-19 changes rapidly, we encourage you to visit the websites of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and your state and local government for the latest information.
Paxlovid is the latest COVID-19 treatment that’s been all over the news. The drug was granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December for anyone ages 12 and older who weighs at least 88 pounds, and is at high risk for severe disease.
Paxlovid is an oral antiviral pill that can be taken at home to help keep high-risk patients from getting so sick that they need to be hospitalized. So, if you test positive for the coronavirus and you are eligible to take the pills, you can take them at home and lower your risk of going to the hospital.
The drug, developed by Pfizer, has a lot of positives: It had an 89% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death in unvaccinated people in the clinical trial that supported the EUA, a number that was high enough to prompt the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to prioritize it over other COVID-19 treatments. Studies outside of the laboratory have since confirmed Paxlovid’s effectiveness among people who have been vaccinated. It’s cheaper than many other COVID-19 drugs (it’s provided for free by the U.S. government while there is a public health emergency), and, perhaps most reassuring, it is expected to work against the Omicron variant.
“I think it is the beginning of a ‘game-changer,’” says Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious diseases specialist. “It's really our first efficacious oral antiviral pill for this virus. It shows clear benefit, and it really can prevent hospitalization and death in people who are at high risk.”
It’s important to note that Paxlovid (the brand name for the drug, which is made up of two generic medications—nirmatrelvir and ritonavir) isn’t the only pill available to treat COVID-19. The FDA also granted an EUA in December to a pill from Merck called molnupiravir (Lagevrio), but some studies suggest that molnupiravir has only a 30% reduction in the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
And as far as convenience, this medication is considered an improvement over treatments like remdesivir (approved by the FDA in October 2020), which is administered by intravenous (IV) injection.
We asked Yale Medicine infectious diseases experts common questions about Paxlovid. Below are their responses.
1. How does Paxlovid work?
Paxlovid is an antiviral therapy that consists of two separate medications packaged together. When you take your three-pill dose, two of those pills will be nirmatrelvir, which inhibits a key enzyme that the COVID virus requires in order to make functional virus particles. After nirmatrelvir treatment, the COVID virus that is released from the cells is no longer able to enter uninfected cells in the body, which, in turn, stops the infection. The other is ritonavir, a drug that was once used to treat HIV/AIDS but is now used to boost levels of antiviral medicines.As a COVID-19 treatment, ritonavir essentially shuts down nirmatrelvir’s metabolism in the liver, so that it doesn’t move out of your body as quickly, which means it can work longer—giving it a boost to help fight the infection.
2. When should I take Paxlovid?
You have to take Paxlovid within five days of developing symptoms.Like all antivirals, Paxlovid works best early in the course of an illness—in this case, within the first five days of symptom onset, says Jeffrey Topal, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious diseases specialist who is involved in determining COVID-19 treatment protocols for Yale New Haven Hospital patients.
“Once you’ve been ill with the virus for more than a week, the damage done to the body in a severe case can’t be undone by the antiviral,” he says.
3. How often do I take Paxlovid?
You take three Paxlovid pills twice daily for five days for a full course that adds up to 30 pills. It helps that the pills are packaged in a “dose card,” basically a medication blister pack that allows you to punch out the pills as needed.4. Is Paxlovid similar to Tamiflu?
“I think it's a good comparison,” says Dr. Roberts. Tamiflu is an antiviral drug that reduces flu symptoms. Both are prescription-only oral antiviral pills given early in illness.Tamiflu is taken twice a day for five days, and it must be started within 48 hours of flu onset. “When you give a patient Tamiflu beyond that, it doesn’t really change the course of their flu,” Dr. Roberts says.
But there are also differences between the two, starting with the way they were studied, Dr. Topal adds. Researchers showed that Paxlovid can prevent hospitalization and death. But since influenza causes fewer severe cases, clinical trials focused on whether Tamiflu could shorten the length of flu illness—which it did, he says.
CONTINUED...
5. Can anyone get a Paxlovid prescription?
The FDA authorized Paxlovid for people ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. But in order to qualify for a prescription, you must also have had a positive COVID-19 test result and be at high risk for developing severe COVID-19.That means you must either have certain underlying conditions (including cancer, diabetes, obesity, or others) or be 65 or older (more than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in in this group). The more underlying medical conditions a person has, the higher their risk for developing a severe case of COVID-19, according to the CDC.
The hope is that the restrictions on who can take Paxlovid will be relaxed over time. The FDA granted the EUA in December, just as a staggering number of people were infected with Omicron and the need for care skyrocketed, leading to supply issues.
If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, the FDA recommends discussing your options and specific situation with your health care provider, since there is no experience using the drug in these populations. If you could become pregnant, it’s recommended that you use effective barrier contraception or do not have sexual activity while taking Paxlovid.
It’s important to note that although health care providers can write a prescription, pharmacists may also provide Paxlovid (with certain limitations) if they’ve opted to do so, provided you can share your electronic or printed medical records, including a list of medications you are already taking, and blood test results from the last 12 months.
6. How well does Paxlovid work?
In November 2022, the CDC reported on a real-world study that showed adults who took Paxlovid within five days of a COVID-19 diagnosis had a 51% lower hospitalization rate within the next 30 days than those who were not given the drug. The study included people who had been vaccinated or had a previous infection, which the CDC said implied the drug should be offered to people who are eligible regardless of their vaccination status.When it applied for FDA authorization, Pfizer presented data from a clinical trial conducted between mid-July and early December in 2021. The data showed that participants (all of whom were unvaccinated) who were given Paxlovid were 89% less likely to develop severe illness and death compared to trial participants who received a placebo. (While the recommendation is to take Paxlovid within five days of symptom onset, participants in the clinical trial took the drug within three days.)
7. What do we know about how Paxlovid works in kids?
Pfizer launched a clinical trial in March to study the safety and efficacy of Paxlovid in children and teenagers ages 6 to 17 who have COVID-19 symptoms and test positive for the virus, and who are neither hospitalized nor at risk for severe disease.While Paxlovid is authorized for use in adolescents and teenagers ages 12 and up, and weighing at least 88 pounds, that age group wasn’t tested in the original clinical trial. But because many children reach 88 pounds—considered to be an adult weight—the FDA has allowed extensions of EUAs for medications such as monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir in younger age groups, adds Dr. Topal.
“Based on the pharmacokinetics of the drugs in Paxlovid, the differences in metabolism and excretion—liver and kidney function specifically—of these drugs in this age group are thought to be similar to that of adults,” Dr. Topal says.
8. Does Paxlovid work against Omicron?
Paxlovid’s clinical trials took place before Omicron and later subvariants like BA.5 became predominant, but Pfizer says the drug works against the highly contagious variant. Three laboratory-based studies claim to back this up—two of those studies were conducted by Pfizer, while the third was done by Pfizer in partnership with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. These studies have not yet been published in peer-reviewed medical journals.9. What are the side effects from Paxlovid?
Most people who take Paxlovid should not experience serious side effects, explains Dr. Roberts. “Paxlovid is usually very well-tolerated,” he says.But people should stop taking Paxlovid and call a health care provider right away if they experience any of the following signs of an allergic reaction:
- hives
- trouble swallowing or breathing
- swelling of the mouth, lips, or face
- throat tightness
- hoarseness
- skin rash
- an altered or impaired sense of taste
- diarrhea
- increased blood pressure
- muscle aches
- abdominal pain
- nausea
- feeling generally unwell
The FDA says that anyone who takes Paxlovid should contact their health provider right away if they have any signs and symptoms of liver problems: loss of appetite, yellowing of the skin and whites of the eyes (jaundice), dark-colored urine, pale-colored stools and itchy skin, or stomach-area (abdominal) pain.
It’s worth noting that because Paxlovid is still being monitored in the real world, it is possible that all of the risks are not yet known. (The FDA has provided a fact sheet on Paxlovid with a full list of known side effects.)
10. Can I take Paxlovid if I'm taking other medications?
There is a long list of medications Paxlovid may interact with, and in some cases, doctors may not prescribe Paxlovid because these interactions may cause serious complications.The list of drugs that Paxlovid interacts with includes some organ anti-rejection drugs that transplant patients take, as well as more common drugs like some used to treat heart arrhythmias. Paxlovid also decreases the metabolism of anticoagulants, or blood thinners, that many older adults depend on, driving up levels of those medications in the body to a point where they are unsafe, Dr. Topal explains.
It also interacts with common medications, including cholesterol-lowering statins like Lipitor. But in many cases, patients can talk to their doctors about taking a temporary break from some of those drugs while taking Paxlovid, he adds. “As always, patients should speak with their providers when starting new medications and follow their providers’ directions regarding the stopping or holding of any medications,” Dr. Topal says.
11. What is the rebound effect of Paxlovid?
There have been reports of a “rebound” of COVID-19 symptoms in some people within 2 to 8 days after completing the five-day course of Paxlovid; in those cases, some have tested positive again but have no symptoms; others have a recurrence of symptoms. Pfizer had said that in the clinical trial for Paxlovid, several participants appeared to have a rebound in virus levels, although this also occurred in some people who were given a placebo.Scientists are still studying the Paxlovid rebound. The CDC says a rebound does not mean a person was resistant to Paxlovid, nor does it mean they were reinfected with the virus. In June, the CDC released guidance for clinicians, saying a brief return of symptoms may be part of the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in some people, independent of treatment with Paxlovid, adding that there is no evidence additional treatment is needed. A CDC study reported that rebound symptoms tended to be unlikely to require hospitalization and milder than symptoms experienced during the primary infection.
“The hypothesis is that the immune system didn’t have a chance to see the full extent of the virus, since Paxlovid suppressed replication early in disease,” Dr. Roberts says. Scientists are studying the effects of longer treatment durations, longer periods of isolation, and other ways of managing the problem, he adds.
For anyone who experiences a rebound, the CDC advises people “restart isolation” for five days, following its isolation guidance. Pfizer recommends reporting it to them on its portal for adverse events associated with Paxlovid.