Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
I don't disagree with anything there. I think there were problems throughout.Not everything has to work that way. Science does though. You're conflating business and science and there is a pretty clear line we can draw, but instead you let media and companies drive the narrative. That typically happens because of preconceived notions and the desire to support them. This was a chronic problem with COVID that had the spotlight showing on it from the beginning.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
I think the conversation can remain politics free.
Transmission reduction wasn't even an endpoint of the original trials, but somehow once they concluded it got wrapped up in the discussion around them as if it was.
Yep. All I ever cared about was staying out of the hospital and dying of something manly like old age, or possibly a lion attack, as opposed to covid-19. It's incredibly annoying that people continue to get hung up on this point. If "vaccinated covid" is going to be the cold-like illness that it currently is, that is a huge win and we should take it!
Ivermectin has been tested rigorously for the prevention and treatment of covid, and every well designed has come back negative. PASC is much harder to study, but what makes you believe there’s and biologic plausibility for it to work in that context?I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
I’ve noticed this too. Masking was almost non-existent for a while and now is making a comeback.
Yup. I think clinical trial on unvaccinated was closer to 90% reduction in hospitalization. That's what I recall being the selling point in articles I read, not symptom relief or lesser duration.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
College students, college faculty, people who choose to sit down on interstate highways, etc.
Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
Yes, somehow. It just happened. Total mystery where that idea came from.
www.businessinsider.com
Obviously I'm not a doctor, so I'm only repeating (possibly poorly) what others in the medical world are claiming... But the theory is that Ivermectin is very good at binding to the spike protein. Used alone Ivermectin doesn't do a lot against covid. Used in conjunction with Vitamin D or other treatment options it has shown to be beneficial. They've also seen success using Ivermectin to increase oxygen saturation in covid patents.Ivermectin has been tested rigorously for the prevention and treatment of covid, and every well designed has come back negative. PASC is much harder to study, but what makes you believe there’s and biologic plausibility for it to work in that context?I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
Taking at face value the posts in this thread, there are several who learned a while ago and continually warned and then there are some who have had their eyes opened by this set of events (also learned/learning). If by "we" you mean the general public, then I'd agree and I doubt you'll ever get even MOST to learn. They just don't care or they'd rather be correct about this from a self preservation perspective and won't ever admit publicly their true positions have shifted.I don't disagree with anything there. I think there were problems throughout.Not everything has to work that way. Science does though. You're conflating business and science and there is a pretty clear line we can draw, but instead you let media and companies drive the narrative. That typically happens because of preconceived notions and the desire to support them. This was a chronic problem with COVID that had the spotlight showing on it from the beginning.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
The media is in part funded by big pharma who then became a mouthpiece for them. That's a major problem and it seems like one we aren't ready to learn from yet.
IIRC the COVID strains that are prevalent nowadays are less harmful. If that's right, it could be a factor in fewer people re-upping their vaccinations.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
Still not full compliance but my workplaces have been good about this practice and I'm glad for it tbh. Now when I see a mask I know someone is trying to prevent some yuck from spreading to me and others and it's about time we as a society had this realization. I've even masked up when not feeling great and I make a point of letting others know it's likely just a cold but who knows and who cares, let's take precautions. I have also tested a couple of times and been negative but I don't knee jerk with the tests anymore.
I haven't seen an update in my historically anti-mask region. For the last year or so I assume anyone wearing a mask is sick or has a high risk health condition.
Around here, masks have come back slightly -- from virtually zero to maybe 1-2% in retail/grocery outings. It's now uncommon to go shopping and not see at least one mask on someone. I can say, though, that it's never young adults masking -- it's almost invariably the elderly, or at minimum late middle age.
Yes, somehow. It just happened. Total mystery where that idea came from.
CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'
On Monday, the CDC released a study that showed the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are about 90% effective at preventing COVID-19.
It was the collective we, as in all Americans. I think we're seeing a little bit of progress made on some fronts. The New York Times just recently ran an article entertaining if the vaccine injured are getting proper acknowledgement, treatment and compensation. That is a big step in the right direction. We can at least now acknowledge the statement "The COVID-19 vaccine is among the safest, most effective vaccines ever" was probably not accurate.Taking at face value the posts in this thread, there are several who learned a while ago and continually warned and then there are some who have had their eyes opened by this set of events (also learned/learning). If by "we" you mean the general public, then I'd agree and I doubt you'll ever get even MOST to learn. They just don't care or they'd rather be correct about this from a self preservation perspective and won't ever admit publicly their true positions have shifted.I don't disagree with anything there. I think there were problems throughout.Not everything has to work that way. Science does though. You're conflating business and science and there is a pretty clear line we can draw, but instead you let media and companies drive the narrative. That typically happens because of preconceived notions and the desire to support them. This was a chronic problem with COVID that had the spotlight showing on it from the beginning.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
The media is in part funded by big pharma who then became a mouthpiece for them. That's a major problem and it seems like one we aren't ready to learn from yet.
I find myself getting the details confused as too much time has passed - did that study include non-symptomatic as positives? I seem to remember some of the early effectiveness studies only counting it as a case if the subject had both a positive test and symptoms, which would obviously be a bad way to determine whether vaccinated people could be carriers to the extent that vaccination lessoned their symptoms.
Its that, on top of the boosters only increase antibodies for several months and there is no guarantee it will be effective against new variants. Also, the majority of people vaccinated once and/or with natural immunity already have solid protection from severe covid.IIRC the COVID strains that are prevalent nowadays are less harmful. If that's right, it could be a factor in fewer people re-upping their vaccinations.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
Accuracy isn't the issue with a statement like that. It's not even a top 5 problem with a statement like that. It's a meaningless statement to start. It's vague. It's subjective. Based on those three issues, it's also unmeasurable. Because of all that, a person who sets their standard like IvanKaramazov does above, it's a resounding success. To someone who is under the impression that vaccines have to stop the virus dead in it's tracks, it's an unmitigated failure. If one wants to talk about the safety, I'm all ears to hear why they believe it's unsafe, especially now.It was the collective we, as in all Americans. I think we're seeing a little bit of progress made on some fronts. The New York Times just recently ran an article entertaining if the vaccine injured are getting proper acknowledgement, treatment and compensation. That is a big step in the right direction. We can at least now acknowledge the statement "The COVID-19 vaccine is among the safest, most effective vaccines ever" was probably not accurate.Taking at face value the posts in this thread, there are several who learned a while ago and continually warned and then there are some who have had their eyes opened by this set of events (also learned/learning). If by "we" you mean the general public, then I'd agree and I doubt you'll ever get even MOST to learn. They just don't care or they'd rather be correct about this from a self preservation perspective and won't ever admit publicly their true positions have shifted.I don't disagree with anything there. I think there were problems throughout.Not everything has to work that way. Science does though. You're conflating business and science and there is a pretty clear line we can draw, but instead you let media and companies drive the narrative. That typically happens because of preconceived notions and the desire to support them. This was a chronic problem with COVID that had the spotlight showing on it from the beginning.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
The media is in part funded by big pharma who then became a mouthpiece for them. That's a major problem and it seems like one we aren't ready to learn from yet.
The problem is that statement was the company line and if you disagreed or questioned it, you would be labeled as "anti-vax" and possibly cancelled. There was time when Youtube was removing content and suspending channels who didn't go along with that claim. Jimmy Dore still to this day makes the same joke about how great the vaccine is to avoid getting another YouTube strike.Accuracy isn't the issue with a statement like that...it's not even a top 5 problem with a statement like that. It's a meaningless statement to start. It's vague. It's subjective. Based on those three issues, it's also unmeasurable. Because of all that, a person who sets their standard like IvanKaramazov does above, it's a resounding success. To someone who is under the impression that vaccines have to stop the virus dead in it's tracks, it's an unmitigated failure. If one wants to talk about the safety, I'm all ears to hear why they believe it's unsafe, especially now.It was the collective we, as in all Americans. I think we're seeing a little bit of progress made on some fronts. The New York Times just recently ran an article entertaining if the vaccine injured are getting proper acknowledgement, treatment and compensation. That is a big step in the right direction. We can at least now acknowledge the statement "The COVID-19 vaccine is among the safest, most effective vaccines ever" was probably not accurate.Taking at face value the posts in this thread, there are several who learned a while ago and continually warned and then there are some who have had their eyes opened by this set of events (also learned/learning). If by "we" you mean the general public, then I'd agree and I doubt you'll ever get even MOST to learn. They just don't care or they'd rather be correct about this from a self preservation perspective and won't ever admit publicly their true positions have shifted.I don't disagree with anything there. I think there were problems throughout.Not everything has to work that way. Science does though. You're conflating business and science and there is a pretty clear line we can draw, but instead you let media and companies drive the narrative. That typically happens because of preconceived notions and the desire to support them. This was a chronic problem with COVID that had the spotlight showing on it from the beginning.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
The media is in part funded by big pharma who then became a mouthpiece for them. That's a major problem and it seems like one we aren't ready to learn from yet.
This is all the social noise that people should be ignoring and what I was addressing with my comments on what people should be laser focused on. It feels like a lot more people are beginning to realize this which is a net positive. The problem looking through this lens was understanding who you were/are getting your information from to begin with. Seems like several here realized that maybe the trust they threw at government agencies and the media wasn't the best idea.
NONE of this is unique to COVID vaccines. It holds true for every single one ever created. There is risk in every single one. To the bold, the protection factor is different in every single person based on their immune system. Yearly boosters should be seen and treated as the flu shots are. If you're good with those or "meh" with those or against them, it would stand to reason you hold the exact same position with COVID vaccines. As with any other vaccine, the more of it you take the better your body is equipped to battle it.
A handful of rogue physicians don’t equate to evidence-based medicine.Obviously I'm not a doctor, so I'm only repeating (possibly poorly) what others in the medical world are claiming... But the theory is that Ivermectin is very good at binding to the spike protein. Used alone Ivermectin doesn't do a lot against covid. Used in conjunction with Vitamin D or other treatment options it has shown to be beneficial. They've also seen success using Ivermectin to increase oxygen saturation in covid patents.Ivermectin has been tested rigorously for the prevention and treatment of covid, and every well designed has come back negative. PASC is much harder to study, but what makes you believe there’s and biologic plausibility for it to work in that context?I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
I'm not going to pound the drum for Ivermectin, but it continues to be brought up and prescribed by doctors treating covid/long covid. And now most recently we have Cuomo admitting CNN ran a smear campaign against the drug. That shouldn't be how medicine works in this country.
And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.
Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?
But it wasn’t known to be no better than placebo, among vaccinated individuals, until that study. And it’s still the best data for any oral drug we have.I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.
Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?
I can't say how it stacks up to other drugs, but it in my eyes $20 billion for a drug that was no better than a placebo doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially in an environment where we are going "shame" people for alternative treatment options.
I think Paxlovid should only be used for the unvaccinated high-risk community as those appear to be the ones who benefit the most. It was being prescribed pretty often until a long list of high profile covid rebound cases made everyone pause and see this "rare" outcome was actually closer to 20%.
I remember Vinay Prasad doing a video when Pfizer first released its Paxlovid data that the treatment didn't work for vaccinated individuals. It was seemingly brushed off at the time.But it wasn’t known to be no better than placebo, among vaccinated individuals, until that study. And it’s still the best data for any oral drug we have.I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.
Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?
I can't say how it stacks up to other drugs, but it in my eyes $20 billion for a drug that was no better than a placebo doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially in an environment where we are going "shame" people for alternative treatment options.
I think Paxlovid should only be used for the unvaccinated high-risk community as those appear to be the ones who benefit the most. It was being prescribed pretty often until a long list of high profile covid rebound cases made everyone pause and see this "rare" outcome was actually closer to 20%.
Also, don’t underestimate patient demand driving some of the prescriptions.
IMO, the rebound stuff is overblown, as when it occurs, it’s usually milder than initial symptomatic infection. Where’d you get that 20% number?
That's part of it, yes. But there's a weird confluence going on where a bunch of these items are all getting lumped in with one another into a big, unpleasant uni-cause. I spent pretty much all of 2021 arguing (unsuccessfully, mostly) that we needed to rip off the bandaid after vaccination and get folks back to normal. What we're seeing instead is that we now have a group of folks - most of whom were probably a little on the fragile side to start with - having adopted the covid mask as an identifier for their little hate rallies. I didn't anticipate that the slippery slope would extend quite all the way to KKK-level agitation, but well . . .
I mean the guy started his covid writings with a post comparing the US response to Hitler's Third Reich. That's a pretty good way to get people to brush off anything you subsequently write
Mild covid: Symptom management with Tylenol, cough meds, etc.I remember Vinay Prasad doing a video when Pfizer first released its Paxlovid data that the treatment didn't work for vaccinated individuals. It was seemingly brushed off at the time.But it wasn’t known to be no better than placebo, among vaccinated individuals, until that study. And it’s still the best data for any oral drug we have.I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.
Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?
I can't say how it stacks up to other drugs, but it in my eyes $20 billion for a drug that was no better than a placebo doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially in an environment where we are going "shame" people for alternative treatment options.
I think Paxlovid should only be used for the unvaccinated high-risk community as those appear to be the ones who benefit the most. It was being prescribed pretty often until a long list of high profile covid rebound cases made everyone pause and see this "rare" outcome was actually closer to 20%.
Also, don’t underestimate patient demand driving some of the prescriptions.
IMO, the rebound stuff is overblown, as when it occurs, it’s usually milder than initial symptomatic infection. Where’d you get that 20% number?
I 100% agree with you on the patient demand for perception drugs aspect. That's another issue probably worth discussing.
Here is a link that showed the 20%. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/one-five-experience-rebound-covid-after-antiviral-drug-new-study-shows
What is the current best treatment plan for someone with covid or someone with long covid?
I missed that one. What was his main point?
Mild covid: Symptom management with Tylenol, cough meds, etc.I remember Vinay Prasad doing a video when Pfizer first released its Paxlovid data that the treatment didn't work for vaccinated individuals. It was seemingly brushed off at the time.But it wasn’t known to be no better than placebo, among vaccinated individuals, until that study. And it’s still the best data for any oral drug we have.I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...
Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.
If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.
Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.
The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.
Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?
Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.
Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.
To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.
It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.
I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.
I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.
How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.
Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?
I can't say how it stacks up to other drugs, but it in my eyes $20 billion for a drug that was no better than a placebo doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially in an environment where we are going "shame" people for alternative treatment options.
I think Paxlovid should only be used for the unvaccinated high-risk community as those appear to be the ones who benefit the most. It was being prescribed pretty often until a long list of high profile covid rebound cases made everyone pause and see this "rare" outcome was actually closer to 20%.
Also, don’t underestimate patient demand driving some of the prescriptions.
IMO, the rebound stuff is overblown, as when it occurs, it’s usually milder than initial symptomatic infection. Where’d you get that 20% number?
I 100% agree with you on the patient demand for perception drugs aspect. That's another issue probably worth discussing.
Here is a link that showed the 20%. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/one-five-experience-rebound-covid-after-antiviral-drug-new-study-shows
What is the current best treatment plan for someone with covid or someone with long covid?
Covid in high risk individual, caught early: remdesivir.
Covid with low oxygen: dexamethasone.
Covid on a ventilator : dex + IL-6 receptor blockers.
Long covid: ?Metformin. Getting vaccinated reduced the risk of it happening in the first place.
That democracy was nearing an end and covid policy was the pathway
There were some pretty gross ideas being floated during the height of the craziness. A path was there, we just didn't walk down it.
