A new study has found that Pfizer’s Paxlovid COVID-19 pill causes adverse reactions in patients, including deadly blood clots.
(planet-today) Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which contains the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir (NMVr), interacts with several other drugs routinely used to treat cardiovascular disease, according to a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on Wednesday.
Thegatewaypundit.com reports: Most of the concerns about drug interactions come from ritonavir, experts said.
“Co-administration of NMVr with medications commonly used to manage cardiovascular conditions can potentially cause significant drug-drug interactions and may lead to severe adverse effects,” according to the reviewed paper.
Paxlovid can cause serious health problems when coupled with common heart disease medication such as statins and blood thinners.
Researchers from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Harvard Medical School and other US institutions found the Covid drug can increase the risk of developing blood clots when taken with blood thinners.
It can also cause an irregular heartbeat when combined with drugs for heart pain and when taken alongside statins it can be toxic to the liver.
Dozens of medications such as aspirin are safe to take with Paxlovid, the researchers stress. But doctors need to be aware that other drugs can be dangerous and should be discontinued or adjusted while a patient is being treated for Covid.
(See link for article)
_________________
**Comment**
Per usual, the problem is the drug was not tested adequately before being rushed to market – just like all the COVID jabs and anything else with emergency use authorization (EUA). Meanwhile, common, inexpensive drugs like HCQ and ivermectin – used safely for decades are censored and banned because they are not the chosen drugs of our corrupt public health authorities who have vested interests in expensive, ineffective, and dangerous drugs they all profit from. It’s really quite that simple.
The study author admits that what is being learned about Paxlovid is what’s happening in the real world to actual patients – not from carefully controlled studies that should have been done. In other words, YOU are the Guinea Pig.
Corrupt public health authorities have successfully used propaganda to vilify safe, effective, cheap, highly used drugs and then turn around and downplay and ignore potentially life-threatening reactions that can occur when using many common medications with their chosen expensive, ineffective, toxic treatments of Paxlovid and Remdesivir, aka “Run Death is Near.”
And then there’s the fact more and more patients taking Paxlovid experience a rebound effect – or becoming infected with COVID shortly after using the drug and supposedly recovering.
But this is the new normal in the Topsy turvy world of COVID.
GBN News (Britain) interviews Laura Dodsworth, author of A State of Fear and she states people have had their “fingers in their ears” as the seemingly “new” news that the COVID shots do not protect against transmission was in the actual trial data and Peter Doshi wrote about it in the BMJ. The shots weren’t tested for reduction in hospitalization, death, or transmission, rather they were tested for reduction in severe symptoms – which is not the proper endpoint for “vaccine” efficacy.
Dosworth points out the extremely polarizing message: on one hand Disney & Marvel are pushing the jabs while on the other side of the country a highly respected medic states “we don’t recommend them.”
An important detail was mentioned: “vaccination” decisions are personal and should be respected.
Another important takeaway:
“there should be zero [COVID] measures ever again.”
We have up to two years’ worth of data on most of the measures, and NONE has proven fruitful.
The global response has been nothing short of disastrous, and following the same playbook is insanity.
Kim Iversen poked holes in the arguments given by many to vilify the unvaccinated. She points out the COVID shots waning immunity as well as breakthrough infections(infections in those who were were “vaccinated”)
Pro-Mandate Covidians Try to Rewrite History and Pretend Their Views Changed With “The Science”
Oct. 12, 2022
This article is a good read regarding the new phenomenon of those waking up to the mRNA shots causing adverse reactions. The author states there are three types of people and they should be handled differently:
Average citizens who complied but are now starting to realize getting the shots was a mistake. They are interested in learning about long-term ramifications. These people deserve compassion and patience.
Those who were incentivizedto be pro-“vaccine,” such as health care professionals, pharmaceutical professionals, and politicians. These people made very poor and dangerous decisions and were selfish and opportunistic. While not necessarily evil, they should not be given a free pass. History proves many will do anything to keep their job, power, or money. Our government and professional groups are guilty of forcing people to choose an injection over bodily autonomy. Shame on them.
Celebrities, journalists, and influencers who had no incentive to push the jabs but did so anyway. This group should never be trusted again. Some in this group were incentivized as well. The dangling carrot is very persuasive.
Welcome, to the real world. So you just heard it from the horse’s mouth, Pfizer never tested the vaccines for reducing transmission. Now that you’re here, there are a few other things you should know.
Firstly, it’s true. Pfizer didn’t test the vaccines for reducing transmission, and the regulators knew this. If this was your understanding of the vaccine, it’s because official public messaging, even from the World Health Organization, conflated vaccination with reducing transmission. It would reduce transmission they suggested, “if we all get involved.” No such tests had been done, but I’m sorry to tell you it’s much worse than that…
Pfizer did test the vaccine’s ability to reduce rates of “Covid-19”. To be specific, “Covid-19” means testing positive and being symptomatic. The data looked great by the way, Pfizer had a wonderful graph to show the effect. The blue line is infections in the unvaccinated, and the red line is infections in the vaccinated.
But there is a fatal problem with this data, and lots of policy was based on it. That data you can see up there, the main argument for the vaccine passports, the vaccine mandates and all the terrifying media campaigns comes from a fraudulent study.
What does that mean exactly? The investigators were forging documents, forging signatures, changing diagnoses, and unblinding the patients. A whistleblower saw it all, took pictures, took notes, and took the story to the British Medical Journal. They published it. Read that all again. The investigators on that absolutely critical Pfizer trial were forging documents. (See link for article)
_________________
**Comment**
Anyone reading the information on this website has known this information a long, long time ago.
The author clearly points out that the evidence (graph) Pfizer is using is worthless until we get to the bottom of the fraud case, which is ongoing and which the BBC and mainstream media didn’t report on at all proving that Big Media is complicit in all of this.
He also points out that when credible people attempted to inform the public they were silenced. Go to the top link to hear the author interview the whistleblower.
While the debate over what the “vaccine” was tested for is important, even more important is the massive ongoing legal case over the claims of fraud.
The author states it only gets “weirder” as the allegedly fraudulent trial continues……
Knowledge About Lack of Protection Against Transmission is Old, Not New
The admission by a Pfizer exec has set social media ablaze with shock. That’s what you get when you suppress inconvenient truths. Now the flawed policies must be reversed or rescinded.
Please read this all the way through. It’s infuriating, I know. BUT – this is why I’m asking you to (1) upgrade to Paid and (2) share EVERY ARTICLE in real time.
Popular Rationalism applies reason and logic to real-world events. In this dystopian time of messaging, you’ll be a year ahead on the misinformation. This proves it.
Just when public trust in Public Health could not get lower, it fell of the crapper and into the fire.
comes the Orwellian tale of “we never did the studies because we had to move at the speed of science”. Seriously, you can’t make this up…
When asked by Rob Roos, a member of the European Parliament, “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? Did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market?”
Pfizer’s Janine Small, president of international developed markets, said in response: “No … You know, we had to … really move at the speed of science to know what is taking place in the market.”
Epoch Times wrote:
“A Pfizer executive said Monday that neither she nor other Pfizer officials knew whether its COVID-19 vaccine would stop transmission before entering the market last year…
“…Roos, of the Netherlands, argued in a Twitter video Monday that following Small’s comments to him, millions of people around the world were duped by pharmaceutical companies and governments.
‘Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth that ‘you do it for others,’‘ Roos said. ‘Now, this turned out to be a cheap lie’ and ‘should be exposed,’ he added.”
Yikes.
But wait, there’s more.
“The Food and Drug Administration wrote in late 2020 that there was no data available to determine whether the vaccine would prevent transmission and for how long it would protect against transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.”
‘At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person,’ the agency specifically noted.
Hold the phone there, because my ally from the UK, John Stone, and the internet, remembers things a bit differently (the links provided are from John, the descriptions and quotes are pulled by me):
By Sept, 2020, the goalposts had already been moved to hospitalization, per the NY Times, which nudged:
“If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of Covid-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications? The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases.”
The WashPo got serious about this, warning that actually studying transmission rates (which track rates of mild or asymptomatic disease) should not be done:
“A close reading suggests the clinical trials have been designed to ensure the greatest possible success for these candidates — and that could overstate their effectiveness. In both the Moderna and Pfizer trials, for example, the primary objective is to prevent any occurrence of covid-19, not necessarily a severe case. Preventing serious illness is a secondary objective.”
Even vaccine risk, death and injury denialist Peter Hotez was telling Medpage today in early November:
“Even as the first vaccines become more widely available they may be only partially protective to reduce severity of illness and won’t stop transmission anyway so we won’t need to pay people for that purpose,” he told MedPage Today. “So I don’t foresee a reason to pay anyone to get vaccinated against COVID-19.”
Similarly, vaccine injury denialist Fiona Godlee warned, explicitly in BMJ:
“So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection, provide only short lived immunity, and will at best have been trialled by the manufacturer against placebo. As well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment. This would be good for business but bad for global public health.”
“Meanwhile, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, around the same time, said his firm was ‘not certain’ if those who receive its mRNA vaccine will be able to transmit COVID-19 to other people.
‘I think this is something that needs to be examined. We are not certain about that right now,’ Bourla told NBC News in December 2020 in response to a question about transmissibility.
Former White House medical adviser Dr. Deborah Birx in June revealed that there was evidence in December 2020 that individuals who received COVID-19 vaccines, including Pfizer’s, could still transmit the virus.
“We knew early on in January of 2021, in late December of 2020, that reinfection was occurring after natural infection,” Birx, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator during the Trump administration, told members of Congress this year.
Enter the Faucists (My Subheading, Not ET’s)
A number of officials in the United States and around the world had claimed COVID-19 vaccines could prevent transmission. Among them, President Joe Biden in July 2021 remarked that “you’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
President Joe Biden speaks, flanked by White House Chief Medical Adviser on COVID-19 Dr. Anthony Fauci, during a visit to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., on Feb. 11, 2021. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
“Chief Biden administration medical adviser Anthony Fauci in May 2021 said in a CBS interview that vaccinated people are ‘dead ends’ for COVID-19, suggesting they cannot transmit the virus. ‘When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community,’ Fauci said.
Epoch times goes on to report that by July Fauci, Walensky and the other Faucists were admitting no protection against transmission.
Remember that time when we swore in a President with no crowd, waiting for a vaccine that didn’t work, while Pierre Kory and Peter McCullough and others were yelling from the rooftops that early treatments work?
Dystopian movie? No. Dystopian USA, January, 2021.
Policies Set in Place Based on Misinformation from Fauci Must Be Reversed
California has criminalized misinformation from doctors. Fine. Turn in the doctors that tell you lies about COVID-19 vaccines. Ask them who is at greater risk of infection, and if they lie, turn them in.
We need to reverse any and all policies that have led to forced vaccination. The Military. Healthcare workers. Colleges. Front-liners. And everyone who lost their jobs due to refusal to obey should be given their jobs back with back pay. And compensation for any financial distress caused by their job loss.
You saw it all happening, chronicled right here in real time on Popular Rationalism.
Remember, Fauci was peddling a second lock-down in November in a last-ditch effort to win the argument on Federal vaccine mandates, after pitching Omicron as “dangerous”.
A wonderfully, unbiased article just came out that is definitely worth reading. In it, the author states that spreading “misinformation” is a deliberate, willful act and that historically brilliant academics have defended their ideas, right or wrong, to the end. This is not a malicious act. They truly believe their views. This is not misinformation. The author uses the Bradford-Hill criterion to examine the “no virus theory” and ultimately concludes the theory has too many holes to be scientifically viable; however, he admits it is up to the “no virus” theorists to enlist the researchers and scientists to prove their theory.
The understanding of viral isolation is admittedly far above my pay grade. My first introduction to the topic was through the book “Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense” by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Kohnlein. Then I became acquainted with and read the works of David Crowe, RIP. The information is eye-opening to say the least and would explain many things if proven. While the jury’s still out for me, many of the things presented – particularly the corruption of Big Pharma, governments, mainstream media, and the blatant use of the faulty PCR for diagnosis (as stated by none other than the PCR inventor, Kary Mullis), are true.
But viral isolation remains a controversial topic and one that needs to be addressed and proven. I admire and respect the people on both sides of the argument, so it really does require public debate with unemotional scientific facts, which the following three articles present.
The witch hunts are very, very real and are not new.
It’s an ugly, never-ending circle that is completely behind patient suffering and misery, purposefully thereto protect insurance companies from having to pay for a lengthy, chronic illness. These corrupt leaders also don’t want to admit Lyme/MSIDS is persistent due to “vaccine” development which is the cash cow in the Pharmaceutical industry which pays out big dividends to investors, of which are members of Congress, other politicians, and those in academic research institutions who all stand to gain from it.
If they lied about Lyme/MSIDS, they most probably have lied about many diseases including COVID.
All that said, the following three articles are in opposition to the tenets of the no virus theory and are important reading.
The “Statement on Virus Isolation” by Kaufman, Cowan, and Morell, who claim that SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist”, is contradicted by their own cited sources.
In their “Statement on Virus Isolation“, propagators of the claim that SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist” Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell cite three sources to support their argument. In this video (also on Rumble), I demonstrate their lack of credibility by showing how their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.
Virus denialists have a large following. Tom Cowan, in particular, believes that we need to be able to use our own senses to know something exists. This is a simplifying but empirically impoverished viewpoint on what we can know via Science.
Tom took to Bitchute in a video to respond to eight points that I posted on the matter.
He did not address eight points. Here, without adding to disunity, I rebut (again, and likely for the last time), the claims by providing scientific evidence.
An Aside
As an aside, understand that I am reluctantly taking my time to write this article, because I know that those promulgating virus denialism will not pay heed to any scientific evidence I provide that demonstrates the falseness of their claims.
When I have debated virus deniers in the past and provided references to studies that directly rebut their false claims, they have ignored the scientific evidence I provided and continued to make the same statements – the very next day. I know this because after I debated a virus denier in a recorded debate, I happened to also be in a zoom meeting the next day with one of the participants in the event. They acted as if the studies I sent to them did not exist and simply repeated the same faulty claims that were made by my opponent the day before.
In his Bitchute, it is interesting that Tom skipped over my Point #1: that Koch himself failed, using his own criteria, to identify now-known pathogens. This is a rather important point, and Tom’s failure to address it speaks volumes.
In my response, I will simply provide studies that show that the specific claims about SARS-CoV-2 virus by virus deniers like Cowan are factually incorrect. The studies I show are representative of a much, much larger body of published science that shows the basic claims being made are false.
I will not speculate on the motivation of those who would care to continue to ignore studies. They themselves can address that obvious question.
Koch’s Postulates
Koch developed rules to follow by which one can determine if a pathogen is responsible for a disease. The reader should be aware these were published in 1884; Koch updated them to relax the first postulate when he discovered asymptomatic transmission. Also, Koch’s postulates fail to apply to typhoid fever, diphtheria, leprosy, relapsing fever, and Asiatic cholera specifically because it is difficult to create ‘the disease anew’ in animals upon infection (Ref).
Koch’s postulates were addressed head-on for the SARS virus in 2003. See
(1) The microorganism must be found in diseased but not healthy individuals;
We know that asymptomatic COVID-19 infection can occur. Koch himself had to modify his postulates after he discovered asymptomatic infections could occur.
(2) The microorganism must be cultured from the diseased individual;
SARS-CoV-2 has, in fact, been cultured. It’s a matter of routine:
“In the present work, we tested 4 strains of SARS-CoV-2 locally isolated on a panel of 34 cell lines present in our laboratory and commonly used for the isolation of human pathogenic microorganism. After inoculation, cells were observed for cytopathic effects and quantitative real-time polymerase reaction was used to measure the virus replication on the cells. We were able to obtain growth on 7 cell lines, 6 simian, and the human Caco-2. The cytopathogenic effects are variable, ranging from lysis of the cell monolayer in 48–72 h to no cytopathic effect in spite of intense multiplication, as in Caco-2 cells. Interestingly, effect and multiplication varied widely according to the strain tested.”
“Viral RNA and cultivable virus were recovered from the cultured cells after qRT-PCR and plaque assays. Of 20 patients, 10 (50%) had a solid organ transplant and 5 (25%) had a hematologic malignancy. For most patients, RT-PCR Ct values increased over time. There were 2 patients with positive viral cell cultures; one patient had chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with venetoclax and obinutuzumab who had a low viral titer of 27 PFU/mL.”
Even the important study showing that use of too high RT-PCR cycle thresholds led to false positives used the ability to create a culture and infectiousness from clinical samples
Spanish researchers found that each dose of the Pfizer vaccine they examined contained around 747 nanograms of graphene oxide. This meant that more than 99 percent of the Pfizer vaccine was made up entirely of graphene oxide.
Graphene oxide, a material formed from graphite, is a known toxic substance. Previous studies have shown that graphene-based materials like graphene oxide can cause dose-dependent toxicity. It can damage the liver and the kidneys, spur on the formation of granulomas in the lungs, decrease cell viability and trigger cell apoptosis or pre-programmed cell death.
“It destroys literally everything inside the cell. It explodes the mitochondria. It creates a situation where the body is on a 10-alarm fire truck and inflammation, cytokines, chemokines. This is incredibly violent… inflammatory storm comes in and it has particular affinity for creating acute inflammation of the lungs, it creates an inflammatory storm in cardiac tissue and in brain tissue… There’s no other reason for this to be in [the vaccines] except to murder people.” ~ Dr. Jane Ruby- 20 year old pharmaceutical researcher
Symptoms caused by toxic graphene are similar to the symptoms of COVID making it virtually impossible to tell what people are suffering with.
This lecture explores how minerals like selenium, zinc & copper work with your immune system to help regulate it. It also explains the interactions between candida, viruses, and other infections with these minerals.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 
