More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid, Part 1

If we can’t trust Johns Hopkins, what established sources are left?

I was periodically updating my webpage on the effectiveness of all the popular COVID early treatment options, and came across this current article:

Feel free to read it, but be forewarned that it is woefully deceptive. I can understand that when Paxlovid first came out (late 2021), medical professionals would be enthused to endorse it, as the only study done said it was 88% effectiveNice!

But is that our scientific knowledge in 2024? NO! I sent the JH author a polite email:


I’m an independent scientist (physicist) who has done considerable research on COVID.

As such I read with interest your recent article on Paxlovid, stating that it is “a tremendous tool that’s completely underutilized”.

FYI, I also read your CV.

[Note to substack readers: she has no science credentials.]

The key message in your article is premised on your statement:

“Paxlovid is extremely effective when taken within five days of symptom onset. In clinical trials, it reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by almost 90% in unvaccinated people.”

I’m writing because that is (regretfully) a major misrepresentation of our current knowledge of Paxlovid.

Please consider the following three facts:

Fact one: In late 2021 the FDA gave Pfizer an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Paxlovid as a COVID-19 early treatment.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that the FDA has not approved Paxlovid, but rather given it a very different EUA? Then your readers could use their own judgment whether or not we remain in a COVID-19 emergency.

Fact two: when the FDA gave Pfizer an EUA for Paxlovid for COVID-19 early treatment, it was based on just one (1) study (on 2,100± people), done by Pfizer, that showed that Paxlovid supposedly had an 88% effectiveness rate.

Should your readers be alerted to the fact that there was only one initial study prior to the EUA, and that it was done by the drug manufacturer — clearly not an unbiased source?

Fact three: Since the FDA gave Pfizer the EUA for Paxlovid, many independent scientists have conducted studies about the effectiveness of Paxlovid. To date, some 57 studies on Paxlovid have been completed, with 42 being peer-reviewed.

Should your readers be alerted that these independent studies (on 120,000± people) have concluded that the actual COVID-19 early treatment effectiveness of Paxlovid is only 21±% — a far cry from the Pfizer study claiming 88%?

I’m taking the time to write as I’ve always respected Johns Hopkins as an unbiased, accurate source, of current medical information.


It’s been over a week now, and I’ve received no response of any kind.

Some may think I’m being a bit harsh on Johns Hopkins, but the letter sent was a stripped-down version of what I could have said. (I thought that the chance of a response would be inversely related to the length of my email.)

For example, Fact 4: Harvard published a late 2023 study that concluded that 20±% of those taking Paxlovid, were likely to have a rebound result where they get COVID again. (Compare that percentage to the average chance of 2±%.)

That appears to say that taking Paxlovid results in a net zero result! (It has a 21±% chance of a positive result, but a 20±% chance of a negative one…)

Note: I shouldn’t be surprised, but I was, when the same JH person felt compelled to write a later piece pooh-poohing the COVID rebound matter.

As a proud optimist, I thought that the AMA, well-known medical establishments (like Johns Hopkins), etc., would continuously analyze new scientific COVID studies, and realize that they made some earlier bad calls regarding COVID.

Maybe (for legal reasons) they wouldn’t outright apologize (although they should), but I did NOT expect them to continue with the same politically correct posturing WHEN THEY SHOULD NOW KNOW THAT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS WRONG!

However, this JH article about Paxlovid seems to indicate that now that they find themselves in a hole, their reflex solution is to keep digging.

  • FYI #1, although this commentary is about Johns Hopkins, their politically correct campaign is the norm, as there are dozens of other one-sided Internet articles advocating more use of Paxlovid (e.g., here and here). I chose Johns Hopkins as they should be above political science, and instead be focused on real science.
  • FYI #2, I could write quite a bit more about this matter, but this is not intended to be a scientific paper, but rather an overview for the public. That said, I will do Part 2 in a few days about another very important omission in this JH article…

I’ll end this part with some GOOD NEWS.

  1. This late 2023 article reports that Paxlovid usage has precipitously declined. “Sales of Paxlovid are down 97%, year over year… and Pfizer lost $4.7 Billion in write-offs.” Citizens are getting informed and voting with their feet — excellent!
  2. As even more evidence of the weakness of Paxlovid, the FDA has recently officially announced that the EUA for Paxlovid will expire on March 8th, 2024! Note 1: Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, but when I searched the Johns Hopkins site, I could find no mention of this important FDA announcement, made back on 1-29-24. Note 2: I could find nothing about this EUA change elsewhere!}

Once again this all reinforces the extraordinary importance for citizens to become Critical Thinkers — and it all MUST start in K-12 Science classes…

PS — I’m legally required to make clear that I am not a medical professional. Always consult with a qualified physician before taking (or stopping to take) any medication.

©2024. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *