More Deception from Once Reliable Medical Sources: Paxlovid — Part 2

Please read Part 1 here. As bad as the multiple failings in the Johns Hopkins article I outlined in Part 1 were, there is an even greater abdication of medical responsibility by Johns Hopkins.

Their Mission Statement says: “The mission of Johns Hopkins Medicine is to improve the health of the community and the world by setting the standard of excellence in medical education, research, and clinical care.”

Maybe I don’t understand what “standard of excellence” means. It seems that it says that Johns Hopkins will objectively provide the public with the latest scientific health research as to what is in citizens’ best interest to do (or not do).

In other words, when Johns Hopkins discusses a pharmaceutical option for COVID — e.g., Paxlovid — (or anything else) they would objectively and thoroughly:

1. honestly describe the possible benefits,
2. accurately explain all the potential downsides, and
3. objectively identify reasonable alternatives.

As my original commentary outlined, they did a woeful job of both #1 and #2. Here I’d like to address #3, which was completely missing.

Well over two years ago (January 2022), after doing some research, I published a spreadsheet of the various pharmaceutical options for COVID-19 early treatment — as I was not able to find this posted elsewhere in a layman easy-to-understand format. I compared the official and non-official options on several key criteria. Since then I have updated this spreadsheet every month or so. (This info is one of many things to be found on my COVID website: C19Science.info). Here is the latest data.

Since this article is just about Paxlovid, I put together a very condensed version: Condensed Comparison of Paxlovid to Some Other Options.

To see the links and more explanations refer to the uncondensed version. (Please pay attention to the note there clarifying that I am not a medical professional, etc.)

Note that Paxlovid has two columns in the upper (Effectiveness) part:

• a) the first column was the evidence used by the FDA (a single study done by Pfizer) to grant Pfizer an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), and
• b) the second column is the current number of scientific studies of Paxlovid done by numerous independent scientists. Compare the concluded ET effectiveness…

What this data indicates about these COVID early treatment options is:

1 – An alternative to Paxlovid is Vitamin D. Based on 11 scientific studies of 44,000± patients, it has about three times the effectiveness (60% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 57%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 65%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Vitamin D has: no serious medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, it has long-term safety data, it does not require a prescription (OTC), and the cost is minuscule.

2 – Another alternative to Paxlovid is Ivermectin. Based on 38 scientific studies of 59,000± patients, it also has roughly three times the effectiveness (62% vs 21%). (The results of Peer-reviewed early treatment studies = 61%. The results of early treatment Randomized Control Trials [RCTs], after exclusions = 66%.)* The data.

Safety & Cost — Ivermectin has: only minor potential medical side effects, no evidence of a rebound effect, and no usage restrictions. Further, Ivermectin has long-term safety data and the cost is very low.

The question is: why didn’t the Johns Hopkins article say anything about alternatives to Paxlovid — since scientific data indicates that they may be superior options?

To be fair, the same question applies to the FDA, CDC, AMA, WHO, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the Mayo Clinic, the mainstream media, etc., etc. They have all shed their scientific suits, and have proudly dressed themselves in political correctness panoply.

Please watch this talk given by Dr. Scott Atlas, last week. It is chilling to hear what he observed going on at the highest levels of our country, regarding COVID policy.

As always, the most effective defense is Critical Thinking.

PS: Still no response to the polite email I sent to the Johns Hopkins article author.

* This data is not on the above table, but can be found by following the links of the full version.

©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.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple 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?

---