Study: Pfizer COVID pill showed no benefit in younger adults

Or perhaps try the other treatments.

As a taxpayer, I'm getting rather tired of paying for seemingly endless injections that I don't want.

Since they reduce the amount of money the government loses because of people getting heavily sick that still meant a net benefit for everybody in general, the government is now betting for this no longer being the case, and everybody hopes it wins that bet.

With respect to the report in the article, this is a preliminary study with limitations and some questionable decisions on the design, so it is still perfectly possible that other studies find something different, maybe not the opposite but as mentioned before the lack of a gradient by age group points out to the need of more detail to be examined.

quote: More than 42% of U.S. adults are considered obese.

Wow. Obesity may be more of a problem than Covid in the US.

Study says Pfizer COVID pill showed no benefit in younger adults:

That would be correct.

In fact, we are wondering if the doses have been that effective for all ages as persistently claimed by the filthy rich pharmaceutical cartel so far.

Vaccination means immunization. But it is not so, have we been cheated..?

I am not at all surprised by this outcome, but I am extremely surprised to see this reported here!

Or perhaps try the other treatments (names must be censored)?

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the names of Veklury/Remdesivir, Lagevrio/Molnupiravir, Xevudy, Evusheld, Bebtelovimab, and Lagevrio need to be censored?

Interesting that in your long list of meds, you did not include those that must be censored...

I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually found there was no benefit for the elderly either and it was all a scam as is often the case

But the experts would be, because the evidence of effect for the elderly is consistenly present between studies. It is not based on any single study so it would require a world wide conspiracy to be false.

That would be correct.

As already written the article have several deficiencies and it is short from proving their conclusions satisfactorily. The report may be correct but at this point it is too early to know with any confidence.

Vaccination means immunization. But it is not so, have we been cheated..?

No, because covid vaccines do immunize against the disease, the problem is antivaxxer groups making up an imaginary definition of what vaccines do that do not apply even to previous vaccines just to mislead people into thinking the covid vaccines are fundamentally different from other vaccines, this is not true.

I am not at all surprised by this outcome, but I am extremely surprised to see this reported here

That would have more to do with an inherent anti-scientific basis, experts have always examined all kinds of evidence to reach a conclusion, this time is no different.

Interesting that in your long list of meds, you did not include those that must be censored...

Well, there is no need to include things that have no beneficial effect against covid, what use would it be to list things that are worthless?

About the same as the vaccines then….

About the same as the vaccines then….

Vaccines have a demonstrated effect lowering the risk even for children, so if the report is correct (a big if) it would make it extremely different.

I wonder if the other state-of-the-art antivirals are equally disappointing.

Yes. Merck first tested their Molnupiravir before delta and they got nice results, which were highly publicized. They then repeated the trials during delta and found it to be less effective than placebo. Despite this, and the fact that the drug is very toxic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic, the FDA gave it an EUA!

Pfizer's pill appears better than Molnupiravir, but it too has a number of problems and it's effectiveness is probably comparable to those very safe repurposed drugs that we should not mention...

Pfizer's pill appears better than Molnupiravir, but it too has a number of problems and it's effectiveness is probably comparable to those very safe repurposed drugs that we should not mention...

True. Disappointment all over.

Pfizer's pill appears better than Molnupiravir, but it too has a number of problems and it's effectiveness is probably comparable to those very safe repurposed drugs that we should not mention...

The actual evidence clearly show this is not true, the repurposed drugs you keep trying to promote (ivermecting and HCQ) have been proved already to be completely useless against covid at every dose and timing tried. Even something with is not true, the repurposed drugs you keep trying to promote (ivermecting

The actual evidence clearly show this is not true, the repurposed drugs you keep trying to promote (ivermecting and HCQ) have been proved already to be completely useless against covid at every dose and timing tried. Even something with is not true, the repurposed drugs you keep trying to promote (ivermecting

Jumping to conclusions, as those drugs are not mentioned anywhere in the article.

And regarding the original post:

Pfizer's pill appears better than Molnupiravir, 

This is absolutely true according to medical professionals, and arguing otherwise is completely reliant on unscientific resources.

Jumping to conclusions, as those drugs are not mentioned anywhere in the article.

They are the drugs the commenter quoted insist on presenting as effective even when proved not to be.

This is absolutely true according to medical professionals, and arguing otherwise is completely reliant on unscientific resources.

The comment you quoted do NOT argue Paxlovid is not better than Molnupavir, but that Paxlovid effectiveness is "comparable" with the repurposed drugs that the comment is afraid to mention because they have been proved completely uneffective.

Paxlovid is a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, and Pfizer insists that to be effective it must absolutely be administered early; if I recall treatment had to start within the first 4 days. When used for treating Covi19, HCQ is generally administered together with azithromycin and often also with zinc. When administered early in this manner, it is very effective and safe. Unfortunately, many tests (those designed to fail) give only HCQ, use the wrong dose, and start treatment within 14 days of symptom onset. So of course many who do not have a good understanding of these very important details will believe that HCQ provides no benefit.

Even when tested properly, Paxlovid was found to "provide little or no benefit for younger adults", according to the above article. Imagine if Paxlovid was tested in the same way that HCQ has been deceitfully tested; e.g., by using only nirmatrelvir or ritonavir (not both together), and starting treatment after 14 days. Under such conditions, it would "provide little or no benefit for" everyone....

When used for treating Covi19, HCQ is generally administered together with azithromycin and often also with zinc. When administered early in this manner, it is very effective and safe.

The evidence from studies from many sources completely contradict you, there is no method of admisnistration where HCQ has any efficacy against covid, no matter with what is given with.

Noisy, limited studies gave all kinds of results because of lack of proper controls, cherry picking only those studies that appeared to present some effect (and calling those that found it toxic for the patients fake and product of "captive" researchers) is not a valid response. There is no institution of medicine or science in the world that defends HCQ as useful for covid. Pretending all the scientific community of the world is in some kind of conspiracy to "deceitfully test" it is not believable at all, specially because your only argument is that people that could support the drug to save their friends, family members or themselves are perfectly happy with it not being used just for economic profit, that makes absolutely no sense.

Even when tested properly, Paxlovid was found to "provide little or no benefit for younger adults", according to the above article.

Which have very limited meaning because of the many described limitations of the study, beginning with the terribly low number of patients. The evidence for the complete lack of benefit for HCQ is in comparison contundent and leaves no actual doubt about it.

WRONG.

The comment again, for all to see was:

There is no point cherry picking part of a quote when the quote is still there to prove you are just trying to disguise a mistake from your part.

The actual comment being quoted is still the same:

Pfizer's pill appears better than Molnupiravir, but it too has a number of problems and it's effectiveness is probably comparable to those very safe repurposed drugs that we should not mention...

This is the full comment that can be demonstrated as false. Cutting a fragment and pretending this was the comment only evidence you have no argument to defend this, because it is still false.

You are completely wrong, as all can see the part I quoted, and my comment in that part of the quote. And then my source backing up my quote.

You cut the comment I criticized as false which obviously is invalid, there is no defense on picking only one part of the quote and pretend this was what the criticism was aimed at. The full comment is clearly false according to the evidence, which is why you had to misrepresent it by cherry picking a fraction of it.

Too bad---I quote and comment on what I want.

And that makes it an invalid argument very clearly. You have not argued against the actual criticism being used, so how can anybody be wrong if you have not proved this is the case.

The quoted text is still there, can you prove it is wrong to call it false that Paxlovid is as uneffective as HCQ has been proved to be (and yes, it is HCQ as the original commenter already clarified in his response).

Or perhaps try the other treatments whose names must be redacted...

The study has limitations due to its design, which compiled data from a large Israeli health system rather than enrolling patients in a randomized study with a control group — the gold-standard for medical research.

??? Medical research study that doesn't use control groups???

Listen, folks. This is just one study. No need to draw any conclusions. We need to give this time and let the data come in before we stop prescribing this to young people willy-nilly. That would be irresponsible. Unlike the mRNA vaccine platform. That was safe and effective even before the clinical trials ended.

Unlike the mRNA vaccine platform. That was safe and effective even before the clinical trials ended.

That would be expected, part of the ethical requirements of the trials was that if the vaccine was proved to be safe and effective above certain levels there would not be need to continue the trials and the vaccine should be offered to the control group. By design the trials ended after the vaccines were found safe and effective.

You have no idea what let to the realization of the mRNA platform, do you? Operation Warp Speed essentially removed the very red tape that requires a vaccine be properly trialed and a certain threshold of safety to be determined. It's absolutely wrong to think that the requirements of the past were met for this product. mRNA vaccines have never been proven to be safe and effective under non EUA circumstances. Not in the decades of research that's been done. There has never been an effective vaccine for coronaviruses.

Operation Warp Speed essentially removed the very red tape that requires a vaccine be properly trialed and a certain threshold of safety to be determined

None of the two thing you mention have red tape, which explain why the trials lasted the same as previous vaccines that have been tested without any operation warp speed. The red tape comes AFTER these determinations are done scientifically for the government to recognize them.

It's absolutely wrong to think that the requirements of the past were met for this product.

No, it is not, the numbers are there and have been examined by experts all over the world which have reached the same conclusions. Just making up some arbitrary personal requirements and pretend they have been necessary for every other vaccine is misleading.

mRNA vaccines have never been proven to be safe and effective under non EUA circumstances

Yes they have for many purposes, what they never were proved is economically feasible for use. If selling something will only mean losing money then there is no point in spending the fortunes necessary to put it in the market.

There has never been an effective vaccine for coronaviruses.

There was never the need for vaccine for coronaviruses, the ones with low pathogenicity don't require vaccines to have low risk, and the ones with high pathogenicity were controlled before vaccines candidates (with proved safety and efficacy) were developed for them.

mRNA vaccines have never been proven to be safe and effective under non EUA circumstances

Yes they have for many purposes, what they never were proved is economically feasible for use. If selling something will only mean losing money then there is no point in spending the fortunes necessary to put it in the market.

Wrong. None have yet been licensed. It's not enough for you to just say they are safe and effective.

Wrong. None have yet been licensed

Why quote something if you are not going to read it? it specifically explains that if something do not make economic sense then companies have no incentive to spend the huge amounts of money necessary for putting it in the marked, which obviously means licensing it.

That does nothing to disprove the clinical trials done for the many applications that the technology have, with no report ever of any important problem that could be attributed to the technology.

Wrong. None have yet been licensed

Why quote something if you are not going to read it? it specifically explains that if something do not make economic sense then companies have no incentive to spend the huge amounts of money necessary for putting it in the marked, which obviously means licensing it.

I did read it. But are you suggesting that pharma judged previous mRNA vaccines to not make economic sense and yet still spent large funds to prove their safety?

virusrexAug. 26  10:27 pm JST

Unlike the mRNA vaccine platform. That was safe and effective even before the clinical trials ended.

That would be expected, part of the ethical requirements of the trials was that if the vaccine was proved to be safe and effective above certain levels there would not be need to continue the trials and the vaccine should be offered to the control group. By design the trials ended after the vaccines were found safe and effective.

Someone here completely lacks a sense of irony.