The company excluded patients who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 from its clinical trial of Paxlovid. Now some vaccinated Covid patients who take the drug are having trouble clearing the virus.
Apr 28, 2022·edited Apr 28, 2022Liked by Darby Shaw
Awesome! Check out Brian Mowrey's unglossed substack also, he wrote 3 interesting articles about it. What Pfizer does is outrageous. We need to stay on this case. Pfizer is a scam company
Thank you, Igor. I read Brian's article. Below seems to be the part most relevant to the current discussion. It is from an exchange that originally appeared in the comments section of your piece. I wish I was able to better understand it. Could this be happening to vaccinated Covid patients who take Ivermectin as well? Could this help explain why the lead investigator from The Together Trial, as well as the editor in chief of NEJM, completely shut down when I asked them why they allowed vaccinated patients into their trial after saying they were excluded, then completely omitted all data in relation to the vaccination status of the patients and their outcomes?
From the comments section of your original piece:
"[Bartram] Could there be an interaction with vaccine immunity? Ordinarily the antiviral will slow down replication, but there'll still be proteins on the membrane signaling to the immune system to destroy the infected cell -- the antiviral will allow the immune system to control an infection that might otherwise escalate. However, if the vaccines introduce an immune tolerance to the virus then you'll get the observed results -- the infection is controlled by the anti-viral but infected cells aren't cleared and the infection can continue once the anti-virals are stopped.
[Me] Above, I speculated "Covid vaccines suppressing the innate immune system," but tolerance could be playing a roll. It depends on whether spike is already being MHC-presented, and/or whether it is dominant, when the nsp5-block takes effect. To a certain extent it's axiomatic that the block / pause occurs when the virus still needs more Orf1 polyproteins to be cleaved (otherwise the drug wouldn't affect replication at all), which is why it's safe for me to assume there are still un-cleaved "future" nsp5's. This "needs more cleaved Orf1" moment may occur before there is much/any subgenomic mRNA translation in which case, nearby immune cells won't see spike, but just bits of Orf1 nsp's."
I've revised and revamped the explanation of the mechanism in Pt 1 (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/unfinished-business) to expand on that timing aspect - not only does Pax arrest the replication process before "actual" (structural) viral proteins are being produced (including spike), but it may lead to a prolonging of nsp1 and nsp3 production / release, and all 3 of these suppress the cell's intracellular immune response. It's the most favorable moment for a "slow-down" as far as the virus is concerned (least chance of the immune system taking out the cell. By tonight / tomorrow I should have some illustrations to go with the new text.
Thank you, Brian. My ability to understand this is quite limited, so if you don't mind, I'll just ask you directly: Could this same mechanism come into play with the vaccinated who take Ivermectin or HCQ? The reason I ask is because the recently published Ivermectin study, from the now-infamous Together Trials, was supposed to exclude the vaccinated. But the published study (in NEJM) indicates that vaccinated patients were accepted into the trial. Then it says not another word about vaccination -- e.g. how many in each arm were vaccinated, how the vaccinated faired against Covid relative to the unvaccinated, with and without Ivermectin as an early treatment. It merely reports that Ivermectin was not effective, which contradicts so many other studies, mostly in the unvaccinated, that found it is effective. The authors refuse to answer a single question about the vaccination rate or status of the patients in the trial, which is incredibly strange. So I'm wondering if a lot of the patients in the trial were, in fact, vaccinated, and whether Ivermectin could be less effective in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
As far as I know the interaction for either drug on nsp5 / 3CL-Pro is only based on in silico modeling (Eweas et al. and Choudhury et al. as cited in Zaidi and Dehgani-Mobaraki) so, off-hand, I would say there's little basis for assuming that either recycles this flaw in the first place (as in, maybe they aren't actually binding to nsp5 enough to arrest cleavage of Orf1) or if so, they compensate by having multiple mechanisms of action.
At best it would be totally hypothetical, and there are probably other hypothetical ways that Covid-vaccines could sabotage the efficacy of ivm. For example if ivm is binding to ACE-2, and mainly contributing to positive outcomes via that action, than pre-existing anti-spike antibodies might compete for it, so that both ivm and the antibodies sabotage each other. This could be relevant for reinfection as well. But, again, this could be rescued if ivm is working with a spectrum of mechanisms or being used as part of the overall protocol.
Very interesting. Thank you, Brian. I just can't understand why the Together Trials will not answer a single question about the vaccination status of the patients. So naturally I'm assuming the worst. The authors could quickly put an end to all this speculation if they would simply answer our questions. It's all very mysterious.
I have another question for you. Which of your articles would you recommend about childhood vaccines. I spoke to my son about it and I remember that you posted something convincing that explores autism and I believe you wrote something a while ago
I launched my Substack with a three-part series that includes a lot of information about the childhood immunization program. Here is the link to Part I of that series:
That’s how these sorcerers conduct these scams. They poison the population with noxious adjuvant vaccines and then blame the illnesses on an invisible virus.
Then they run a series of racketeering schemes to sell new drugs and vaccines to treat the illnesses that their last round caused. They repeat this scam for hundreds of
years and the public never catches on because they are invested in the pseudoscience of Virology.
African Children were given shots for the Pox, got ill, then treated with anti-retrovirals that killed them; this is how it works, it's so obvious it hurts.
Awesome! Check out Brian Mowrey's unglossed substack also, he wrote 3 interesting articles about it. What Pfizer does is outrageous. We need to stay on this case. Pfizer is a scam company
Thank you, Igor. I read Brian's article. Below seems to be the part most relevant to the current discussion. It is from an exchange that originally appeared in the comments section of your piece. I wish I was able to better understand it. Could this be happening to vaccinated Covid patients who take Ivermectin as well? Could this help explain why the lead investigator from The Together Trial, as well as the editor in chief of NEJM, completely shut down when I asked them why they allowed vaccinated patients into their trial after saying they were excluded, then completely omitted all data in relation to the vaccination status of the patients and their outcomes?
From the comments section of your original piece:
"[Bartram] Could there be an interaction with vaccine immunity? Ordinarily the antiviral will slow down replication, but there'll still be proteins on the membrane signaling to the immune system to destroy the infected cell -- the antiviral will allow the immune system to control an infection that might otherwise escalate. However, if the vaccines introduce an immune tolerance to the virus then you'll get the observed results -- the infection is controlled by the anti-viral but infected cells aren't cleared and the infection can continue once the anti-virals are stopped.
[Me] Above, I speculated "Covid vaccines suppressing the innate immune system," but tolerance could be playing a roll. It depends on whether spike is already being MHC-presented, and/or whether it is dominant, when the nsp5-block takes effect. To a certain extent it's axiomatic that the block / pause occurs when the virus still needs more Orf1 polyproteins to be cleaved (otherwise the drug wouldn't affect replication at all), which is why it's safe for me to assume there are still un-cleaved "future" nsp5's. This "needs more cleaved Orf1" moment may occur before there is much/any subgenomic mRNA translation in which case, nearby immune cells won't see spike, but just bits of Orf1 nsp's."
I've revised and revamped the explanation of the mechanism in Pt 1 (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/unfinished-business) to expand on that timing aspect - not only does Pax arrest the replication process before "actual" (structural) viral proteins are being produced (including spike), but it may lead to a prolonging of nsp1 and nsp3 production / release, and all 3 of these suppress the cell's intracellular immune response. It's the most favorable moment for a "slow-down" as far as the virus is concerned (least chance of the immune system taking out the cell. By tonight / tomorrow I should have some illustrations to go with the new text.
Thank you, Brian. My ability to understand this is quite limited, so if you don't mind, I'll just ask you directly: Could this same mechanism come into play with the vaccinated who take Ivermectin or HCQ? The reason I ask is because the recently published Ivermectin study, from the now-infamous Together Trials, was supposed to exclude the vaccinated. But the published study (in NEJM) indicates that vaccinated patients were accepted into the trial. Then it says not another word about vaccination -- e.g. how many in each arm were vaccinated, how the vaccinated faired against Covid relative to the unvaccinated, with and without Ivermectin as an early treatment. It merely reports that Ivermectin was not effective, which contradicts so many other studies, mostly in the unvaccinated, that found it is effective. The authors refuse to answer a single question about the vaccination rate or status of the patients in the trial, which is incredibly strange. So I'm wondering if a lot of the patients in the trial were, in fact, vaccinated, and whether Ivermectin could be less effective in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
As far as I know the interaction for either drug on nsp5 / 3CL-Pro is only based on in silico modeling (Eweas et al. and Choudhury et al. as cited in Zaidi and Dehgani-Mobaraki) so, off-hand, I would say there's little basis for assuming that either recycles this flaw in the first place (as in, maybe they aren't actually binding to nsp5 enough to arrest cleavage of Orf1) or if so, they compensate by having multiple mechanisms of action.
At best it would be totally hypothetical, and there are probably other hypothetical ways that Covid-vaccines could sabotage the efficacy of ivm. For example if ivm is binding to ACE-2, and mainly contributing to positive outcomes via that action, than pre-existing anti-spike antibodies might compete for it, so that both ivm and the antibodies sabotage each other. This could be relevant for reinfection as well. But, again, this could be rescued if ivm is working with a spectrum of mechanisms or being used as part of the overall protocol.
Very interesting. Thank you, Brian. I just can't understand why the Together Trials will not answer a single question about the vaccination status of the patients. So naturally I'm assuming the worst. The authors could quickly put an end to all this speculation if they would simply answer our questions. It's all very mysterious.
Ivermectin has very many effects on the sars-cov 2 virus Beyond just being at Protease inhibitor
I have another question for you. Which of your articles would you recommend about childhood vaccines. I spoke to my son about it and I remember that you posted something convincing that explores autism and I believe you wrote something a while ago
I launched my Substack with a three-part series that includes a lot of information about the childhood immunization program. Here is the link to Part I of that series:
https://darbyshaw.substack.com/p/faucis-glaring-cohort-problem?s=w
Thanks! That was the article that changed MY mind
Yep, because they are going to have “events” from the safe and effective injection that will be impossible to explain.
We are now entering madness^3, no wonder they need a new “ministry of truth” for the USA.
--
( https://NoSearch.org is my personal effort at medical freedom / free speech)
Paraphrasing Kyle from South Park, “Those filthy bastards!”
That’s how these sorcerers conduct these scams. They poison the population with noxious adjuvant vaccines and then blame the illnesses on an invisible virus.
Then they run a series of racketeering schemes to sell new drugs and vaccines to treat the illnesses that their last round caused. They repeat this scam for hundreds of
years and the public never catches on because they are invested in the pseudoscience of Virology.
African Children were given shots for the Pox, got ill, then treated with anti-retrovirals that killed them; this is how it works, it's so obvious it hurts.
BTW Paxlovid is an anagram of ‘Valid Pox’
And a double vaccinated, twice boosted allegedly asymptomatic 57 year old woman who tested positive was prescribed this wonder drug today.